Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 November 2

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< November 01	November 03 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:28, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dandy Jackson Chukwudi

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Top 10 or 100 lists are poor evidence of notability, especially when the websites seem far from authoritative. There is also no indication that the subject's social media platform is notable in itself. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 23:33, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 23:33, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 23:33, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 23:33, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The sources are not reliable and a few, such as "Mr. Reliable", appear to be sponsored or user-generated. I searched for sources and found nothing. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:53, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Also unable to find anything that would establish notability, or evidence that the included sources have any sort of credibility. It's worth noting that this same page was speedy deleted less than 48 hours ago. —{Canuck lehead} 00:05, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Fails quick Google News search, so fails WP:GNG. Appears to be a youngster trying to self-promote. On that basis, it should probably be speedied. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:09, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete feels like toosoon to me. Balle010 (talk) 05:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Objecting? Shouldn't we like try and see [[1]]?, if you were to be Nigerians, you would have heard about him or something... And about deleting the page 48 hours ago, it was a premature article then. 𝐂𝐡𝐮𝐤𝐬𝐉𝐃 O_o ChuksJD (talk) (Contribs) 07:09, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ChuksJD: There are obvious username similarities between your account and the subject of the article, are you familiar with our conflict of interest policies, specifically the ones on creating autobiographies? 192.76.8.82 (talk) 09:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't my first time of making biographies or articles. Similarity in name doesn't mean I'm the one (hope it ain't what you're thinking), I only appeal y’ll check well. 𝐂𝐡𝐮𝐤𝐬𝐉𝐃 O_o ChuksJD (talk) (Contribs) 17:33, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ChuksJD: Hmm, you declared a conflict of interest with InstaNovella, a site purported to be created by Dandy Jackson Chukwudi, you've adopted his name, yet we are supposed to not think you're him. Got it. Here's the thing, while you've created other articles, you seem unaware about our General Notability Guideline, which says that subjects are generally considered notable if the subject has received significant (i.e. in-depth) coverage in reliable sources (major mainstream sources like newspapers and magazines) that are independent of the subject (no blogs, no interviews, no user-generated websites, etc.) You haven't demonstrated that this person (who is not you) has met this basic requirement, and pasting a link to a Google search doesn't help in any way, since all of the search results point to sites that are of no use to us: Facebook, LinkdIn, Crunchbase, blogs, etc. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bro... That was my first article, if you check, I told Davidwr that it was a mistake. I was just new to the ‘system’ then. No one in his senses would declare that he is making an article for himself or his website knowing fully well it was against the wikipedia rules, would there? I doubt so. C'mon man! You should know better. This should be over with. If he ain't ‘notable’ YET then having a stub should be better than deleting completely. Jackson is one of the enterpreneurs who has helped in creating employment in my state! (I'm not telling you this to change your mind... You've once blocked me for doing nothing anyways) I'm telling you this so that you don't have to be so strict on me cuz I'm African or cuz we have ‘similarity in names’, I'm telling you cuz good works should be appreciated. The only primary citation was the one I got [[2]]. Every other citation was secondary. You know this... You're an admin and a human... You should know what's right by now. (Please discard my errors: [ if any ]) 𝐂𝐡𝐮𝐤𝐬𝐉𝐃 O_o ChuksJD (talk) (Contribs) 18:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon man! Magnolia677 (talk) 19:45, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ChuksJD: You have no connection to instanovella, but you are in a position where you can give away copyright permission for their logo [3] and have written a draft article in your sandbox [4]?

Per WP:TOOSOON we don't create articles on people who might gain notability one day, both due to our notability guidelines and due to WP:BLP. If the subject of the article isn't covered in high quality sources it is impossible to validate the content of the article, meaning it would be impossible to figure out what information is correct and what is made up.

The Instanovella link isn't the only one that is primary, the vangard community article was written by a user called Yellow alligator, who claims to be a blogger and gives their website as instanovella.com, so that is also primary [5]. That leaves us with 2 mentions in list websites and an unreliable review website, hardly enough coverage to write a biography!

You're clearly enthusiastic about writing, so I'd ask that you spend a couple of hours reading the conflict of interest guidelines at WP:COI, the general notability guideline at WP:GNG, and the reliable sources guidelines at WP:RS, and bear them in mind for your future editing. 192.76.8.82 (talk) 20:19, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@192.76.8.82: Brother/Sister... Yellow Alligator or whoever he is, I do not know him. I only used the article as a citation. The other websites I used for citations are Nigerian website. They (the websites) don't have any wikipage but they're still a source of information for most Nigerians and I think it makes it notable (isn't it? Correct me if I'm wrong please). Chukwuma Jaatochukwu Dennis is my actual name ( for those who wanna know). I am not associated with InstaNovella. I made a bio here which the image I used was deleted also. I also told them I'm the owner of the image (I try to make/get images for my articles using PixelLab if needed), but it was still deleted. Their logo is different from mine if you check very well. And making a draft is a soon? I made drafts before moving them to the mainspace, I guess I'm off from that shackle too. 𝐂𝐡𝐮𝐤𝐬𝐉𝐃 O_o ChuksJD (talk) (Contribs) 21:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ChuksJD:Look, you're not in trouble and you're not going to get banned, there's no need to panic. Everyone writes articles that get deleted, and everyone will have committed a wikipedia social faux pas at some point, even jimmy wales was caught editing his own page. Creating articles as drafts is absolutely the right thing to do, but if you're finding that a lot of them are getting deleted I would suggest that you spend a bit of time reviewing the policies I suggested above.

To answer your question "does that website show that Chukwudi is notable" the answer is no. Have a read of the general notability guideline WP:GNG. It states that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."

Significant means that the source must cover the subject in detail, e.g. a mention in a list would not be substantial, a newspaper printing a story about Chukwudi would be.
Reliable means that the source can be relied upon to be true. A TV news report that has gone through an entire team of journalists and editors would normally be reliable, a facebook post written by a random person would not be.
Independent means that the source should have as little connection as possible to the subject, a journalist writing an article on a company would be independent, an interview with it's founder would not be.

Also note Sources is plural - we need more than 1 source to show notability.

Any source must meet all three conditions to count towards showing notability. looking specifically at the website:

It is significant, since it contains a detailed account of the Subject's life.
It is not reliable, as it is user generated content and anyone could have written it. If his name was misspelled or a date wrong would the website owners fix it? Probably not.
It is not independent, as it appears to have been written by the subject himself.

I hope this helps, as I said take a bit of time to read and understand the policies here, and you'll find you have a much better time editing. 192.76.8.82 (talk) 23:32, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. "Their logo is different from mine if you check very well"???

Delete. I can find no secondary sources that demonstrate that this person would pass WP:GNG, I can only find user generated content and unreliable sources. 192.76.8.82 (talk) 09:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessperson and blogger.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:28, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — I came here after what I’d classify as casting aspersions against me. This is an Autobiographical article of a non notable businessman who doesn’t satisfy WP:BIO. Celestina007 (talk) 20:17, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. --DannyS712 (talk) 21:21, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting to closing admin I came here from wikidata:Wikidata:Requests for deletions, where the item associated with this article was nominated for deletion. Since the item has a valid sitelink to this article, it cannot be deleted yet, but when this discussion is closed I would appreciate if I were pinged so that, if the page is deleted, the associated item can be deleted as well. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 21:21, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Idk tho but the sources of which the the Citations were made talked about Dandy Jackson Chukwudi. Idk Celestina007 (sorry for mentioning you here); please I wanna know, is there a specific Website(s)/Book(s)/Source(s) that should be used on Wikipedia. It would be nice if I'm clarified so that I wouldn't feel like I'm been “pressed”. I've read the WP:GNG and WP:NBIO 𝐂𝐡𝐮𝐤𝐬𝐉𝐃 ❑❑❑❑ • 𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐤 • 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐬 • 𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐝 𝐦𝐚𝐢𝐥 22:48, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ChuksJD, what you may be looking for are good or reliable Nigerian sources that have a reputation for fact-checking & have editorial oversight. it’s too many things I’m juggling both on & off-wiki if not I should have created a list of Nigerian reliable sources so editors unfamiliar with Nigerian RS could easily check it out. Few examples would be; The Punch, Nigerian tribune, The Sun, Nigerian Guardian id make a comprehensive list sometime in the future. Celestina007 (talk) 22:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Thank you for proper details... In essence, all the others are invalid. 𝐂𝐡𝐮𝐤𝐬𝐉𝐃 ❑❑❑❑ • 𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐤 • 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐬 • 𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐝 𝐦𝐚𝐢𝐥 23:02, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ChuksJD, I just gave you archetype examples of tested & trusted Nigerian reliable sources but aren’t limited to the aforementioned Nigerian RS. When determining a reliable source, you should checkout if they have a reputation for fact checking, have editorial oversight, declare outrightly when an article is sponsored or written by a guest editor. If you read WP:RS, a portion there aids you in identifying reliable sources. I think for a more detailed explanation you should meticulously read that. Celestina007 (talk) 23:15, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Thanks for the clarification. 𝐂𝐡𝐮𝐤𝐬𝐉𝐃 ❑❑❑❑ • 𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐤 • 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐬 • 𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐝 𝐦𝐚𝐢𝐥 23:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON - I don't see how this very young person has done enough yet. If somebody is legitimately notable from Nigeria or India or Argentina, and they have sources which we know are reliable, I'll support its inclusion. Bearian (talk) 21:17, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and a case of WP:TOOSOON.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:01, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the arguments made above. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 18:36, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Geschichte (talk) 04:52, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tabernacle, Kentucky

