Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 October 13

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 12 October	14 October >

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. ST47 (talk) 23:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Communist Party of India (Tashkent group)[edit]

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

The article creation is based on the premise of one of the POVs on the early history of the Indian communist movement. When CPI began to fracture, dispute arose over the early history. CPI(M) maintains 1920 as the foundation date, CPI (post-split) maintains 1925 as foundation date. There has been plenty of debate on this, and it would be better to have an article on the early stages of party-building that reflects different perspectives. There are reasons to question 1920 as foundation date for CPI, but likewise one can question whether CPI as a party really began in 1925 as the movement continued to lack a functional central organization and program. (I began a draft at Draft:Foundation of CPI trying to gather material for both of the main perspectives on the question of foundation of the party, but I lacked time to develop it properly so far) Soman (talk) 23:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:48, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:51, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR and WP:SOAP. We are not a directory of every splinter group. Bearian (talk) 21:27, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, to elaborate a bit further. I perceive that the creation of the article has a political motive, to be able to exclude M. N. Roy as founder of the Communist Party of India or to exclude the 1920-1925 history of the party from the main CPI Wikipedia article (see [1]). Notably the present-day CPI (to which the article creator appears to be linked) upholds that view, but its part of a move to rewrite the party history in the 1950s to emphasize the national character of the party. This move was never recognized by other tendencies of the Indian communist movement (CPI(M) and the CPI(ML) factions). The description of the early party history in the main CPI article needs to be balanced and include different perspectives. Considering that this issue has been raised on the talk page at Talk:Communist_Party_of_India#Foundation_in_1920 and Talk:Communist_Party_of_India#MN Roy the better option would have continued the debate rather than unilaterally creating what essentially constitutes a POVFORK. --Soman (talk) 22:35, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Fenix down (talk) 22:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Hamilton (footballer)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP based on the assertion that the Jamaican top flight is fully pro. Sources at WP:FPL say otherwise. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:32, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:32, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I created the article upon discovering the news that the player whom the article is about would be joining Dundee, a fully professional club in the Scottish Championship, a professional league as per WP:FPL, though I understand that he has yet to play a league game in said league. If this article is indeed deleted, I would appreciate it if I could be given any further information as to how this article can better follow WP:GNG (other than just simply waiting for more sources of information to be created and thus added to the article), so that we do not have to go through this again. Rossbatchelor (talk) 01:03, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:37, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:39, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The subject has not played for on a professional team yet. I'd have him play at least a few times in Dundee before invoking WP:NFOOTBALL here, but no matches happened so far, and won't happen for the next two weeks or more as he is quarantined. Plus, no other notability criteria, such as WP:GNG, has been met. The PROD contesting was correct, though, in my opinion. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 07:04, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:37, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can always be created again if he ever does make an appearance in an FPL Spiderone 19:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the other delete votes sound more like Draftify arguments. While not quite (though getting there slowly) fully-professional, 100 starts in the Jamaica National Premier League does suggest there should be evidence of notability. And here's some examples meeting GNG - one, two, three. Seems to have had a lot of national coverage in Jamaica and Canada regarding recent transfers as well, rather than the typical local stuff. Nfitz (talk) 22:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm seeing some coverage here. Definitely not 3 articles of significance satisfying GNG, but something that could be built on with more research. No harm in keeping open for another week to review
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 16:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft This feels like another good example of why we have draft space for articles like these. I don't think some editors are patient enough. Govvy (talk) 12:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draft This is a perfect example of WP:TOOSOON. Player will likely merit an article so might as well just move to Draft Space. Why go through the hassle of deleting and then maybe re-creating in two months. He's playing on loan at a FPL club from another FPL club. As Govvy mentioned, this is exactly why we have Draft space and Sandbox space. Also, I added a couple of more sources, such as the Toronto Star a top 2 Canadian newspaper RedPatchBoy (talk) 14:29, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two months User:RedPatchBoy? Probably sooner - he was loaned to Dundee to play. Reading deeper, he only got out of quarantine yesterday. Presumably not match fit after having been in Covid-transfer hell for eight months (and he almost notable for that!). I'd be very surprised if there isn't further Jamaican media coverage, I only looked very quickly. Nfitz (talk) 23:48, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I said two months knowing nothing of the situation. When I saw 0(0) I didn't realize it was because the season hadn't started and the loan was recent. After I did some extra research and out new sources into the article, I realized itll probably be next game if not the one after that he makes the debut, just never went back to edit my original statement after that. RedPatchBoy (talk) 00:18, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Changing my vote to keep. There are 5 unique independent sources in the article, he has extensive experience in the Jamaican top tier (not FPL), but will be making debut very soon (first league game is Oct 16 - he just left quarantine so he did not play) and as Nfitz noted his unique transfer saga due to covid could be notable on its own. He will likely debut in the next week or two. So Keep or Draft, but not delete. RedPatchBoy (talk) 12:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: May be it can be expanded there later. So does it need to be deleted? Indianfootball98 (talk) 16:15, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 21:50, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 23:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rotting Piñata. (non-admin closure) Pamzeis (talk) 01:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neenah Menasha[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG. Has been redirected twice to the obvious redirect target of Rotting Piñata, but the article creator has reverted both times, so there is no other option but to obtain a wider discussion. But there really doesn't appear to be any substantial discussion of this song. None of the sources verify that the song is named after two cities in Wisconsin, despite three of them being used as citations. The AllMusic entry is just a track listing, and most of the other sources are the usual user-generated databases. RiotFest isn't an RS, and the mention is a passing one in the context of the author urging readers to listen to the whole album. The Oakland Press also mentions the song only briefly in passing, and the claim in the Wikipedia article is misquoted – The Oakland Press doesn't say this was the track that impressed the record label, it says the sound of the band's songs such as this one impressed the label, which is a different thing. So there is nothing that makes this song stand out, and no in-depth reliable sources to create an article. Richard3120 (talk) 21:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 21:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 21:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to album. I concur with the nominator's analysis. -- Whpq (talk) 21:52, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just added an additional reference to the song's page that is a more substantial discussion of the song. I also added a reference in regards to the the twin cities in Wisconsin, Neenah and Menasha, and moved the previous references to the correct sentence. The AllMusic entry is not just a "track listing", it has information regarding the song's release as a single along with a photo of the cover. Riot Fest has it's own Wikipedia page (since July 2012) and does appear to be an RS. In that article, the author urges readers to listen to the whole album but "particularly Neenah Menasha" as stated in the section's title, and then he describes details about the song's music video. I have also edited the sentence citing The Oakland Press and made it word-for-word with the source ("impressed with the big, full sound of tracks such as Neenah Menasha"). I would also like to point out that I've seen several pages for other comparable music singles on Wikipedia that don't cite any sources (or only one that is not an RS) that have been on Wikipedia for years. Regardless, I believe that the additional sources that I've added should suffice for it to be considered more substantial. -- T Yorke (talk) 06:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notability requires that the song has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Nitpicking over "track listing" versus a track listing with a release date and a photo misses the point that neither represents significant coverage. AS for other articles, these other articles may or may not meet the requirements to be a standalone article but we are not discussing them here. I've provided a more detailed analysis of the sources as of this version of the article. I still stand by my original opinions. -- Whpq (talk) 13:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Whpq
Riotfest		? Riotfest is a music festival with no mention of editorial staff for its articles	The coverage of Neenah Menasha is a short blurb in a long list of songs	✘ No
Allmusic			Barebones database entry	✘ No
Discogs		Crowdsourced content	Barebones database entry	✘ No
Fox Cities Magazine			No mention of the song in the article	✘ No
Innocent Bystanders		It's a blog	Short blog entry with an even shorter amount about the song	✘ No
The Oakland Press			Passing mention	✘ No
Musicstax		? No indication how entries are created	Just another database entry	✘ No
IMDB		User edited site	barebones database entry	✘ No
Youtube video	This is the band's video		This isn't coverage about the song; it's the song itself	✘ 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}}.