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

Rennick calls it a locale, which falls below the WP:GEOLAND threshold. Oddly enough, the GNIS link in the article is for a stream in Arkansas, but that's just as well. Topos show 2-3 houses and a couple outbuildings. Newspapers.com hits are mostly for a cemetery, and nothing providing in-depth coverage. Lone significant Google books hit is for a church. There was something here at some point in the past, but it was evidently just an informal neighborhood, not an officially recognized community. No evidence that WP:GEOLAND is met and this looks strongly like a WP:GNG failure. Hog Farm _Bacon 23:25, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 23:25, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 23:25, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Balle010 (talk) 05:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete I was able to find the church website, and there's no indication that it thinks of Tabernacle as a place; it's obviously a locale named after the church. Mangoe (talk) 16:18, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per above , it seems to be a local church and not a location Alex-h (talk) 08:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Geschichte (talk) 04:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Joe Cuthbert

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

Fictional Biography made in 2006 with no ciatations featured on article to be verified per WP:VER . Non-notable fictional basketball player that fails WP:ENT and WP:BIODEL. This may also conatin original research. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 22:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 22:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 22:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 22:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Balle010 (talk) 05:57, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As written, fails WP:V and WP:NFICT. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:39, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Spudlace (talk) 07:43, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reason to even redirect to the video game. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete,Per nom. fails WP:ENT. Alex-h (talk) 08:38, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking sources to meet the WP:GNG let alone WP:V. Jontesta (talk) 20:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative delete - This article is admittedly outside of my area of expertise, but I am struggling to find reputable sources on the topic. Dark knight 2149 03:57, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my above statement. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 20:05, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fictional character in a video game without any reliable soucres showing he's notable. Bearian (talk) 21:19, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:25, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Fogarty

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

Non-notable fringe viewpoint author, all the references are trivial coverage. The best "reference" I did find was one not currently cited in the article, The Barnes Review Volume 9 from 2003, but since they are described by the SPLC as "one of the most virulent anti-Semitic organizations around" and "dedicated to historical revisionism and Holocaust denial" it's probably not a reference at all. FDW777 (talk) 22:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

8the SPLC is a funding racket run in a way that is very oppressive and exploitative of its African-American staff. It should not be treated as a reliable guide to anything.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:24, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:54, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:54, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:54, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this guy is a fringe nut. The way this article is written at present it essentially supports his absurd and false claims.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:22, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivial. GPinkerton (talk) 08:47, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails notability. Spleodrach (talk) 13:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For decades, I've been reading up on the legitimate history of the Famine; my great-great-grandmother survived it. I've never heard of this guy. Bearian (talk) 21:21, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kalippu

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

There is not enough sources. All I could find was a Mathrubhumi article [6] and a Times of India review [7]. Other sources (Filmibeat, Amazon) are not notable. TamilMirchi (talk) 01:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 01:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 01:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion:? While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it was previously discussed at AfD and the result was delete. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions: 2018-06 ✗ delete

Related discussions: 2018-05 Kalipp ✗ delete

Logs: 2020-02 ✍️ create, 2018-07 ✗ G4, 2018-06 ✗ deleted, 2018-05 ↻ restored, 2015-10 ✗ PROD

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as it does have one full review in a national newspaper imv, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:27, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Atlantic306 is correct that it has a review in a national paper (Times of India) but that is a rather short one and there is no sign in the sources given it really made much of an impact. This has been now created at least three times and deleted twice but at least it appears to have been released. That history and the one reliable source review given create the impression of a vanity project, not a serious independent film. While such projects can be notable, I really don't see evidence this meets any of the WP:NFILM criteria or GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:05, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Once more, with feeling.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:42, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - reviews provide notability. Balle010 (talk) 05:59, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a tautology, not an argument for keeping. Which reviews? How many are in WP:RS? Do they fulfill the requirements of any notability criterion? Do they demonstrate that The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:44, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Balle010: common fire provides heat. —usernamekiran (talk) 04:42, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete subject fails WP:NFILM, also per Eggishorn. —usernamekiran (talk) 04:42, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Geschichte (talk) 05:01, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Equator Music

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

Non-notable music company. You don't get notability, from having two 2 clients who have their own article. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:27, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:27, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:27, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:27, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:27, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. A search of Google and JSTOR only found passing mentions. No additional sources were found in an Academic OneFile search or on NYT. Z1720 (talk) 00:23, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Like the previous voter I can find nothing that satisfies WP:NCORP, as the company can only be found in its own promotions and as a brief entry in industry directories. DOOMSDAYER520 | TALK | CONTRIBS 02:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per discussion. Balle010 (talk) 05:59, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

couldn't find any reference Rajuiu (talk) 02:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails the notability and doesn't have any major musical groups it's associated with anyway. Except questionably the Black Sabbath guy, but that's not enough IMO. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:43, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't satisfies WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Sliekid (talk) 05:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, No sign of notability , fails WP:NCORP. Alex-h (talk) 08:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with all above. Expertwikiguy (talk) 19:35, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:17, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At this point it should be snow deleted. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:07, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Geschichte (talk) 05:03, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DK Holland

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

An unsourced BLP, I could only find one WP:RS on JSTOR, which was a review of her book. [8]. Other sources found on Google, JSTOR, and posted on her talk page were her publications or mentions in passing. I tried searching for the lifetime achievement award mentioned in the article but was unable to verify it. Z1720 (talk) 22:14, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Z1720 (talk) 22:14, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Z1720 (talk) 22:14, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Z1720 (talk) 22:14, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Z1720 (talk) 22:14, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:55, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:55, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looking through the page history, it appears that this page has been used as an advertising platform for the subject, via many inline links to her books and projects. I did not see a single proper source in its 11 year history. I could not find proof of notability in secondary sources during a search. She is mentioned a few times in the news as the founder of a food Coop in NY city. All of the books appear to have come from a self-publishing outfit called rockportpubs.com. Very clear GNG fail.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:08, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While this is a clear-cut case of not passing NARTIST nor GNG, I thought that she might meet ACADEMIC by way of the "Hallmark Professor of Graphic Design" (as it is a named position), however it is in fact a one-semester visiting artist gig that is funded by Hallmark (cards) which is not the same as holding a honorary named chair or professorship. The article has been heavily edited by the artist. Netherzone (talk) 17:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm having a hard time finding much online. I don't see any reliable sources independent of this person. She has written a few articles but they're not well-cited. From everything I see, she's local activist. There are literally zero indexed newspaper articles about her. Her social media accounts are not well-followed; she has less than 1/10th the followers on Twitter that I do. Bearian (talk) 21:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Geschichte (talk) 05:07, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Milwaukee Golf Course

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

Non-notable golf course. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:54, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:54, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:54, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:54, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:54, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:54, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails notability. Balle010 (talk) 06:00, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This fail notability. Due to lacking multiple in-depth reliable sources about it. Both in the article, and apparently anywhere else. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:05, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Milwaukee Country Club. Generally we prefer to have articles about clubs. We almost never have a separate article for a course. The course article is not linked from the country club article. All very confusing. Nigej (talk) 07:19, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Merge For the course to be notable, it would have to be revolutionary in design, have hosted PGA events etc. Oaktree b (talk) 20:20, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It should probably be redirected instead of merged. Since there's no references in the article. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:41, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Redirect Fails notability, however it would be useful for our readers to have it redirect to the club. There is nothing to be rescued in this article, due to it having zero sources. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 19:21, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the club. Golf courses are not automatically notable, and this one seems especially local. Bearian (talk) 21:30, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Memetic institutionalism

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

Non-notable term. Not every new term written in a book needs an article. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with nom. Balle010 (talk) 06:00, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article has been created by the WP:SPA author himself (User:Mikael_Sandberg) who tried to add it to various related Wikipedia articles. Unfortunately, aside the obvious WP:COI, the term has failed to gain traction in the academia, I see only 1-2 works not authored by Sandberg that use it in passing, and as such,it fails WP:GNG. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero sources to peer-reviewed journals or books that would prove this is notable. Author made up a term. Need proof of life. Oaktree b (talk) 20:21, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. We don't publish original research. Bearian (talk) 21:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Southern National Bancorp of Virginia

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

Does not pass WP:NCORP- events are routine for a bank. 1292simon (talk) 21:48, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:13, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:13, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NCORP Balle010 (talk) 06:01, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:22, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:24, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tagar

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

Non-notable computing company. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:39, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:39, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:39, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:39, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:39, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails notability and seems to contain original research or opinion. Balle010 (talk) 06:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources provided and I am not able to find anything in Google News. Expertwikiguy (talk) 19:37, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A long-term unreferenced article concerning a company whose former site now appears to have been repurposed. No evidence of notability provided or found. AllyD (talk) 17:04, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:23, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Summer Fusion Open Air

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

No evidence this former? festival was notable. The only RS coverage I can find is an interview with a 2009 performer. The references and links do not work, and ghits only turn up mirrors. 2011 AfD was NC but really should have been a soft delete. Due to age, figured this made more sense than a DRV. StarM 21:34, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. StarM 21:34, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. DOOMSDAYER520 | TALK | CONTRIBS 02:29, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. DOOMSDAYER520 | TALK | CONTRIBS 02:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If this festival attracted news coverage, and it may have if protesters really derailed it that one year, reliable sources could possibly be in Arabic and unsearchable for most of us. Otherwise all I can find are the festival's own promotions of itself and various database or mirror sites. DOOMSDAYER520 | TALK | CONTRIBS 02:34, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not aware of Arabic Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines, but they don't appear to have an article on the festival either. My usual practice as part of Before for non-English language region articles is to check their language's own wikipedia for an article which might have sourcing. StarM 17:28, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is no realistic consensus for delete. If there is a desire to take forward the question of merging, that can be done on the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 15:49, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jam sandwich (police car)

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

Article merely defines a local neologism with no encyclopedic content, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. No sources at all even verify the existence of this usage of 'jam sandwich', no evidence that there are any good sources, and no evidence that the term is important or interesting in any way. No claim to significance in the article, merely the banal fact that the color on the car made someone think of jam in a sandwich. If calling the cars grey-and-reds or ketchup-on-rye had caught on, the article would have just as little insight to offer. A topic is encyclopedic if learning about it broadens or deepens your understanding of the world rather than explaining that a fireplace is called that because it's the place where fire goes. Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:00, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:00, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:00, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:00, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:00, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the nominator needs to look up the term "neologism" (and probably "local" as well). This term has been around for about fifty years, was once extremely well-known (certainly when I was growing up in the 1970s and 1980s everyone in the UK knew what it meant) and is in fact rarely used today as police car colour schemes have mostly changed. And why not propose Black and white (police vehicle) for deletion as well? Otherwise it rather looks as though you're singling out a particular country, since the two are very similar slang terms used in different countries and for an equally "banal" reason. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:03, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be a dick, OK? Telling someone they need to go read a defintion is not civil or respectful, it's condescending. Why is your link to the "definition" a link to an encyclopedia article? A good place to find the definition of neologism would be a dictionary, which is not what Wikipedia is. The OED is kind enough to inform us that it's "A word or phrase which is new to the language; one which is newly coined." You think 50 years is not "new". Good for you. That's merely a subjective opinion. As is this "50 years" you mentioned. Source? As the policy on this question, WP:NOTNEO, mentions, "An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy."

Slang usages coined in the last 50 years include groovy and boogie. These neologisms, unlike jam sandwich, meet Wikipedia's policy on neologisms, which matters far more than what the dictionary or encyclopedia definition of a neologism is. The policy says to justify an article about a neologism, it "must cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term." It doesn't say, "if the word is 50 years old, keep the article".

I'm not going to tell you to go read Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary because that would be rude, and so I assume you have read it. I suspect you might not fully understand it. I think any of us can, oftentimes, benefit from reading such a policy a second time, myself included. --Dennis Bratland (talk)

I apologise if you thought I was being offensive. It was not my intention (although calling someone a dick is clearly intentional!). But honestly, a "local neologism" suggests a term that has been made up in the last few years in a particular small area, not a term that entered common usage throughout a major country fifty years ago! OED: Neologism: "A word or phrase which is new to the language; one which is newly coined." Fifty years ago is not new by any definition! -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:47, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand has been so since 1643 and yet it is still apparently "new". Don't get me started on the "New" Testament. "New" is relative. The current geological epoch is named the Holocene, meaning "entirely new"? Can we call anything entirely new after 12,000 years? And Pleistocene means "mostly new"! Scandal.

How can you be so assured that neologism is limited to a "few" years but not 50 years, when you haven't cited anything that says anything of the kind? No dictionary says that. You linked to neologism, but that says nothing about whether we're on an impatient toddler's timescale or a dog years timescale or a geologic timescale. I think of linguistic change in terms of hundreds of years: speakers of a language separated by from 1-2 centuries could understand one another easily, but increase that to 3-5 centuries and it's not so easy. Fifty years isn't that long in that time scale. Neologism does give this criterion: "has not yet been fully accepted into mainstream language." So we know jam sandwich has not fully been accepted in mainstream language because it is only applicable to a subset of Britain where these particular cars even existed. The term has no chance of becoming accepted outside that area. You can't even say the term could be common across British English-speaking countries; only one of country ever had these police cars. And on top of all that, the cars are gone from the one place where they did exist, meaning the term is, if anything, on its way out. How much more local can you get?

I'd suggest before you can expect other editors to apply a time limit of 50 years or 20 years or any number of years to the definition of a neologism, you need to propose changing WP:NOTNEO to say so. But really, in the larger context of the Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy, it's moot whether a word is or isn't a neologism. A neologism that appeared 3 years ago and disappeared 2 years ago could very well merit a Wikipedia article if the subject met the encyclopedic criteria that really matter: secondary sources giving us in-depth information about the word. There are words that have been in mainstream usage for untold centuries that we won't have articles about until sources have something important to say about them beyond just telling us the defintion.

And saying don't be a dick is not calling anyone a dick, any more than telling someone "don't cross the tracks" is accusing anyone of having crossed the tracks.. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:02, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would also be happy with merging to Police vehicles in the United Kingdom#Livery and lighting as proposed below, but not simply redirecting. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:52, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As mentioned directly above, this is an old turn of phrase which at the time was the livery of 'traffic' (highway patrol) vehicles with high performance capability, as distinct from Panda cars used in urban locales at low speeds. This latter article is poorly referenced, too, but nonetheless of encyclopaedic interest. The larger vans were often plain dark blue or black (Black Maria). Where I live, traffic wing was disbanded probably 10 or more years ago, with vehicles redeployed into ARVs and Road policing unit including Motorway patrols.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 21:18, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Add the Daily Mail article that WP will not allow as a citation, for anyone not seeing it in the article edit summary.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 22:12, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You know the Daily Mail is unreliable, but even if it was, it doesn't support anything except that the neologism exists. We have zero sources about the term. The policy on neologisms says need secondary sources that give depth and insight, that explain something about the role of the word in society. Panda car fails WP:NOTNEO as well. It would be the function of a dictionary to catalog all these local slang terms -- and jam sandwich, black maria, and panda care are all merely local British slang. There is the much longer, but equally unencyclopedic Black and white (police vehicle), which suggests a solution where a new article title for local slang for police vehicles can all be merged, along with paddywagon and the rest. List of slang for police vehicles would fail WP:NOTNEO but it doesn't matter because it could meet the criteria at Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:41, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This new source also fails to tell us anything about the term. It's merely an instance of the usage of the term. It doesn't even give us a defintion. It's a good example of synthesis and original research which the WP:NOTDIC policy warns against. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:57, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Retro-application of recent standards with contrived Wikilawyering is clearly against the previous consensus - people who think it's important to write it, to restore the vehicles, convey them to public displays, people who image them and upload to a third-party, people who transfer to Commons all have a common perception of what is important.
The sources - however old they are - will never withstand forensic-analysis of what they could contribute to an encyclopedia - they don't, and didn't, write with that as a criterion. I'm only here from a similar recent experience, where half a dozen drive-bys from the North American continent were determined to de facto delete a stand-alone bio of an Englishman, when I included a list of eight similar that should also be deleted or otherwise manipulated using the same rationale, for Wiki-consistency. None have been nominated, so far.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 15:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Police vehicles in the United Kingdom#Livery and lighting, using that source to cite the fact this term was used. (This could have been boldly done, I'll note, but since we're here...) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:29, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Bushranger. Nightfury 11:14, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it appears to be a well-known phrase, and once notable, always. Bearian (talk) 21:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:09, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chaz Dennis