Just to add to what Whpq says above, none of the sources added actually demonstrate that the song is notable – the link to AllMusic just proves it was a single, it has a track listing, and it has some cover art... that's not notable. The fact that RiotFest is famous enough to have an article doesn't mean it's considered reliable to be used as a source itself. The National Enquirer and InfoWars are well known enough to be written about, but they are not considered reliable enough to be used as sources for other articles – see WP:DEPSOURCES. The only thing the RiotFest author says about the video anyway is "There’s a lot of cutoff shorts and some goofy Thom Yorke-lite gyrating going on". The only source you've added that actually states the song was named after two cities is from a blog, not an RS, and in any case, why would this make the song notable? This still doesn't pass any of the criteria at WP:NSONG. If there are other articles that are in a worse state than this one, then that's a better argument to delete those articles, not keep this one. Richard3120 (talk) 14:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rotting Piñata per WP:NSONGS and the well-explained reasoning by Richard3120 and Whpq. I couldn't agree more. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rotting Piñata - The article's creator has tried valiantly, as the song did get a little bit of its own notice as a piece of the band's history, and its video was mentioned in the media a few times. But that stuff can be mentioned at the album's article, and as the other voters concluded above, it does not justify a separate song article. ☆ DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) ☆ 21:51, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rotting Piñata: Per analysis done by Richard3120 and Whpq. Barely found anything about the song. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Wodonga Council election[edit]

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

For the same reasons at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 Yarra Ranges Shire election: Upcoming hyper-local election (the City of Wodonga is only a local government area, equivalent to a municipality), zero indication that it has had or will have significance outside the local area. WP:N demands "significant attention by the world at large", and there is no sourcing that indicates this particular election has gained any greater attention than the expected local coverage. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:12, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:12, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:12, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is a county of 41,000 people. Bearian (talk) 21:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete similar to Yarra Ranges eletion below, not encylopdic. Teraplane (talk) 22:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom small county similar to Yarra Ranges election lacks significance outside the local area.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clear consensus, also same G11 concerns as prior AfD. Will apply NaCl StarM 01:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lido Learning[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Previously deleted via G11. scope_creep^Talk 21:08, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Speedy Delete and salt. promotional and non-notable. I deleted it as promotional 2 weeks ago. The references are straight PR., or merely about funding, and do not pass WP:NCORP. The promotional intent of this article for an unimportant tutoring service is obvious. DGG ( talk ) 02:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete and salt. I agree that this fails WP:NCORP and that it should be salted so as to not be recreated again. Although the user who recreated it is probably good intentioned, the third time isn't going to be the charm in this case. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:00, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and salt - Regretfully. Unfortunately, however, nothing appears to have changed from the previous AfD. Foxnpichu (talk) 10:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Promotional content. ChunnuBhai (talk) 10:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's a SNOW closure at this point. Foxnpichu (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable, fails WP:NCORP Devokewater (talk) 14:19, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 George Denton (naturalist). (non-admin closure) Pamzeis (talk) 01:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

George Denton Park[edit]

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

As proposed on this page, I've split off the part of the article that was the bio for the person who this park is named after. As I thought, once you do the split, there's not much left of the park itself. Having now had a look to check notability, I must say that there is rather little. WP:GEOLAND states that there is no such thing as inherent notability for parks. I sense this one won't make it. Schwede 66 20:24, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A long-term long-time Wellington City councillor was involved (before I came along) and so was the city historian. For me she asked the historian for precise land location info etc (it may in fact be part of Zealandia and the "park" is a consolation prize) and then there was Covid. I'll go back to the councillor now by email. If the decision is to delete this then the new info can go to Wellington's green belt article. They can name even their highest mountain and a strait after you (Cook) but never fear, they'll find a reason some day to change the name. Mutability, good name for a bit of verse. Eddaido (talk) 01:52, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion. Non-notable park. MurielMary (talk) 11:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:32, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to George Denton (naturalist), these sorts of legacies are relevant to bio pages. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to either Wellington Town Belt or George Denton (naturalist), per Coolabahapple. There are no good sources and it's now part of a larger park. Bearian (talk) 15:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to George Denton (naturalist), no need to split off. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:41, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is some small amount of coverage, but there's nothing to indicate that it is anything more than local at best bar the odd other mention Fenix down (talk) 22:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bristol and Avon Association Football League[edit]

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

Defunct very low-level amateur English football league (article says it was the 20th level of the English football league system, which is debatable as the system is not officially defined that far down but nonetheless it was certainly very very low). This would have been a league contested primarily on public park pitches and the only coverage it would have received would have been cursory mentions on the inside pages of the local paper alongside the senior citizens' crown green bowls league. Article was nominated once before and kept, but the reasons offered seem very weak to me...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:12, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - after you remove the primary sources, all that seems to exist are these [2] [3] [4] none of which amounts to WP:SIGCOV. Delete per nom Spiderone 20:46, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, non-notable lowly league. Giant Snowman 11:20, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Local interest only. Nigej (talk) 19:59, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment why do you User:Spiderone ignore the Bristol Evening Post reference that was discussed during the last AFD? That seems in-depth, in a significant publication. And why also other media coverage of teams from this league over the decades, from a quick before check - even international mentions like the The Progress-Index here. I haven't had a chance to look deeply; User:Number_57, you were involved in the previous AFD. What are your thoughts now that this league seems to be defunct. Nfitz (talk) 07:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That was the third source listed in my comment. It's fairly in-depth and, if there were a couple more sources of that sort of calibre around, I'd happily change to a keep vote. Spiderone 11:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this article is really in-depth. It basically says that a local amateur sports league held its AGM and agreed its line-up for the next season - IMO it's a bit charitable to describe that as in-depth. My local paper gives similar coverage to the AGMs of the local Women's Institute and similar groups....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ifeanyi Fitex[edit]

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

Possible UPE article on a politician who doesn’t satisfy WP:NPOL & generally lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence doesn’t satisfy WP:GNG. He also is a businessman but doesn’t satisfy WP:ANYBIO. Celestina007 (talk) 19:43, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:43, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:43, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:43, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:43, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:43, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:43, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment I'm unfamiliar with Nigeria topics and I don't know if he's notable, but I caught fake referencing where the provided reference had nothing to do with what it was trying to support. WP:BLP requires proper sourcing with foot notes for claims about living people; as such I removed unsourced stuff from it. Graywalls (talk) 22:01, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls, thanks for that, it’s a tactic used to create a facade to make the subject look as though they were notable. Celestina007 (talk) 22:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article calls him a politician, but then fails to state what political roles he may have actually held — and even the sources just label him as a candidate for political office, not a person who has actually held one. But candidates don't get articles just for being candidates, the article says nothing about him that can even be measured against any other inclusion test to see if he has any other legitimate notability claims at all, and the sourcing is nowhere near adequate to claim that he would pass GNG regardless of whether he actually had a meaningful notability claim or not. Bearcat (talk) 17:35, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can find no indication this person has held any sort of significant political office. The most significant coverage in the references provided is a report about somebody damaging his fence and nothing to do with politics. -- Whpq (talk) 04:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not representing any elected office to pass WP:NPOL. - The9Man ^(Talk) 07:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cabayi (talk) 10:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Kinetic (comics)[edit]

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

entirely in universe, written by (declared) page editor. DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:33, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:33, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While the poor writing is certainly a problem, I'm not seeing a criteria for deletion cited here. Did the article fail a source check (WP:Notability)? Is the implication that the subject of the article is a fan theory or hoax? Dark knight 2149 02:08, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Failure of GNG. Fancruft article that seems to have not been written with any kind of Wikipedia policy in mind or intent to add reliable sources._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:FANCRUFT that fails WP:NFICTION _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:27, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Until solid ground for deletion is established, in which case I am willing to retract this vote. "It's just fancruft", "It's just not notable", It's poorly written", and "No one is working on it" aren't strong points. Dark knight 2149 07:09, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Topic lacks coverage in reliable sources needed to meet WP:GNG. The current sources are all primary, so it fails WP:NOTPLOT. TTN (talk) 17:10, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SKCRIT "The nominator...fails to advance any argument for deletion or redirection" (non-admin closure) Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 07:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ri (administrative division)[edit]

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

Unimproved and unreferenced article from more than 10 years, is a stub and needs expansion with text translated from the corresponding article in Korean Wikipedia. Rodney Araujo Tell me - My contributions 18:51, 13 October 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 October 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:34, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These are reasons for improvement, not deletion. Mccapra (talk) 21:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep WP:SKCRIT 1 (fails to advance any argument for deletion or redirection). AfD is not cleanup. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. Withdraw by nominator, transfer discussion to merger proposal. (non-admin closure) ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 19:33, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IPhone 12 mini[edit]