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

While there is, unfortunately, no notability guideline for bowlers, this individual clearly fails WP:SPORTBASIC. I will also note that the page still includes the American children category, despite the page's subject being 24. I just thought I'd point that out. KidAd talk 20:38, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:28, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:57, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very clearly a non-notable bowler.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:18, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Nom. The "second youngest person" is not notable and the subject having "any recognition" tied to a single award would be just "one event". Otr500 (talk) 08:37, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per G5. If you want to dispute the deletion, use my talk page, but this is eligible for G5 (and also G4 as it is similar to previous). Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Morning Sun Animation

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

Non-referenced article by blocked user, previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morning Sun Animation . Non-notable animation company. John B123 (talk) 20:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 20:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 20:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 20:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 20:31, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G4 and G5. Dylsss^{(talk • contribs)} 20:36, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Geschichte (talk) 05:13, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Danilo N. Tandang

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

A botanist with a number of species descriptions; that's not enough to meet WP:NPROF, and there appear to be no other criteria that can be considered met here. (Editor is also still busy trying to get themselves added, after having been deleted before). -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:56, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The citability in GScholar is too low even for a relatively quiet field like taxonomy: h-index of about 5, with the top cited publiication of 19. Not enough here to satisfy WP:PROF#C1. Does not help that the article's creator has an apparent WP:COI in this case as a coworker and co-author of the article's subject. Nsk92 (talk) 20:16, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm fairly inclusionist about authors of scientific names, because, particularly for plants where the standard abbreviation can be obscure, it's useful for readers to be able to click on the author to find out a bit more. IPNI lists only 14 names with author "Tandang", but they are in genera which attract interest, including Begonia, Nepenthes and Rafflesia. So I think it's more of a marginal case than previous posters appear to. (More problematic is the article Philippine Taxonomic Initiative, which has a similar COI issue.) Peter coxhead (talk) 16:07, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So far, the author has included just the "bare bones," or basic facts: references, publications, and short one-line sentences. He can officially declare his COI and post on the talk page for other users to vet biographical content that could potentially be seen as promotional. But this is one of the world's very few specialists on these kinds of plant species, so I would very strongly advise against discouraging the author from contributing, per WP:EXR (expert retention). He is clearly here to help improve the project. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 16:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tandang's citation scores may not be very high, but that is because papers on obscure species simply aren't cited as much. He contributed to the descriptions of quite a few species and also has a species named after him. Personally I would prefer to see more taxonomists on Wikipedia. As for the wiki syntax, it's quite messy and I've had to constantly clean up after the article creator, but that can be fixed. Neutrally written with just the basic facts and not promotional. I'd also agree with the comment above. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 16:12, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Taxonomy isn't as obscure a field as that; it's still a branch of biology and I'd expect to see higher citation rates than what we are seeing here (19, 13, 6, 5, 2, 1 according to GoogleScholar). That's not exactly what WP:PROF#Specific criteria notes has in for WP:PROF#C1: "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates." Moreover, on closer inspection, even these modest citation numbers are slightly inflated. For example, for the top cited paper, out of 19 cites, 4 are to papers by PJ Matthews, a co-author of the paper being cited, so they are not independent sources for that paper. Similarly, for the third most cited paper, out of 6 cites, 3 are to papers by R.R. Rubite and another one to a paper by K.F. Chung, both of whom are co-authors on the paper being cited, so again non-independent. Nsk92 (talk) 18:38, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sagotreespirit. The ad hominem about the author, in the nomination, is regrettable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:37, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Sagotreespirit. Though it needs some clean-up, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PROF. He's a lead botanist in the equivalent of a national academy. Bearian (talk) 21:35, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:57, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All Sparks Burn Out

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

Tagged for notability since 2015. The playlists linked in the article are not significant coverage, and Offbeat and Sounds Better With Reverb looks like blogs, the unearthed piece is very short, and the last one is an interview. Not finding much better in a WP:BEFORE, although my browser does down-weight non-American sites in my searches. Doesn't look to pass WP:GNG or WP:NBAND. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:36, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:36, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:36, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't find any reliable sources. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 16:12, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete They appear to have burnt out on their own, nothing notable provided. Oaktree b (talk) 20:23, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:21, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One Riverside Drive

AfDs for this article:

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

The previous AfD in 2006 closed with clear consensus that this does not warrant a stand-alone article. It was created again not that long after the AfD. I see no evidence that this passes WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD; it is not a skyscraper nor does it have any historical significance. Spiderone 18:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete The current version of the article has all the problems mentioned in the previous discussion, and while there was apparently some level of controversy, it seems to have been entirely local. Mangoe (talk) 21:00, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. Geschichte (talk) 05:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 15:49, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Showbiz & A.G. (album)

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

There seems to be some uncertainty about whether this is about an album called Showbiz & A.G. per the title, or an EP called Soul Clap per the lead. In any case it isn't notable (and there is no indication of notability) and the article should be deleted and redirected to Showbiz and A.G. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:11, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Showbiz and A.G.: Barely found anything about the EP. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Allmusic review, more reviews like this etc. Geschichte (talk) 03:40, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Geschichte: this review appears to review Party Groove/Soul Clap EP, a version of Soul Clap EP, and not an album called Showbiz & A.G. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So rename? I'm not an expert on this rap group, but something was released, with that cover, and reviewed. Geschichte (talk) 11:34, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:33, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Geschichte (talk) 05:23, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rajaganapathy

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

I cannot find any reliable secondary sources or reviews with secondary coverage for this articel from the fact it a notable singer . I did find a brief mention of television super singer article but I don't think that's enough for WP:GNG. Furthermore, the only years is "This seems like nothing more than a commercial for this product," and the article would need to be heavily cleaned up to pass WP:PROMO Rajuiu (talk) 15:40, 2 November 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 November 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:01, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:16, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:16, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment he is not a notable singer but he is a television show singer as well as he is a youtuber. i have find his youtube channel , some other famous singer song he dubbed his own way and he is uploading to his own youtube channel and i think its self promotional https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5rualJlRwJ8gMHCFGGEKrA Rajuiu (talk) 22:53, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for a musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:17, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment this article creater also blocked because of Sockpuppet investigations User:JithDominicJose04 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/JithDominicJose04/Archive Rajuiu (talk) 00:55, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I found a single article in the Times of India, but that is not WP:SIGCOV. Bearian (talk) 21:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Pinoy Big Brother: Otso. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:12, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Karina Bautista

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

Unsourced article about an actress that falls short of NACTOR. Faizal batliwala (talk) 15:42, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Faizal batliwala (talk) 15:42, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. This also qualifies for a BLPProd, as an unsourced biography of a living person. ♟♙ (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:16, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:16, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but move it to draft. I would say keep the article, but move it to draft so they have more time finding resources for Karina Bautista. AsphereOfficial (talk) 05:16, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is so far past time we stopped allowing unsourced articles there is absolute no reason to keep this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:45, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pinoy Big Brother: Otso. Not notable yet after exiting the PBB house. — Emperork (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pinoy Big Brother: Otso: For now. Aside from being among the Top 4 finalists of the said reality show, her only notable acting role is a supporting one in Sandugo. That said, it's considered WP:TOOSOON. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Geschichte (talk) 05:38, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jamal Sims

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

Article was deprodded. I proded it because it was one sentence long and as been said before on articles about people like ambassadors, ambassadors are not inherently notable. IMHO, if an ambassador is not inherently notable, than a choreographer is less notable. Nothing in the article, which has been slightly expanded, tells me why this person is wiki worthy. Meaning, why he is different from any of hundreds of other dancers or choreographers. Oh, and the original editor’s comment that his IMDB page should be sufficient as to notability is just plain silly. IMDB can be falsified. ThurstonMitchell (talk) 14:11, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:27, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:28, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:28, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Glee^anon 22:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily meets GNG, noms asserting that choreographers are somehow less notable than other professionals is shortsighted at best. Even a quick search brings up numerous reliable sources discussing the subject and his work in depth. AfD is not cleanup, Wp:DINC. Glee^anon 22:55, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Instinct Magazine called the subject "world renowned" and "no doubt one of the biggest choreographers of our time." Billboard covered his directorial debut. Variety stated "...Jamal Sims is one of a handful of choreographers who’ve pushed the boundaries of dance in film, TV and onstage." He appeared in Michael Jackson's Remember the Time video at 17, which Root stated was followed by choreographing 2011's Footloose, Step Up, Hannah Montana: The Movie and more. Queerty stated "Jamal Sims has a long and prestigious career as a choreographer and dancer, having choreographed for Madonna, Toni Braxton, Jennifer Lopez, *NSYNC and the Spice Girls, among many other musical acts." There's a ton of reliable sources out there; a WP:BEFORE should be done on every deletion nom. --Kbabej (talk) 23:28, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kbabej. The lack of WP:BEFORE here is a bit concerning; I mentioned in my deprod edit summary that plenty of sourcing exists on Google, and even the existing sourcing contains info that establishes notability. I'd also like to note that the nominator prodded this article just 51 minutes (!) after it was created; even now, it's barely existed for a day. This article needs to be expanded, not deleted. Armadillo pteryx 10:09, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above (disclaimer: stub creator). I never suggested his IMDb demonstrates notability or should even be used as as source, but I do think the contents of his IMDb entry should be transferred over to Wikipedia appropriately. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:32, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 due to lack of participation. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:10, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Trees

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

obvious coi advocacy for a program with insufficient evidence of notability DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'd like to hear from DC-resident Wikipedians. Bearian (talk) 20:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:43, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has enough coverage. Omniscientmoose42 (talk) 09:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Generally an inclusionist but I also look for at least one big time reliable media outlet that reports on a non-profit like this with some kind of significant coverage to build a case around. I see something by CNN but it doesn't appear to offer this organization significant coverage. I would like to hear from those living in the DC area. I'm just not seeing that splash article that I typically look for. Lots of local and secondary reporting. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 16:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 due to lack of participation. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:10, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Lotenberg

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

The organizations he's led are notable, but I'm seeing no indication of his independent notability. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - possibly notable, but there's not a lot of sources out there. Bearian (talk) 18:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ironmouse

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

Not a notable streamer. The Wired reference is a trivial mention, and TwitchTracker is a database. No substantial coverage found. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:45, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:45, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Wired reference is not a trivial mention, as it provides a full quote from her, as well as describes her appearance. Jackdude101 ^talk ^cont 02:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The entirety of the relevant content in the Wired article is “Like anime, it once started as a very niche thing and has been slowly growing,” says Vtuber Iron Mouse, a pink-haired girl with devil horns who’s been streaming since 2018. “I think it will only get better and more exciting from here. The more the merrier, I say!” I don't see that as substantial coverage. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Per WP:Notability, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.". Obviously, the article as it stands now is no where near, say, featured article status, but it does meet a bare minimum threshold to stay. Furthermore, regarding the usage of TwitchTracker as a source, it is currently being used as a source in several other articles, including the List of most-followed Twitch channels article, which is currently getting over 3,000 views a day on avarage. Jackdude101 ^talk ^cont 02:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - On a separate note, since the start of this discussion, an additional reliable source has been added to the article that further establishes this topic's notability. Jackdude101 ^talk ^cont 03:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is a prime example of a trivial mention. If the Chiacgo Tribune wrote, "I like editing Wikipedia," says Indy beetle, a short brown-haired fellow who's been editing since 2016. "The more editors the merrier!" I would not suddenly become notable. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems like a prime example of WP:TOOSOON. All I see are WP:TRIVIAL mentions._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Zxcvbnm: Like I said to power~enwiki above, her mention in the first article is not trivial, as it describes her general appearance and includes a quote by her. Also, on the topic of WP:TOOSOON, please note the subsection about Entertainers, which states the following: ...even if failing the GNG, might still be reasonably presumed as notable if having..."a large fan base or a significant "cult" following".... Per Ironmouse's Twitch page, she has 225K followers; and per her YouTube page, she has 145K subscribers. Those are not small numbers. Jackdude101 ^talk ^cont 13:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - (edit conflict) Fame is not a valid criteria for notability. It tends to be related to notability, in that someone is more likely to be notable if they are famous (which is what that quote refers to), but that alone cannot qualify someone for an article. The mention in the Wired article is the very definition of trivial. I'd expect entire articles about Ironmouse, or at least lengthy mentions, not just the fact that they were asked for a quote._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:43, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Zxcvbnm: it seems that WP:TOOSOON and WP:FAME contradict each other on this point, because the former states that a large fan base is enough to reasonably assume that the topic is notable, while the latter is suggesting the opposite. Which of the two guidelines is the superior one? I should also mention the second article, since no one has discussed that one, which describes Ironmouse as a leader in the increasing popularity trend of VTubers. All of these different pieces of info from this small, but, reliable, handful of sources points directly to notability. Jackdude101 ^talk ^cont 13:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - From what I can tell it's very much in favor of WP:FAME. In fact the entire "reasonably assume" thing is cited rather often and taken the wrong way. Especially when it comes to Streamers and Youtubers, where fame is subjective. It's probably meant to apply more to non-Internet-famous people._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        See, that's the thing...you are saying it's PROBABLY meant to apply to non-Internet-famous people. It would be different if the policy stated as such outright, but it does not, and as such is open to interpretation, and in this case, flexible. Also, the figures I stated above regarding the large number of followers she has on multiple platforms are not subjective; they are facts. Jackdude101 ^talk ^cont 14:13, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        I agree it is flexible. However from what I've seen there is not really any room for uncertainty or flexibility, such as maybe it being a borderline case. WP:GNG is the ultimate policy that ALL articles must follow and this article fails it unequivocally. A GNews search for "Ironmouse" only comes up with the Wired article with the one sentence mention. According to GNG it has to be enough information to reasonably construct a detailed article without original research._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only references to "Ironmouse" used in the sources are passing mentions. We can't keep an article based on one quote without in WP:DEPTH coverage. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Two more sources were added to the article today, bringing the total number of published sources mentioning Ironmouse to four. Despite the fact that these four sources only mention her, they are all reputable and different, and were published several weeks apart. Furthermore, one of the sources, which was published a few days after this discussion began, states the following: Twitch is home to several of the most prominent English-speaking Vtubers, from the impish Ironmouse to the virtual camgirl-turned-gamer Projekt Melody. For context, Projekt Melody, as far as I know, is the only other English-speaking VTuber with a stand-alone English Wikipedia article, which I created back in February. Describing Ironmouse as being on a similar level as Projekt Melody, whose notability on Wikipedia is firmly established, is major and I recommend that everyone participating in this discussion take note of this fact before a final decision on the Ironmouse article's fate is made. Jackdude101 ^talk ^cont 18:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:55, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sources added remain WP:TRIVIAL. It still fails the criterion of "being able to write an article on them without original research". A few sentences of vague personal info does not an article make._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I cannot see any notability in this at all, ignoring sources 2 to 5 because 2 is a database, 3 is a Medium article which is a blog hosting service and thus self-published and not reliable, 4 and 5 are trivial mentions. So here is all the coverage we have here:

“Like anime, it once started as a very niche thing and has been slowly growing,” says Vtuber Iron Mouse, a pink-haired girl with devil horns who’s been streaming since 2018. “I think it will only get better and more exciting from here. The more the merrier, I say!”