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

Following the format of articles on variants of previous iPhone models, this article should be merged into iPhone 12. It's essentially the same exact phone, but smaller. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 18:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 18:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I support merging the articles. It contains practically the same hardware and has the same features, but at a different size. This follows the precedent set on the iPhone 6, 6s, 7, and 8, off the top of my head. It's not different enough to have its own article, in my opinion. Herbfur (talk) 18:56, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support per the format with the Pro's/Pro Max'es. I think the page is actually young enough you can get away with redirecting everything to iPhone 12 without anyone noticing. Admanny (talk) 18:58, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support for consistency. --17jiangz1 (talk) 19:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support given that this article departs from the commonly accepted practice of including variations of a particular generation of smartphone in a single article on that generation of smartphone. Jhw57 (talk) 19:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If the nominator thinks that the article should be merged, not deleted, the nominator should go through the process of article merger, not article deletion. --Neo-Jay (talk) 19:19, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. This would be best handled as an article merger, not a deletion. Herbfur (talk) 19:23, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Nominator has begun merge proceedings instead. Time to close this discussion? Herbfur (talk) 19:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lasri condensation[edit]

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

User: Michael D. Turnbull PRODded as "Article is merely a special case of the standard way to make pyrazole — see that article's first reaction diagram" and with a pointer to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry#Lasri condensation. But it had already been the PROD/dePROD process a few years ago, so here we are at AFD. DMacks (talk) 18:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. DMacks (talk) 18:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If it makes sense to have the high-resolution mechanism diagram at Pyrazole#3,5-Diphenyl-1H-pyrazole, then that might be added there. But in any case this article should be deleted because there seems to be no indication that this is actually an in-use name for this process, apart from the man himself claiming so. We don't want redirects for promotional neologisms. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ to Pyrazole, appropriate subsection — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 19:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without redirect Changing my vote per the comments from Hbf878 and DMacks, and subsequent research. — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 12:00, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: User:Ad Meliora seems to have zero record of contributing to chemistry topics in Wikipedia.--Smokefoot (talk) 22:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without redirect as the term Lasri condensation is not established outside Wikipedia, see also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemistry#Lasri_condensation. Embed reaction scheme into Pyrazole. --Hbf878 (talk) 22:01, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without redirect as a baseless neologism. No secondary sources seem to use this term, but only Lasri and their affiliates. No secondary sources seem to demonstrate that this is a distinct and notable topic at all (few citations for the lead ref). Instead, others have noted that this is (at best) a slight variant of a well-established other topic. So it could be a nice additional or different example in that article's scope. This !vote is wearing my chemistry-editor's hat; nom was purely administrative. DMacks (talk) 22:23, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR and WP:TOOSOON. Bearian (talk) 15:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Chemical Abstracts has no entry for Lasri condensation. The article lacks secondary references and even the primary ones are weak. The article is not written well and the artwork is primitive. There is just not much quality or notability here.--Smokefoot (talk) 22:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to delete. After somewhat extended time for discussion, there is clearly more numerical support for keeping rather than deleting (9 to 5, counting the nominator), but this support primarily seems to reference the volume of sources added as a case for meeting WP:GNG, without identifying any number of sources providing substantial coverage of the subject. An argument is made that quantity is sufficient even in the absence of quality, but acknowledges that quality is better. There is, therefore, an absence of clear consensus that this article meets all criteria for inclusion, and the discussion is closed as no consensus. BD2412 T 18:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Calvert (actress)[edit]

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

Last time this was discussed there was no consensus due to pornbio which the community has now depreceated. The sourcing is still primary and the article has not improved since the last discussion. Fails GNG, ENT and, as. a BLP deserves better Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:51, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 17:58, 13 October 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Keep - She's written about in The Guardian[5], The Telegraph[6], Vice[7], Buzzfeed News[8]. She passes the GNG. Rolling Stone calls her one of the industry's top names which is evidence of WP:ENT.[9] Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Morbidthoughts Consider adding the Vice and Rolling Stone citations to the article. — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 13:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Morbidthoughts and Ad Meliora: This is now

Done. Please compare before to after the research project with material from additional sources. Thank you for your research and helpful suggestions. Right cite (talk) 18:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've done a great job, Right cite Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Morbidthoughts:, thank you, that means a lot! Right cite (talk) 22:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per the sources provided by Morbidthoughts. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:42, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the depreciated WP:PORNBIO guideline. The sources put forth here in the AfD are not great and the Rolling Stone source is definitely trivial. Lightburst (talk) 01:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Actors and media personalities can be considered WP:N based on more relaxed guidelines than GNG. An exclusive interview in WP:RS is analogous to a profile in RS. — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 21:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Revisiting the sources, I'd have to agree with Morbidthoughts that she passes WP:GNG. Four WP:RS have been cited, and at least three of those are very solid and substantial.— Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 12:11, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete WP:GNG isn't trumped by more specific guidelines; the latter exist as rules-of-thumb, but when push comes to shove a subsidiary guideline that includes material GNG would exclude is necessarily suspect. In any case the implication here is that the subject is not significantly notable. Mangoe (talk) 00:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:GNG and I don't think an interview counts as a RS because unless I'm remembering wrong interviews are considered primary sources. Whatever a sub guideline might say. Although, I do think they can better to use then the GNG in some cases, just not this one. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Direct transcripts of interviews are indeed primary sources. However, a reporter interviewing the subject for quotes to develop an article is still secondary coverage. For more information, see WP:INTERVIEW. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:35, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INTERVIEW says "commentary added to interviews by a publication can sometimes count as secondary-source material." Personally, I'm not really generally sure what the "sometimes" refers to or where the line is. Except for feeling like the source in question isn't a RS. WP:INTERVIEW is an essay though, and therefore has no bearing in AfDs. I do know WP:OR has a mention of interviews being primary sources in the notes section, but it's not in the body of the guideline and doesn't say if it's only applicable to transcripts of interviews. That said, I would think straight transcripts of interviews are extremely rare. At least in print news sources. So, I find it hard to believe that would be standard. Also, from what I've seen in AfDs it's definitely the consensus that interviews are not RSs and no one every makes the distinction between direct transcripts and interviews that aren't. So, I'd like to see somewhere the difference is talked about or something. Maybe someone can enlighten me to what the "sometimes" in WP:INTERVIEW is referring to also. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The principle of WP:OR applies to factual information, not notability. The fact that someone has an interview published in a major WP:RS makes them notable. But should we take every piece of information provided in the interview as fact? Of course not! — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 13:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know. I mostly mentioned it in relation to trying to find something about interviews in an actual guideline instead of essay, and that's all I was able to find. I'm not saying it's uber related to this though. Really, I'm just surprised interviews are really only talked about in an essay. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the substantive, independent reliable sourcing is not there to show that this pornographic performer is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, additional sources include: Pornography Feminism: As Powerful as She Wants to Be (2015); Coming Out Like a Porn Star: Essays on Pornography, Protection, and Privacy (2015); and William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice -- as well as The Guardian[10], The Telegraph[11], Vice[12], Buzzfeed News[13], as already noted by Morbidthoughts, above. Right cite (talk) 13:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Right cite (talk) 18:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I recently did a research initiative at this article topic, taking it from before to after the research project with material from additional sources. I added in info that was previously not there, about her work as a film director. Casey Calvert is extensively discussed at length in the book, Coming Out Like a Porn Star: Essays on Pornography, Protection, and Privacy (2015). Right cite (talk) 18:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this this has been listed at ARS. I have already made a private bet t o myself ho w many keep votes that generates. I'll let you know after this closes how acc urate my guess was. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:30, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Casting general aspersions is not a collegial way of building an encyclopedia. ARS is not a magic wand, if a subject can be shown to be notable by improving it with regular editing and identifying sources then we all win. If the subject is still lacking notability then it will be removed. Glee^anon 15:56, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What was an aspersion (or aspersions) about that? The fact is notifying ARS about an AfD increases keep votes. Otherwise, there would be no reason anyone from ARS would alert each other. BTW, find it kind of odd how sensitive you ARS people are. Especially considering how many times you all make things personal. I never see you calling each other out for it either, but then rather benign comments like Spartaz always seems to trigger the castigating from you guys and the fake virtue signaling about how much you all care about civility (like Rite Cite's comment on you talk page), when most of you are extremely far from civil about things. FYI, I'm not perfect myself either, but then I'm not leaving messages on people's talk pages fawning over them "putting other people in their place" either or pretending that I'm (or the group I'm a member of is) gods gift to Wikipedia either. I look forward to you and Rite Cite telling ARS people to tone it down the next time one of them gets condecending in an AfD. I'm sure there have been a few over the last few weeks where neither of you said anything when it happened. Even though you supposedly so concerned about it. Adamant1 (talk) 18:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I highly doubt Rite Side would be this proficent and calculated at editing articles and doing other things if he was just a few week old editor, who's only seriously edited like 4 articles. It's something to think about. Adamant1 (talk) 18:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your not assuming good faith is noted. Glee^anon 18:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Citing a lack of AGF is a common, extremely trite way to handwave away legitimate comments and concerns. Its also worthless outside of using it for trite handwaving because it takes a lack of good faith to say someone else isn't assuming any. Personally, I'm not such a big fan of such passive agressive, mealy mouthed ways of responding to people. Adamant1 (talk) 18:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Glee^anon 19:43, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Please note that per the instructions given at Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list, I have notified this discussion page itself about a listing to Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron, asking for help with research. (notice given, above). Thank you, Right cite (talk) 20:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the sources provided by MorbidThoughts and Right Cite. Certainly meets GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 16:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the excellent expansion work done post-nom. The article clearly meets WP:GNG now. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Right cite (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Right cite (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Right cite (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Right cite (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Extensively referenced, clearly meets WP:GNG. -- The Anome (talk) 14:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly meets GNG even if more cleanup is needed. Glee^anon 15:56, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG in that she receives significant coverage in reliable and verifiable secondary sources and those sources are listed. Quantity does not matter as much as quality but when quality is put with quantity it is a win for the encyclopedia. What constitutes a reliable secondary source can differ when going from one industry to another or even one culture to another. Nothing else matters to me but GNG in this case. I look at essays and guidelines if a subject is on the fence in regards to GNG and it needs help pushing it one way or the other. For the record, I am not a member of ARS but I commend any project that seeks to increase the number of included/improved articles while helping to maintain the integrity of the encyclopedia. I also feel the attacks on them above are seriously uncalled for and "AGF" is a cornerstone of Wikipedia, not just for new editors but all editors. I think we all could learn to be a little more civil in our tone and the words we use, myself included. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 12:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tsistunagiska:, thank you very very much. Your well thought out and reasoned comments are most appreciated. Especially your comments about how we should all try to improve our tone, civility, and good faith expressed towards one another on the encyclopedia and within the community towards each other. Thank you, Tsistunagiska, thank you! Right cite (talk) 13:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both of your off topic, unasked for, and frankly wrong opinions about other people's behavior aside, out the 117 refences in the article can either one of you point to three in-depth ones that are not trivial, not primary, or not an interview? Because I can't seem to find any. I just looked through 60 of them and none of them were in-depth or met the GNG. 99% of them were just name drops or briefs mentions of awards she's won. In no way is an article with 117 references where half are name drops an "improvement on anything. Nor is citing four sources (especially those ones) per sentence, just to make an article seem notable an "improvement." In fact, the article is practically un-readable now. So, back up your keep vote and your off topic rambling by pointing to three sources that fit with what I said. If you can't, at least Right cite should be able since he's the one that added them and skip the excuses about my "tone." Frankly, I'm sick of hearing about it. Someone not bending over backwards to stroke your ego like a sycophant isn't an excuse to not answer legitimate, on topic questions anyway. Personally, I've dealt with Rite cite in a few AfDs now and I can 100% guarantee that the complaints about tone are a deflection tactic and that he considers anything that isn't along the lines of "your gods gift to Wikipedia" as a personal insult, or at least pretends that's the case. So, which three sources are in-depth? --Adamant1 (talk) 13:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Criticizing others' opinions as assumptions while oneself in the exact same comment, making assumptions about others' opinions, is, at the very least, contradictory. And behaving exactly how one is asking not to be treated by others. Right cite (talk) 14:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, you can't cite three in-depth sources that are in the article huh? I didn't think so. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tsistunagiska:, I think essentially what you are saying is that we should all try a little bit harder to practice the Golden Rule. Thank you, Right cite (talk) 14:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