This is a quote, and with very little commetary on top, the commentary that it there is simply contextual. Dylsss^{(talk • contribs)} 16:31, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really familiar with the deletion criterions and just randomly passing by but WP:FAME also seems quite questionable since not even any of the English Hololive VTubers with some having close to 10 times as many subscribers^[1] have their own page. 178.10.194.52 (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCoSrY_IQQVpmIRZ9Xf-y93g

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT. KidAd talk 20:15, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abnormal Studios

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

Non-notable GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 12:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarian recording studio. Even though several notable bands recorded there, I couldn't find anything reliable about it and the sourcing consists purely of unreliable sites like Discogs and Bandcamp, plus external links which do not establish any notability either. The studio has an article on huwiki too, but it's up to deletion there as well. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 12:44, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 12:44, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:51, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:51, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — basically re-echoing GhostDestroyer100, no coverage can be observed in reliable sources independent of them. Celestina007 (talk) 15:17, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability is not inherited from simply who has recorded there, it needs to be notable in its own right Spiderone 19:01, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:09, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Olamide 'Kola' Aina

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

After observing it had been flagged for notability & promo related issues I did a before search & it revealed that subject of the article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of him thus doesn’t satisfy WP:GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 10:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 10:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 10:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 10:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 10:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 10:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 10:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

**Source assessment table:**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Nigerian Star			A list article which doesn’t satisfy WP:SIGCOV in any way.	✘ No
Kola Aina, CEO of Emerging Platforms Group is holding an AMA next Wednesday on Radar	Appears to be a sponsored post so it isn’t independent of the subject	A combination of an announcement & a sponsored post		✘ No
Here are 28 tech entrepreneurs that made the presidential advisory group			A list article of 28 persons with very short biographies below their name entry, which in no way satisfies WP:SIGCOV hence has no value to WP:GNG.	✘ No
Kola Aina, Kola Oyeneyin, Mohammed Jega, Others appointed into Tech + creativity Advisory Group		Yet to develop a record for fact checking	This re-echoes the source no 3(above) already analyzed above but this time it doesn’t even discuss subject of our article hence of 0 value toward satisfying WP:GNG	✘ No
2020 Fellows	It appears as though any member can login and edit their profile.	if it isn’t independent of the subject it is not considered reliable & is of no use to WP: GNG	Yet another list article in which the subject isn’t discussed with in-depth significant coverage.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Comment — Above are the analysis of the sources used in the article. Celestina007 (talk) 11:06, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I do understand that the subject lacks in-depth coverage. However, I still believe that he has made much impact by investing in Nigerian startups like Paystack that was recently acquired for more than 200million dollars by a US-based payment company called Stripe.^[1] I will suggest that it be kept and add the bio stub template {{bio stub}} to it for further improvement. Uzoma Ozurumba (talk) 11:51, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The editor above is the article creator. Celestina007 (talk) 14:38, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello Celestina007, I am not quite sure I understand what you mean by the editor above is the creator. If you mean that I created the article in question, then you are wrong; you can crosscheck.:) Uzoma Ozurumba (talk) 16:21, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Uzoma Ozurumba, sorry for the confusion there, the article was indeed created by a certain editor named Blossom Ozurumba, the eerie similar name got me confused. In any case my argument is still very much valid. Celestina007 (talk) 17:25, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, a portion of your comment above reads; I do understand that the subject lacks in-depth coverage. However, I still believe that he has made much impact by investing in Nigerian startups like Paystack that was recently acquired for more than 200million dollars, I simply don’t understand that thought process, if you know for a fact that as you have stated above that the subject of our discussion lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources that is required in WP:GNG why then would you argue in favor for a premature article? if you re-read WP:BIO or WP:GNG, you’d observe that investing in startup companies is never a criterion nor a yardstick used in determining notability of an individual. I’ve done a WP:BEFORE & a source assessment already, what else do I have to do? This is not even bother-line/bare notability this is an outright GNG fail. Celestina007 (talk) 19:51, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise Celestina007 for putting the template and stressing you out, I will immediately remove it. Thank you.Uzoma Ozurumba (talk) 17:13, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t get what template you speak of. I only pointed out to you an invalid argument you made by suggesting that the article is notable because he invested money in a startup company & I corrected you by telling you no notability criterion validates/substantiates your rationale. Celestina007 (talk) 20:46, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:08, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about him aside from a Ventures Africa article. Perhaps a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:57, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Canada Building (Windsor)

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

~~Unless I'm missing something, this does not pass any notability guideline. It is not a skyscraper and it does not seem to pass WP:NBUILD or WP:GNG.~~ Spiderone 10:57, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw - due to heritage trust listing. I'll be more mindful of this in future in my BEFORE search Spiderone 22:42, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Can't see an instance in which a large 1920s Art Deco building would not be notable. Listed on the Ontario Heritage Act Register, so close to meeting WP:GEOFEAT on that alone. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:04, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would everything listed on Heritage Trust automatically warrant a stand-alone article on that basis? Spiderone 11:21, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just about. Remember reliable sources per GNG include "reports by government agencies." Each listing must include in-depth reports supporting the listing and explaining why the listing is considered notable by the agency. For this one the reports were easy to find. [9][10]Oakshade (talk) 06:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lean Keep - sources I found: Ontario Heritage Trust (thanks Necrothesp), Windsor Star, CTV News. I'd feel better about it if a few more sources were found, but the I think the historic designation is enough for me. I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a poor argument, but Canada Permanent Trust Building seems to be a similar situation, but with its couple sources actually in the article. Chris857 (talk) 00:45, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Heritage Trust listing and the sources found by Chris857 warrant a passing of our notability standards. Oakshade (talk) 06:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aztec Warrior

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable unreleased film, per WP:NFF BOVINEBOY2008 10:28, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:45, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:02, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:41, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:26, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:16, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bank of America Plaza (Tucson)

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD: "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." Subject does not have coverage that meets significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV. WP:BEFORE revealed advertising, WP:ROUTINE, WP:MILL coverage, and directory style listings. // Timothy :: talk 18:35, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 18:35, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 18:35, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Was once the tallest building in Tucson. Under it's original name "Arizona Bank Plaza," was recognized by the American Concrete Institute as the "Outstanding Concrete Structure of 1976.[11] Not only is there in-depth coverage under its current name,[12] but there was more front page news when it was built under its original name. [13] as well as some more architectural details in the book Culture in the American Southwest: The Earth, the Sky, the People. [14] Lasting notability has been established. Oakshade (talk) 02:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:42, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Oakshade; seems to have more than just directory listings Spiderone 11:44, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Oakshade amd Spiderone. -Hatchens (talk) 17:12, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above discussion and "An older building that is at least 20 years old, and was the tallest in its area, might be considered notable," per my standards. Bearian (talk) 21:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Avinash Pandey (businessman)

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

Was previously created as Avinash Pandey (Indian Media) and deleted after a general consensus in AfD. Sources are all press releases and profiles on various websites which do not add up to passing WP:GNG. There also seems to be a COI issue. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 09:32, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 09:32, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 09:32, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 09:32, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Notability may not be inherited from parent organisation. Fails GNG. No independent coverage apart from being CEO of ABP News ChunnuBhai (talk) 07:07, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to ABP News A deletion that occurred some 9 years ago is not a good rationale for this article to be deleted. Nine years! However, I see nothing substantial in the article, but time being redirect towards ABP News may be helpful. I'm not opposed to delete either. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 14:52, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:06, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete a non-notable businessman. —usernamekiran (talk) 11:41, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of alternative rock

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

WP:LISTCRUFT. This is just a long list of bands and albums which may or may not be alternative rock. It barely has any prose and references. Users can easily add what they think as alternative rock bands/albums without explaining the importance of their inclusion. The same should be done to Timeline of heavy metal and hard rock music. Enjoyer of World^💬 09:06, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because similar reasons above:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Enjoyer of World^💬 09:06, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Enjoyer of World^💬 09:06, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Enjoyer of World^💬 07:10, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - per WP:TNT if nothing else. There’s no discernible “timeline” to be found, just a massive sprawling list of random factoids without sources, loosely in chronological order. No flow or methodology at all. As someone who writes a lot of “year in music” articles, I am sympathetic to how much time and effort it takes to write just about a single year. But that’s all the more reason to think that this isn’t heading towards being cleaned up any time soon. Sergecross73 msg me 15:05, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, per nom and Sergecross. Listcruft at its best (or worst?). GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:12, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - redundant articles. Any relevant info can and, in fact, is already covered with wonderful prose in the fantastic articles that are Alternative rock, Heavy metal music and Hard rock. There is nothing at all worth keeping from these Spiderone 18:11, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alternative rock#History - Seems like a reasonable alternative to me. Foxnpichu (talk) 22:51, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both - I agree with everyone above. Such timelines are inherently nonsensical due to the shifting definitions of "alternative rock", "hard rock", and "heavy metal", and are restricted to bands that the author is familiar with. Also redundant to the much better history sections in the main genre articles. DOOMSDAYER520 | TALK | CONTRIBS 02:40, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per WP:NOTIINFO and excessive original research. Ajf773 (talk) 09:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per all of the above. // Timothy :: talk 08:15, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per the above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bandish Bandits. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:06, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ritwik Bhowmik