–Adamant, you made your point and !voted. Others made theirs and !voted. Continuing to personally attack other editors on this discussion while then criticizing them for responding directly to your attacks is not beneficial to anyone. Let the process work itself out. Everyone can see the article because it's in mainspace. They can also make their own conclusions about the sources provided and any others they may find in doing a search. I debated responding to you because your tone proves to me that you are completely unreasonable at this point but for the sake of the nominating process and the discussion I felt the need to respond and call for civility once more from everyone. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 15:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring the rest of your comment and ignoring the fact that your the one that restarted things by needlessly taking pot shots at people on your vote when there was zero reason to, asking someone who votes keep based on the GNG which sources they feel meet it is pretty standard fare and there's nothing wrong with it. AfDs are discussion, period. The problem with people like you and Rite cite though is that simply asking what sources you based your vote on is "uncivil", "not letting the process play out" (as if that's we do on the first place), etc etc. Whereas, Rite cite can post as many off topic high fivish or whatever messages as he wants and you can restart arguements by making comments in your keep vote that have nothing to do with the article. Yet for some bizzare reason neither of those things dont get in the way of the process etc. etc. A small hint for you, anything not DIRECTLY related to the AfD gets in the way of the proccess playing out. Especially stiring the pot when its already settled. So, save it. Anyway, can you point to three in-depth sources in the article or not? Adamant1 (talk) 16:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, any running "meta" comentary isn't constructive to the AfD. The fact that it's "polite" comentery on Rite Cite part (which is questionable) is completely irrelevant. Any time repeatedly acts in a none constructive way in AfDs like he has we have a right and obligation to tell them stop doing so. Me and other users have said his comments are not constructive. Which is what he considers "insulting." There's nothing civil on his part continue doing things people have asked him not to. Period. Sorry, but I have zero tolerance for it at this point. Adamant1 (talk) 16:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please drop the stick. Glee^anon 16:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't WP:LAWYER or I'll tell my mom on you ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamant1 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was keep. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anvar Boynazarov[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Having fought at Glory Kick boxing championship and claims he has defeated a lot of notable champions, I don’t see any of those claims being supported by reliable sources. We can not just assume notability unless there are multiple, secondary, reliable, independent sources with significant coverage. Most sources in the article are just profiles which may not be independent. To those who may ivote Keep because from the article details the subject meets criteria in WP:KICK, we are supposed to consider WP:GNG first. Megan☺️ ^{Talk to the monster} 09:50, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Megan☺️ ^{Talk to the monster} 09:50, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Megan, it was his last fight! I added a source also.--.karellian-24 (talk) 18:21, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:49, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:49, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm also not seeing significant independent coverage, just routine reporting of results. However, I know how hard it is to find good kickboxing sources here in the U.S. I'm inclined to defer to WP:NKICK Papaursa (talk) 19:21, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Subject is notable, passes both the general and kickboxing notability guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GameRCrom (talk • contribs) 01:37, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GameRCrom, Hello, I know why you think the subject is notable because they fought for the glory title, well yes, but the article is pretty much poorly sourced for a BLP article. Please also take a look at the closing sentence of WP:NKICK, this subject doesn’t meet our notability guidelines. Megan☺️ ^{Talk to the monster} 07:45, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The last sentence of WP:NKICK specifically refers to amateur kickboxers, which Boynazarov is not. It was put in because a number of articles were being written about people who won titles in amateur competitions but nothing else. Papaursa (talk) 02:07, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:SPORTSBASIC since Glory kickboxing is a "major international [...] professional competition". I am also doing a bit of WP:WAXing here (which "may form part of a cogent argument"), because if we evaluate the subject under with well established notability thresholds for other sports, he would easily meet them. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 21:27, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The sources relate directly to the competition and no other type of news, if the subject was notable there would be a general news article about him. There may well be a news article in the subjects own country and language covering his fights. Australianblackbelt (talk) 22:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Supporting notability: Repeated medalist. Australianblackbelt (talk) 22:28, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a credible news site which states: According to him, this show will feature a number of local world renowned fighters - Mahmud Muradov, Hasan Barotov, Furkat Yakubov, Mukhammadali Tashturghunov, Anvar Boynazarov. https://tashkenttimes.uz/sports/1169-jean-claude-van-damme-to-attend-asian-fight-2017-in-tashkent Australianblackbelt (talk) 22:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. As the only contributor to this discussion thread, and given another international topic that I nominated where I was only pulling up a few sources had some reliable media coverage in that country, I am going to withdraw my nomination. Instead, I will leave the {{notability}} tag at the top. If someone in Japan finds this topic to be non-notable, they can nominate this page for deletion again. (non-admin closure) Aasim (talk) 23:34, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Sxplay[edit]

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

Although known for some of her songs in Cytus II, fails WP:NPERSON: Could not find reliable sources on Bing or Google. Aasim (talk) 07:09, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:44, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:44, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am a bit disappointed, even searching her name yields 2 results on Bing and a few trivial mentions on Google. While yes her music is high quality IMHO, it is nothing near notable. There is nothing on Billboard and a trivial entry on Genius. I do not think this qualifies as being a notable person. Aasim (talk) 00:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(The games that she has made music for are for the most part rhythm games with few mentions in mainstream media.) Aasim (talk) 00:29, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:37, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator and given how long this article has existed, I think there is a chance that this article may be notable and that my searches are coming up blank. I think, because this is a Japanese singer, that someone living in Japan do a search to attempt to turn up sources. I could not find anything, though. I used an InPrivate window and used a VPN to tunnel to Japan and still could not find anything. That really casts doubt on the notability question. Aasim (talk) 04:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Pamzeis (talk) 01:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nadine Shah[edit]

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

This article uses social media sites and some other trivial mentions as references. I think these are not WP:RS. This article should be deleted. UserNumber (talk) 16:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. UserNumber (talk) 16:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. UserNumber (talk) 16:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 October 13. UserNumber (talk) 16:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:55, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I strongly disagree with the rationale for deletion here. Her work has been reviewed in-depth by several reliable sources. Here are just some: [14] [15] [16] [17]. 3 of her albums have charted in the UK as well [18]. The article is poor and needs improving but I think deletion is wrong. Spiderone 08:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - she was also nominated for the Mercury Prize not long ago. Other reliable sources covering her in depth The Guardian inews New Statesman Independent Spiderone 09:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Spiderone has clearly shown that Shah meets WP:MUSIC by criteria 2, 8, and 1 (which is just a re-stating of GNG/BASIC). Three of her albums have Wiki pages and are hence likely notable, hence also meeting MUSIC crit. 10. But, a simple google news search will show that she meets WP:GNG/WP:BASIC pretty easily so we don't even really need to consider the fact that she handily meets the appropriate SNGs. Samsmachado (talk) 15:19, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:GNG; examples of significant coverage in independent reliable sources have been listed above by Spiderone. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:09, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Clearly notable given even a cursory Google search. This is a ludicrous nomination. --Michig (talk) 08:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: she's been shortlisted for the Mercury Music Prize and, per Spiderone's comment, her albums have ~~charged~~ charted. Clearly passes WP:NMUSICIAN. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 12:53, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources have been identified in this discussion so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary imv, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:12, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Primefac (talk) 22:39, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jade Marlin[edit]

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

no evidence Marlin has received the required coverage to meet any inclusion criteria. What little there is, is brief, not in depth or a press release. Praxidicae (talk) 16:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:07, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:08, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/WP:USERFY. No evidence of WP:N, no WP:RS cited. For living people, esp. young ones, I feel userification is a better solution than deletion. — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 19:24, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV and WP:TOOSOON. The coverage is very weak and is mostly of the "up and coming" variety. Bearian (talk) 21:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable fashion designer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Higher Secondary School Kandamangalam[edit]

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

Article about a secondary school that does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL / WP:ORGCRIT. No sources in article or found during WP:BEFORE provide direct and indepth WP:SIGCOV. There is basic WP:ROUTINE / normal run of the mill coverage. Article makes no claim towards WP:N // Timothy :: talk 15:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (talk) 16:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (talk) 16:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:27, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per WP:NSCHOOL, schools are not inherently notable and need to pass WP:GNG; this school doesn't pass; needs more than just run of the mill coverage Spiderone 18:07, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CORPDEPTH. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Rothman (musician)[edit]

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

non-notable person. fails NACTOR, appearing on a reality show doesn't even make one an actor but the rest of the stuff he's supposedly notable for...isn't. Sources are black hat/paid for spam or passing mentions. Praxidicae (talk) 15:36, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/WP:USERFY Clearly does not pass WP:N — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 19:06, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT, WP:TOOSOON, and WP:GNG. Fan-written but filled with errors (he's a "Manger"). Up and coming. Bearian (talk) 00:38, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:16, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks the criteria for WP:BLP and WP:NMUSICIAN. Also the references are not WP:RS compliant. Nasty Tunes of Sally (talk) 23:16, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a case of WP:PROMO with promotional sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:09, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:28, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amnon Golan[edit]

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

The article is a puff piece that breached Wikipedia's policies on BLPs. Peacock terms are used often in the language, while being unsourced with little to no third-party information to be found on the person. There are no other mention of this person on the Y&R website, except for his own LinkedIn. Mr Borkman (talk) 15:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (talk) 16:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:28, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Clear WP:PROMO piece. KidAd talk 18:20, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/WP:USERFY as does not pass WP:N. Among cited sources, I see no WP:RS. However, for living persons, especially relatively young ones, I think WP:USERFY is usually better than deletion because they could eventually become notable.— Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 19:08, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - no allegation of notability, nor any sources at all, in violation of WP:BLP. Bearian (talk) 00:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cappadocian Greeks. (non-admin closure) Pamzeis (talk) 01:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agistri (song)[edit]

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

It appears that this was missed being listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gia na xereis alaniari. Fails WP:NSONG for the same reasons. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:47, 6 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)} 14:48, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cappadocian Greeks - since it is pretty much associated with them. Foxnpichu (talk) 10:24, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Vijay Sethupathi. (non-admin closure) Pamzeis (talk) 01:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vijay Sethupathi Productions[edit]

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

Couldn't find any independent reliable sources about this film production company. This is too soon. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). TamilMirchi (talk) 00:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 00:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 00:48, 6 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)} 14:29, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Vijay Sethupathi, there is independent coverage in reliable sources just not enough for a production house. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 16:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Vijay Sethupathi: Per above Ab207 (talk) 05:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Vijay Sethupathi HighKing⁺⁺ 18:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to 34th Battalion Virginia Cavalry. ST47 (talk) 04:02, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent A. Witcher[edit]

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

Meets neither WP:GNG nor WP:NSOLDIER. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:55, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:55, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 14:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 14:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No credible claim of notability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:24, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I made some edits in an attempt to justify it. Not sure it is sufficient, but I found two sources to ground the article, took out the genealogy page as a reference, mentioned his participation in the Battles of Gettysburg and the Piedmont, and his war crimes, and stripping of rank. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Closkeian (talk • contribs) 22:05, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 34th Battalion Virginia Cavalry, where he is discussed. I've actually heard of this guy, but I don't think he's notable. Hog Farm _Bacon 07:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. We base the decision about whether to have standalone articles on our policies and guidelines; the two most prominent at AfD being our Deletion policy and Notability guideline. Those advancing a keep position suggest that because 1989 was an important year in military history, it is encyclopedic to note the state of major militaries, for which they then provide sources to prove Austria was, in that year. However, this position is not supported by explicitly referencing any policies or guidelines. The presentation of sources suggests that some claim to notability under the General Notability Guideline is implicitly being made. However, these sources are challenged by those suggesting a delete outcome and these editors back up those challenges with appropriate policies (e.g. that currently classified information does not meet our Verifiability policy). They further suggest policy and guideline based reasons for why deleting this article is the appropriate outcome. Therefore when appropriately weighing discussion, there is a consensus to delete this article. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:48, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Structure of the Austrian Armed Forces in 1989[edit]

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

Lacks notability. Unsourced (and tagged as such) since its creation 4 years ago. Looking for indepth sources about the actual subject gave no results.