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

Non notable actor with no indication of satisfying either WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Has done few television shows but hasn't played significant roles in multiple notable shows. Likely a case of WP:TOOSOON. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 08:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 08:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 08:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 08:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:11, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:11, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bandish Bandits: he would need to have more gigs with prominent roles to have an entry on wikipedia. Right now he is only known for Bandish Bandits. ChunnuBhai (talk) 07:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bandish Bandits fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG.Possible search term.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:04, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 15:49, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Pollack (musician)

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

WP:BLP of a songwriter and record producer, not adequately referenced to reliable sources for the purposes of getting him past WP:NMUSIC. While there are a few stray hits of media coverage about him that count for something, there aren't nearly enough of those to pass WP:GNG — instead, the article is very heavily reference bombed to sources that are not valid support for notability at all, such as primary source content self-published by record labels, online lyrics or credit databases like Genius or AllMusic, sales profiles on Amazon.com and user-generated videos on YouTube or DailyMotion. As always, when establishing whether someone is notable or not, we are not looking for just any web page that technically verifies a fact — we are looking for the amount of journalistic coverage he has or hasn't received about the fact in real media. But the amount of that shown here is not sufficient, and nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have more of it than this.
While this isn't a deletion criterion in and of itself, it should probably also be mentioned that this page has been bouncing back and forth between draftspace and mainspace repeatedly in the past few weeks, as other editors have been in sharp disagreement about whether it meets the criteria or not. Bearcat (talk) 15:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A highly notable songwriter. The amount of songwriting work by this gentleman with artists of high calibre is mind boggling. What is the utility of our readers not knowing about this songwriter I don't know. Even after the elaborate technical explanations by colleague Bearcat. Songwriters usually don't get the media circus coverage singers or musicians do. This is very understandable. So we now use it against them and delete them out of existence? Even a basic search with our search engine, gives us tens of leads to Michael Pollack songs in various Wikipedia artist and song articles. The contributors made an overkill of references to try to keep the article. But apparently to no avail. We may lose this article. It's our loss and the profound loss of so many of our readers. werldwayd (talk) 22:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The notability test for a person, regardless of his occupation, is not the things he's done, it's the amount of reliable source media coverage he has or hasn't received for doing the things he's done. Songwriters aren't handed an automatic notability freebie just because it's possible to offer technical verification in online lyrics databases and music stores that his work exists — the notability test requires either (a) that he won significant awards for his work, and/or (b) that journalists have paid independent attention to his work in the media by writing and publishing analytical or biographical content about him and his work.
And no, people are also not exempted from that requirement just because they happen to have a "behind the scenes" job that doesn't always get as much media attention as the singers do, either: in fact, in a situation like that it's even more critical that we tie notability to the quality of the sources, because if we waived the sourcing requirement and allowed songwriters to keep articles solely on the basis of primary source verification that their songs exist, then we would have to keep an article about every single songwriter who exists at all, regardless of their notability or lack thereof. So it's the media that tells us which songwriters are notable enough for Wikipedia articles and which ones aren't, not Wikipedians' subjective personal interpretations of how "important" an unsourceable or improperly sourceable statement may sound. Bearcat (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mild Keep Seems prolific enough, but the sources all seem to be about the songs, rather than him. Any awards he's won? Oaktree b (talk) 19:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prolificacy isn't an exemption from having to be reliably sourceable. Bearcat (talk) 15:57, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:44, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the co-writer of a huge top-10 hit, Memories. We have almost always kept the authors of major hits, even if they did nothing else with their lives. Bearian (talk) 22:03, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:05, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arvind Kannabiran

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

Falls short of WP:GNG. Not even a single reference provided talk about him except IMDb which is not even a secondary source. His only claim to fame is that he worked in a movie as a cinematographer that won a national award. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 08:25, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 08:25, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 08:25, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable cinematographer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sources fail to establish notability Spiderone 13:49, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nilesh Nikam

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

Fails WP:NPOL, WP:GNG, could not locate in-depth significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:53, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:53, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:53, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:53, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails NPOL. No significant coverage apart from winning local body elections. ChunnuBhai (talk) 08:11, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a total failure of the politician notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:06, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article does not meet WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO. Sources in article and WP:BEFORE revealed no WP:RS containing material that meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth. BLP articles should strictly follow WP:RS, WP:V and WP:N sourcing requirements. // Timothy :: talk 08:32, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted. (non-admin closure) Enjoyer of World^💬 00:08, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lion Md. Jonab ALi PMJF

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

Written like a resume or self promotion. Notability not established. Swil999 (talk) 07:38, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:26, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:26, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete immediately. Obviously paid-for corporate spam by an incompetent writer. HᴇʀᴘᴇᴛᴏGᴇɴᴇꜱɪꜱ (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CSD requested to avoid clogging up AfD with obvious junk. HᴇʀᴘᴇᴛᴏGᴇɴᴇꜱɪꜱ (talk) 18:48, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Villa

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

Not separately notable to his company Yokkao, lacks coverage in independent sources. 1292simon (talk) 07:30, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:26, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:26, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:26, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:27, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:11, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no notability aside from his company, and a good deal of the maaterial here is repeated from there, including some highly promotional content. Looking at the history of both articles, there has been extensive COI editing. Possibly the articke in Yokkao needs to be discussed as well, and possibly the articles on the other people connected with it. I have given a level 4 COI warning to the contributor involved. (I am dealing with this as I would any businessperson and their associated business ; I am totally ignorant about Muay Thai , the field the business is involved in) DGG ( talk ) 01:44, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Concerns about paid editing, and nobody volunteering to curate it in draftspace, pushes this over the edge to delete. Anyone wishing to rescue this version (rather than recreating) if and when this is deemed notable may ask for a refund. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:10, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maa Vintha Gadha Vinuma

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

WP:TOOSOON. All the coverage is run of the mill PR releases. ChunnuBhai (talk) 06:36, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ChunnuBhai (talk) 06:36, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ChunnuBhai (talk) 06:36, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify The film is scheduled to premiere in a couple of weeks. Can be moved to mainspace once it passes WP:NFILM. -- Ab207 (talk) 07:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify if it gets reviewed in reliable sources it can be moved back to mainspace, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:53, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note there is already a draft on this topic at Draft:Maa Vintha Gaadha Vinuma. BOVINEBOY2008 10:43, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or delete per above. // Timothy :: talk 08:27, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: The draft was created by a now blocked user because of "Undisclosed paid editing". Otr500 (talk) 08:56, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:24, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eddyville Charter School

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG / WP:NSCHOOL. Sources in article and WP:BEFORE are not WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth. // Timothy :: talk 06:26, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 06:26, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 06:26, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lacking multiple in-depth reliable sources about it and therefore failing both WP:GNG and WP:NORG. All the coverage seems to be trivial and local. Not suppressing considering it's an extremely small school in a semi-remote area. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:41, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:38, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The people who wrote the guidelines saying all high schools are notable were thinking of suburban, urban and regional high schools with over 500 students, and normally well over 1000 students. They did not think how many truly small schools there are that virtually never get any notice, or how many private and charter schools are very short lived.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:28, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Geschichte (talk) 07:36, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Childs Way Charter School

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG / WP:NSCHOOL. Sources in article and WP:BEFORE are not WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth. // Timothy :: talk 06:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 06:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 06:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources seem to be only local and trivial coverage. Nothing about this from what I have seen passes WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Not surprising really. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:43, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no independent, in-depth coverage of this school that I could find. I did find one more source, but it is a directory listing similar to what already exists in the article. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:32, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:38, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the coverage is routine and not enough to pass the standards as mentioned in the nom Spiderone 22:52, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a 7 year school with an average of 7 students per grade, and sometimes as few as 3, is not default notable. The sourcing does not overcome this just plain not notable problem.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:26, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:24, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alliance Charter Academy

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG / WP:NSCHOOL. Sources in article and WP:BEFORE are not WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth. // Timothy :: talk 06:21, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 06:21, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 06:21, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coverage about the school seems to be extremely trivial and not in-depth. So, I don't see anything about this that passes either WP:GNG or WP:NORG. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. None of the keep rationales posit policy-based reasons for keeping the article, and if the article were kept solely for these reasons, it would fail WP:V. Therefore consensus is that the topic is not encyclopedically notable. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:24, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LosPollosTV

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

The article is almost completely unreferenced with blatant BLP violations which I had removed, but were re-added. Seems to have trivial coverage only for holding a Guinness World Record of the longest Twitch stream. Dylsss^{(talk • contribs)} 03:57, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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}}.