This is a followup after the mass nom Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1989 Portuguese Armed Forces order of battle, comparable to the individual nom Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1989 Swiss Army order of battle (2nd nomination). Fram (talk) 13:34, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:34, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:34, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, directory-like. Geschichte (talk) 14:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. On 1 March 1978 the "Wehrgesetz 1978" became law, which encompassed the "Heeresgliederung 1978" plan to grow the Austrian Armed Forces to 384,000 (84,000 active, 300,000 militia) by the early 1990s to be able to fully employ Austria's de:Raumverteidigung's concept. A total of 30 new Landwehrstammregimenter were to be raised. On 6th October 1987 the Austrian government enacted the "Heeresgliederung 1987", which instructed the armed forces to stop the growth of the militia at 200,000. Afterwards only the militia's infantry grew, making 1988/1989 the timeframe Austria's armed forces reached their maximum strength. On 29 May 1990 the "Wehrgesetz 1978" was cancelled and the army began to shrink, which accelerated with the Gesamte Rechtsvorschrift für Wehrgesetz 1990, Fassung vom 31.12.1992. The Austrian Armed Forces and their news magazine keep publishing a relentless stream about aspects of Heeresgliederung 1978, Heeresgliederung 1987 and Raumverteidigung ([19], [20], [21], [22], etc.), there is a bunch of doctoral theses about these topics (i.e). This is a malintent and spurious nomination and should e snowball closed. noclador (talk) 15:29, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep it civil. As to the merits; primary sources (like those from the Austrian army or government) carry no weight in determining notability. Doctoral theses usually aren't considered either, as they aren't published (or, if you prefer, self-published). What you do is argue why an article on the Austrian army and the impact the cold war and the end of the cold war had on it may be a good subject for an article: what you don't do is argue why a list of the structure in 1989 is a good subject. The article which is up for deletion provides zero information on the topics you are touching in your "keep". Fram (talk) 16:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We can add the information above to the article, if you withdraw your deletion request. As for reputable source: The book about 50 years of Austria's Armed Forces published by the Landesverteidigungsakademie (Defense University, ISBN 3-902455-03-9) from page 671 to 697 looks at the "Strukturentwicklung des Bundesheeres von der „Wende“ 1989/90 bis zum Jahr 2003", choosing 1989/90 as one of the key years for the structural development of the Austrian Armed Forces. (Other years relevant 1962/63 Bundesheerreform, 1978 Raumverteidigung, 2003/04 Heeresreform). noclador (talk) 09:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "Landesverteidigungsakademie" is the military academy, an organisation of the Austrian Army. So by definition not an independent source at all. Fram (talk) 10:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Noclador. As noted, 1989 is a pivotal year with the end of the Cold War. OrBats have long been regarded as category of list, and a particularly useful one at that. WP:N: One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Sadly, what is missing are these "independent reliable sources", which makes your "keep" rather meaningless. If you have good independent sources about the 1989 Austrian order of battle "group", now is the time to provide them. Fram (talk) 06:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wrong. Independent sources establish the notability of the subject. In this case, the Austrian Army. Articles are sourced from reliable sources, which have been provided above. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Um, no one is disputing that the Austrian Army is a notable subject, so no idea what you are trying to say here. And no, no independent reliable sources have been provided. Fram (talk) 10:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - The Defense Intelligence Agency throughout the late 1970s and 1980s issued the Military Intelligence Summary in eight volumes covering the entire world. Only a few are publicly available; Africa 1989 They continued issuing Volume II regarding Western Europe through the late 1980s - see [23] Note that they do not actually have to have been declassified yet to meet WP:NEXIST; their existence is sufficient. These are independent of Austria; as reliable as anything can be on such issues ; and supported by other continuing interest picked up as early as "The Armies of Europe Today," Otto Von Pivka, 1973; as well as Thomas & Volstad, "NATO Armies Today," 1987; Isby and Kamps, "Armies of NATO's Central Front," 1985, and Austria's entries in John Keegan, "World Armies," MacMillan, 1979 (first edition); 1983 (second edition); and Chris Westhorp (ed.), "The World's Armies," Military Press, 1991. These continuing investigations of the subject as a "group or set by independent reliable sources" meet WP:NOTESAL. The article should be Kept. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - On a more general note, the continuing interest in Western European armed forces at this level of detail, for this specific time period, thirty years later, can be clearly seen in the original German at Literature, covering Germany, U.S. forces in Europe, the UK, Netherlands, Belgium, France, Canada (all 1989), and for the Warsaw Pact, East Germany (1989), and the Group of Soviet Forces in Germany, 1988; translated English at [24]. Again, these continuing investigations of the subject as a "group or set by independent reliable sources" meet WP:NOTESAL. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:38, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        "Note that they do not actually have to have been declassified yet to meet WP:NEXIST; their existence is sufficient. " Uh, no. For WP:V, they have to be verifiable, which a classified source isn't. An internal military source isn't even really published, just like company documents for internal use only aren't published. Using this as if they count towards notability is wrong on so many levels. None of your other sources is about the 1989 structure of the Austrian Army either. For WP:NOTESAL, you have to demonstrate that the subject of this list is notable, not that somewhat similar subjects are notable. Having a 1973 book about anything doesn't make a list about 1989 notable. Having some "relikte" website[25] which doesn't deal with Austria doesn't make a list about the army in Austria in 1989 notable. Do you have any sources which are verifiable, published, and about the actual subject of this list? Fram (talk) 08:57, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        
        WP:NEXIST, which you use to claim that classified information is somehow acceptable as a published source, contradicts your claim: "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources", where the link of existence leads to WP:PUBLISH, which clearly states "It is necessary for the information to be made available to the public in general, not just to individual editors or selected groups of people. To be considered published, the book must be distributed to the public in general, not to individuals." Classified military information is clearly not "published" under this definition. Fram (talk) 09:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Finally, your other sources, ""NATO Armies Today," 1987; Isby and Kamps, "Armies of NATO's Central Front," 1985." aren't only pre-1989 (and thus can hardly discuss 1989 specifically), but they are about the NATO, while Austria isn't and has never been a member state of the NATO. So these sources are completely irrelevant for this article and AfD. Fram (talk) 09:08, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        What you and I are disagreeing about is the definition of a group or set. You believe the problems you have identified above invalidate the entire subject. I am advancing these references to indicate there is continuing interest in the entire widescale subject (whether or not a particular country has been written up in detail specifically, or, the specific listings only remain in the defence ministry documents). There is continuing interest, as the references prove, throughout the 1980s; this satisfies the requirements of WP:NOTESAL. However, in its current state, the article is entirely unreferenced, and of course it should be expanded with a proper introduction, extensive annotations, and fully referenced. But AfD is not cleanup. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        (ec)Please reread NOTESAL. What it says is that the group, in this case the "structure of the Austrian Armed Forces in 1989", needs to be notable, not that every individual entry in the list needs to be notable. What you read into it is that if the subject "structure of some army in some year" is notable, then the structure of every army in every year is notable. NOTESAL is not about the notability of a larger or different subject than what the list is about, the actual list subject in itself still has to be notable, but not every item in it. That the group "NATO countries" has been discussed in the 1980s doesn't meet non-NATO member Austria in 1989 notable, and that is not what NOTESAL claims. The "group" as discussed in NOTESAL is the Austrian Army in 1989, nothing else. Fram (talk) 09:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        
        "AfD is not cleanup", but you nor anyone else has provided a single independent source which can be used to actually reference anything in the article. Your sources are not about the subject (and/or not even published), and Nocladors sources are not independent. Fram (talk) 09:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        If we had not had an edit conflict, you would have seen sooner that I was in the process of finding the sources; for example, at the formation level at Panzergrenadierbrigade 9; and BMLVS/Kommando 4. Panzergrenadierbrigade: 50 Jahre 4. Panzergrenadierbrigade - Festschrift. Hrsg.: BMLVS. HDruck BMLVS, Hörsching 1. Dezember 2013. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Again these aren't independent sources by any definition of the word (never mind that the first one doesn't seem to have anything specific about 1989 either), and the second one seems to be extremely obscure or hard to find, so I couldn't really judge it even if it were independent. Fram (talk) 10:04, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first one is the brigade association ("Traditionsversband"), like the Air Force Association; you will note the .at web address, the assertion of commercial copyright, and the photo of their annual presentation of financial statements at [26]. But yes the second one, you can see it in the publisher, was partially BMLVS and partially the Command/Headquarters 4 PzGr Brigade. But this was two minutes work, really; there will be more. I am proving the general point; if the original writer Noclador wishes to properly reference and provide text to this article, it will be his job to do so. If it remains in its present state it might have been satisfactory in 2005, but not any more. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:27, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what general point you are proving, actually, except that there still are no independent reliable sources about the subject. I'ld rather see you take your time and provide these sources, than rush to present more and more unacceptable sources (for the sake of notability of the subject of this article, some of these sources can be used to verify stuff or to provide more general background). Fram (talk) 10:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What I am saying is the Traditionsverband of the 4th Brigade is an independent association, an independent source, like the trade union type thing that the Air Force Association is - otherwise it would not be having a annual accounts meeting!! - it would be funded by the government!!, and so is the source from the newssite noen.at I have just added regarding the 3rd Brigade 60 Years of the 3rd Brigade. I have also just added a very detailed link regarding the structure of the Austrian Army; battalion types, in the German peace and security journal Sicherheit und Frieden in 1986, which was unchanged in 1989. We can source and verify the structure did not change (it was in Noclador's opening discussion of sources, which is now in the article under 'Bibliographic notes'). Once I work through the translations, the opening paragraph on unit types should be referenced. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:00, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reason we are not expanding the article now, is that you made it very clear that no matter what sources we will add, you will never accept any of them. You reject all military or military affiliated sources, which makes it impossible to work on any military article. For every military article the best and most detailed sources are military history offices, military museums, military associations, military websites, etc. Most of i.e. the Italian side of the the Western Desert Campaign is referenced through publications of the Italian Army's History Office. The entire current US Army organization is sourced back to the US Army's website. Same goes for other armies, air forces, navies, coast guards, even police forces. As long as you insist to only use non-military sources we're at an impasse as i.e. sources from the time don't go into detail as that information was classified, and today's non-military sources (like newspapers) give only a rough overview as they are meant for the general public. The details we can get from books and publications by military or military affiliated organizations go into excellent detail. I.e. the Austrian Heeresgeschichtliches Museum in Vienna has a permanent exhibition about the Cold War and that includes a full organization listing. The Truppendienst magazine has run extensive articles on the Raumverteidigung concept and the associated organization (https://www.truppendienst.com/fileadmin/_processed_/b/9/csm_online_zonen_1979_archiv_lampersberger_f7a4429a2a.jpg including maps]). If you insist that we must bring only non-military affiliated sources as references for military articles, you prevent us from doing any work. If you would impose your personal view onto the Military History Project, the the project could not create a single detailed article. No military article would have details that go beyond what an average newspaper writes; but as in encyclopedia we should strive to provide as much information as possible. In short: your intransigence is preventing an improvement of the article. noclador (talk) 13:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are countless military articles which are based on non-primary, independent sources. This is because there are loads of reliable, independent books, magazines, ... about nearly every aspect of the military. Weapons, transport, battles, wars, ... get an unending stream of documentaries, books, etcetera about them. Perhaps dial back the hyperbole a bit instead of claiming that insisting on independent reliable sources (you know, the kind of sources we insist upon for every other article) somehow would make it "impossible to work on any military article". Fram (talk) 13:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"countless military articles", great! Show us. Be constructive and find articles about Austria's armed forces. If it's so easy as you say then I am sure you can spend a few minutes to list them for us Military History editors to work into the articles. While you're at it and since it's so easy, please also find articles about the current Hellenic Army organizations. And Turkish Army please too; but no-no to any military affiliated sites. Go, I am eager to include the sources you bring into the articles. noclador (talk) 13:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your non sequiturs are rather tiresome. Fram (talk) 14:16, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep it civil. noclador (talk) 14:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no references provided so fails SIGCOV in multiple RS necessary to satisfy WP:GNG. I am not convinced that an order of battle serves any purposes without a battle and don't accept that 1989 is in any way significant, even as the end of the Cold War which Austria, as an ostensibly neutral and largely demilitarized country, was not part of. 1989 is no more significant than 1956 (Hungary), 1961 (Berlin), 1968 (Czechoslovakia) or 1981-4 (Pershing II). We don't need ORBATs of every European country at different points throughout the Cold War, they tell us nothing.Mztourist (talk) 04:02, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"largely demilitarized country"?? Read my comment above. Austria's armed forces reached its peak in numbers and equipment between 1988/89. And at 284,000 men out of a population of 7.8 million was one of the most militarized nations in the world. noclador (talk) 08:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The terms of the Austrian State Treaty restricted the size and equipment of the Austrian armed forces, they didn't even have an effective jet fighters until 1988 or air to air missiles until 1993. While they may have had a sizable militia I don't think that makes them "one of the most militarized nations in the world". Mztourist (talk) 10:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

West Germany 2,100 troops/100k population under full mobilization, Italy 1,900 troops/100k population under full mobilization, Austria 3,640 troops/100k population under full mobilization, and that is at the reduced number of 200,000 militia. Your initial assertion of a "largely demilitarized country" was way of the mark. Also your comment on the dates "1956 (Hungary), 1961 (Berlin), 1968 (Czechoslovakia) or 1981-4 (Pershing II)" is choosing randomly events that were part of the larger Cold War. So, yes, 1956, 1961, 1968 are irrelevant, as those where events within the larger, global, epoch-defining Cold War, and that war ended in 1989/1990. noclador (talk) 12:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Troops/population - so what? The dates I gave are not random, but rather were the hottest points in the Cold War when conflict was most likely in Europe, but we don't have Orbats for those years and we don't need Orbats for 1989/90 just because the Cold War ended then. If you want to make a point that in 1989/90 Austria had X divisions and Y thousand troops, then go ahead and add that detail on the Austrian Armed Forces page, we don't need an Orbat for that, just some RS, which this page doesn't have.Mztourist (talk) 12:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have Orbats for the years you mentioned, as it takes years to design, build, organize an army, navy, etc. We need an OrBat for 1989 as in that year the Cold War ended, which was a war of deterrence, deterrence by having massive standing armies on both sides. After 1989 these armies disappeared as part of the peace dividend. The organization of these armies is a relevant topic, that needs to be covered in wikipedia to understand the Cold War and how it was "fought". Adding troop numbers, as you suggest, just scratches the surface without giving the context to understand this war.
When the Italian Military History Commission consisting of University of Milan, University of Bologna and Armed Forces History Office professors and officers published its history of "The Armed Forces and the Italian Nation" in 2005, they divided the project into three volumes 1861-1914 (founding to WWI), 1915-1943 (entry into WWI to disbanding of the armed forces in September 1943), 1944-1989 (refounding and to the end of the Cold War). As you can see, your personal opinion that 1989 wasn't an important year isn't shared by historians. noclador (talk) 12:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We do not need Orbats to understand the end of the Cold War, they tell us nothing useful and certainly don't provide any context as you suggest. I really don't care what the Italian Military History Commission thinks unless they published an Orbat of the Austrian Army in 1989, which would at least give us an independent RS for this page.Mztourist (talk) 13:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not say "We do not need Orbats" if actually you mean to say "I don't need Orbats". For readers interested in the military history of their country military organizations are a valuable resource. For readers interested to understand the Cold War beyond the headlines, military organizations are a valuable resource. Wikipedia Military History Project editors work on them, because through them we can flesh out the military history of countries and provide a deeper understanding of the military thinking of the time. Your personal taste should not block other editors from expanding these informative articles. If we followed your suggestion then we would also not need Football World Cup game results, as it's only important to know, who won the final. The Cold War was a war of deterrence. The deterrence was large standing armies. Therefore the size, organization, and disposition of these large standing armies is valuable information that should be on wikipedia. As for your comment about the Italian Military History Commission: I showed you that 1989 is seen by historians as an era defining year, and you dismissed it with "I really don't care". Rude and bad faith answer. If you cannot accept facts that run counter to your initial argument "1989 is no more significant" than please refrain from being dismissive to other editors, who provide sources showing that 1989 was indeed a relevant year. noclador (talk) 15:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not say we need Orbats if you really mean to say WP:ILIKEIT. I have already explained that 1989 was no more important than any of several other key years in the Cold War and that the Orbat doesn't provide any greater understanding of the Cold War than just saying how many divisions, tanks, howitzers, soldiers etc. an army had. Its pure WP:CRUFT. Mztourist (talk) 05:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When did the Berlin Wall fall? When did communism fall in Hungary? When did Havel become president of Czechoslovakia? When was the Romanian revolution? When was the Iron Curtain opened? When did Mazowiecki become Prime Minister of Poland? When was democracy restored in Hungary? When did the Bulgarian Central Committee return its power to parliament? Give me date. Then tell me about the East-West confrontation in Germany, the Fulda Gap, REFORGER, BAOR, 2ATAF, 4ATAF and V and VII Corps without checking up any of the military organization titles. noclador (talk) 08:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And the Orbat of the Austrian armed forces in 1989 tells us what exactly about any of those events? Pure cruft. Mztourist (talk) 08:33, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the Fulda Gap where nothing happened in 1989, the Fourth Allied Tactical Air Force which did nothing special in 1989 (well, yes, one battalion was disbanded that year), or Exercise Reforger, which didn't happen in 1989? Never mind that none of these have anything at all to do with Austria? Perhaps it is time to stick to the actual topic of this AfD, and not bringing up everything related to the Cold War in general (at best) or posting "comments" which only make your own defense weaker? Having a healthy, vigorous debate on e.g. the sourcing is good and is the core of AfD (at least for those cases where people are in disagreement); posting one unrelated, baseless remark after another is simply disruptive. Fram (talk) 08:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mztourist: "1989 is not important" - I show 1989 is important. Mztourist: "Military organizations are not important" - I show military organizations are important. Mztourist: "1989 is not important" - I show again that 1989 is important. Mztourist: "Military organizations are not important"... ad nauseam. Maybe you bring a source that states 1989 is not an important year? Btw. what does Operation Proud Deep Alpha and Patrol Base Diamond III tell us about the Vietnam War? A minor aerial bombardment and a tiny base that existed for a few weeks. Pure WP:CRUFT. We should delete such articles. They don't do anything to help understand the Vietnam War. noclador (talk) 08:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noclador this is an unsourced page which in my opinion lacks notability. You created it and want to defend it which I understand, but arguing with me and Fram doen't make your keep case any stronger. Nor does your misplaced criticism of Vietnam War pages I have created. You can propose them for AFD (although that would smack of WP:REVENGE and I will take you to ANI on that basis if you do). The differences are that they are referenced and things actually happened and so I have no doubt that notability is established and they would be kept.Mztourist (talk) 09:19, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since you Fram plan to delete every single military organization article related to the Cold War we're arguing here the merit of keeping them all. Re. Fulda Gap - now that you have learned what it is, how did the US plan to defend it? What were the disposition for the defense? Try to explain that without an resorting to military organization information. Same goes for Austria: where did the Warsaw Pact think to advance, what were the Austria defensive dispositions? Try to explain that without an going into detail about the Austrian armed forces organization and Raumverteidigung concept. noclador (talk) 08:59, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please only ping me again if you have any reliable, independent sources about the structure of the Austrian army in 1989. Fram (talk) 09:34, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mztourist In my view the Vietnam War articles you created lack notability, but as I am not editor involved with the Vietnam War I am certainly not going to nominate them for deletion, as I trust your judgement on their value. I am also not going to nominate the articles about obscure artists and scientists Fram created. None of them seem notable, but as I believe wikipedia should include as much knowledge as possible I am not nominating articles for deletion. I will argue for expansion and more details whenever possible. As for the organization of Armed Forces of Europe during the Cold War - just to focus on Austria: the organization of the Austrian Armed Forces during the last decade of the Cold War, reaching is maximum strength in 1988/89 and the unique Raumverteidigung concept - those are already a 100 times more notable than Patrol Base Diamond III, which exist for a month and involved a few 100 troops, while Austria's armed forces Heer 78 organization existed between 1978 and 1990, involved half a million troops over time and shaped the Austrian nation. I do not know where you are from, but I will argue that this topic is highly relevant for Austrians and Austria's history; much more so than a four day limited aerial bombardment as Operation Proud Deep Alpha. If wikipedia is only about the American perspective then we're doing it wrong. The military organizations of European nations during the Cold War happened, they are as real as the articles you created, and they are notable - if not for Americans, then for the people of those nations. Also these articles are or can be sourced to military publications or government publications, however Fram has already repeatedly stated that he will reject all of them. The notability of military organizations is established, the year 1989 as notable is established, the lack of sources can be rectified. But first and foremost Fram's disruptive, ill-informed crusade to delete all military organizational articles needs to be stopped. noclador (talk) 09:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noclador you haven't convinced me to change my vote and haven't presented any policy based arguments for retaining this page. Your comments to me and Fram have long since passed WP:BLUDGEON to become WP:DE. Mztourist (talk) 10:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fram you plan to delete all military organizations at the end of the Cold War and then you don't want to argue the merits of your actions. This is not how this works. You want to destroy content, and you don't want to hear counter arguments. You will be pinged every time there is an argument refuting your points. If you don't wish to hear these arguments, then withdraw your deletion request and desist form disrupting the military history project any further. noclador (talk) 09:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats, you are now the first user ever where I have needed to use the "mute" function. Fram (talk) 10:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