The page is very informal. It should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tubwalk69 (talk • contribs) 03:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Los is a streamer with one of the higher view counts on twitch and with his involvement with such streamers as CashNasty, xQc and NICKMERCS and NBA Players such as Zach LaVine and Ben Simmons, The article should be kept. KENGRIFFEYFAN24 — Preceding unsigned comment added by KENGRIFFEY24FAN (talk • contribs) Note corrected username; the 24 comes before the FAN. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:23, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Los has a huge fan base on Twitch and other platforms. He deserves a wikipedia page for his fan base. He’s nearly surpassed 500k followers on the platform. As noted above, he often does live streams with other famous people such as Zach Lavine, Ben Simmons, Joel Embiid, and more. This article strongly in my opinion should be kept.

TubWalk69 — Tubwalk69 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Invalid criteria: That person A has a relationship with well-known person B

It is important to remember that "notable" is not a synonym for "famous"

Wikipedia:Notability (people). Dylsss^{(talk • contribs)} 04:06, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Los has a considerable fanbase and does have a notability among the Twitch Community, he is a notable person and should have his own Wikipedia Page. Also, the fact that Los is signed to Luminosity Gaming, gives him more credibility as a Streamer as he is part of a larger e-sports organization and one of the more well-known players signed to Luminosity. KENGRIFFEYFAN24 — Preceding unsigned comment added by KENGRIFFEY24FAN (talk • contribs) 04:35, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't even how you use speedy keep, and neither does your argument carry any weight, because notability is not inherited, and neither does having a lot of subscribers or viewers establish notability. Dylsss^{(talk • contribs)} 05:01, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Striked duplicate vote. Dylsss^{(talk • contribs)} 16:50, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I don't know what you have against me or this article, but you're really trying to go to war over this. I made this article because Los has gotten to the point where he is notable enough to deserve one. I saw that you just came on to the reddit and wanted to delete this so, I give up. You will keep on fighting this fight until I die or you win, so I don't know what to say other than,I wanted this to stay up. Also the "neither does having a lot of subscribers or viewers establish notability" Pretty much invalidates every person who is an internet personality on this website. KENGRIFFEYFAN24

Delete Seems to be a clear example or WP:SINGLEEVENT notability in it's current state. Far more sources & other claims to notability are needed. Remember new editor / subject fans, even Pewdiepie was deleted for notability issues when he was first starting out. — IVORK _Talk 05:42, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Los is one of the biggest streamers on Twitch and HAS played with many big names, he is so entertaining and does deserve his own page, there are only a few people out there who want to mess around and make jokes, we'll come up with new citations we promise, just give us some time. Lil Tasty

@Lil Tasty: There's no reason that can't be done in the draftspace, and I would look to sites like Fandom initially as they have practically no requirements for pages — IVORK _Talk 07:34, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per previous arguments, ~~but a far more interesting question is why we have a nominator arguing for Keep who has made no edits outside the page?~~ scratch that the page formatting looked weird first. Asartea ^Trick ^| ^Treat 06:23, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable streamer, WP:1E applies. Java Hurricane 07:18, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:29, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:29, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:29, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's impossible to source this to anything other than social media; no significant coverage from WP:RS at all Spiderone 08:30, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A case of 1E. Clearly lacks any kind of real coverage to confer notability. TheRedDomitor (talk) 08:49, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Louis is a huge influencer on Twitch’s platform. Among the previously explained reasons, I would like to state that if you were apart of the Twitch community and saw Louis in public, you would recognize him. Just like how a baseball fan would recognize one of the players from their team in public. TubWalk69 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tubwalk69 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate vote: Tubwalk69 has already voted once. TheRedDomitor (talk) 16:31, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly non notable per our guidelines. Being a "huge influencer" or having all da followers, maaan make zero difference. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:35, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok all of you who want this article deleted are actually buzkills. How come Aaron Sherinian gets to keep his article up yet Los doesn't, blatant hypocrisy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KENGRIFFEY24FAN (talk • contribs) 16:56, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You should read our policies, specifically WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:GNG. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:00, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What does one person have to do with the other? The only connection I see is that Aaron Sherinian was nominated for deletion three years ago by someone with the username User:KENGRIFFEY24 (who I assume is the same person as User:KENGRIFFEY24FAN) and passed with a "speedy keep". Sherinian isn't a Twitch streamer or at least his article doesn't say he is one. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:39, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KENGRIFFEY24FAN Note the points raised on that AfD, being the head of a prominent company and also receiving notable awards. Not to mention that the article has multiple reliable sources, not just the subject's own social media and a single mention in media. Per Lee Vilenski, read WP:GNG & WP:NBIO to see the requirements that need to be met for all articles on individuals. — IVORK _Talk 01:21, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable at this point. I note that the article is almost entirely sourced to the subject's twitter and instagram accounts. -- Whpq (talk) 19:08, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about him aside from being banned from Twitch, an indication of WP:BLP1E. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

nbsp;Preceding unsigned comment added by KENGRIFFEY24FAN (talk contribs) 16:56, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. per nom. Mr-5 / (M 📩 ✉ / C🖋 ) 13:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article does not meet WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO. Sources in article and WP:BEFORE revealed no WP:RS containing material that meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth. BLP articles should strictly follow WP:RS, WP:V and WP:N sourcing requirements. // Timothy :: talk 08:03, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P. V. Kalyanasundaram

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

This person might not be noteworthy enough for their own page and someone with a similar name claims their own information has been incorrectly added to the page. Patrickometry 01:42, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Patrickometry 01:42, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:25, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:25, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:25, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:08, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication of meeting WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO or any appropriate criteria for inclusion Spiderone 17:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Cartoonito#Current programming. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Cartoonito

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

So back in November 2018, a very similar page was nominated for deletion, and was eventually deleted - see here. As far as I can tell, nothing has really changed since then. Barely any of the "original programming" is actually original programming, with nearly the whole lineup of the channel being reruns and acquired programming, something which violates WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Not to mention some of the dates are certainly inaccurate, and Cartoonito is not iconic like CBeebies and Nick Jr. are. This article could potentially be speedy deleted under G4.

If people seriously think this article should exist under some form, I suggest merging the content into the main Cartoonito page, or drafting the article to see if anybody can improve it in a way I can't think of. Foxnpichu (talk) 15:05, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum - I have notified the page creator to see what they think about the nomination. Foxnpichu (talk) 15:16, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:39, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:39, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Tessaracter (talk) 14:38, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I take it you mean merging into the main Cartoonito page, right? Foxnpichu (talk) 19:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, merge or draft per nom. Although in my opinion, it should be deleted instead. As stated in the nomination, Cartoonito is nowhere as iconic as CBeebies and Nick Jr for example, and there are barely original programming. (Actually, I haven't seen any original programs there in my life, just acquired ones.) Wikipedia is not TV Guide. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:28, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Cartoonito#Current programming: per above and nom as an WP:ATD // Timothy :: talk 13:57, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ https://techpoint.africa/2020/10/19/paystack-exit-nigerian-startup-ecosystem/%7C1

[1] ttps://www.youtube.com/channel/UCoSrY_IQQVpmIRZ9Xf-y93g

[2] ttps://techpoint.africa/2020/10/19/paystack-exit-nigerian-startup-ecosystem/%7C1

[1]

[1]