Fram and Mztourist keep talking about "Order or Battle" and "OrBat" when in fact the article is about the structure/organization of the Austrian Armed Forces. One should know the difference between these terms before arguing for deletion of the organization of the Austrian Armed Forces, because one is "not convinced that an order of battle serves any purposes without a battle". noclador (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noclador The first line of the page states "The order of battle of the Austrian Armed Forces..." You wrote that when you created the page in 2016. While Order of battle states: "In modern use, the order of battle of an armed force participating in a military operation or campaign shows the hierarchical organization, command structure, strength, disposition of personnel, and equipment of units and formations of the armed force." One should read before they write. Mztourist (talk) 05:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, what Mztourist said. If we are not fit to argue for deletion of this page because we don't know the difference, then by definition you are not fit to write these pages. In fact, your infraction is then worse, because you are actively pushing this "error" into the encyclopedia, into the mainspace, where unsuspecting readers might be led to believe that the terms are used interchangeably. Fram (talk) 07:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mztourist / Fram Yes I wrote that intro four years ago when I created this article titled "Structure of the". Other editors have since pointed out that the preferred terms are "Organization" or "Structure", which I have been using since. Yesterday I saw my error in the intro and decided not to correct it, as it seemed incorrect to correct it now when criticizing you for using the term. I have learned over time and so should you two too. noclador (talk) 08:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

... which you could easily have said without adding the "One should know the difference between these terms before arguing for deletion " bit of course. It is not only false (the distinction between a structure or an order of battle has nothing to do with the actual deletion nomination), but rather disingenuous when not knowing this didn't stop you from creating the article with the wrong text (and letting it in place for all these years) in the first place. Fram (talk) 08:49, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noclador you now say there is a distinction between Orbat and structure/organization, but at 1. above you say "We need an OrBat for 1989 as in that year the Cold War ended, which was a war of deterrence, deterrence by having massive standing armies on both sides...The organization of these armies is a relevant topic, that needs to be covered in wikipedia to understand the Cold War and how it was "fought"." So which is it? An Orbat or a structure/organization? Fram is absolutely right, you are being disingenuous and are in no position to criticize us. Mztourist (talk) 09:09, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I used the term in response to your use of it, then after two lines switched back to organization. Trying to talk to you in your terms. noclador (talk) 09:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find that credible. I suggest that you WP:DTS and let the deletion process play out. Mztourist (talk) 09:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not. noclador (talk) 09:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article clearly needs sourcing, but the topic is notable, 1989 is an important year in the Cold War and the information is relevant to military history. AfD is not a place for cleanup. // Timothy :: talk 19:02, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It been many years since I made an edited on wikipedia noclador hopefully you remember me I always enjoy reading your articles. What brought me back here was that I began to notice alot these orbat are having there information removed and it led me to here. Now to answer why I support keeping this article I believe it is a good historical piece, it provides a snapshot of what the organization look like back in 1989. You can argue that this article doesn't need to be here as nothing significant happen to Austria in 1989 but it give people like me a good insight to what organization was back then to what it is now. 1989 happen 31 years ago and it is only going to become a more distant past as time rolls on. If we delete this article now all that information would be lost to history, think of the value it would provide to people 100 years from now. They know about this information because we preserved it, that is the gift of Wikipedia. Unless dealing with hard drive space I say keep this article Corpusfury (talk) 12:19, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Corpusfury as you are an inactive user who has not participated in an AFD before please review [[27]] and provide policy based arguments why the page should be kept. regards Mztourist (talk) 14:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated before this article is of historical value but if you want me to state a policy. Then this article fall within the notability guideline meaning "addresses the topic directly and in detail" Corpusfury (talk) 15:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot imagine why a list of the structure of the Austrian army in a particular year would meet WP:GNG no matter how important that year was in terms of history. This article also lacks good secondary sources, of which none seem to exist, if I'm reading the above conversation correctly. So arguing to keep seems... rather odd to me. I would strongly encourage everyone involved to take a step back and evaluate the quality of this article from a neutral standpoint. I have no skin in this game; this isn't a subject that interests me particularly. Just evaluating from a policy standpoint, and I cannot possibly see how this could remain a part of Wikipedia. MrAureliusR_Talk! 16:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 1989 is clearly a notable year in military history and these articles serve a useful and notable purpose. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Necrothesp, as an admin, you probably should know better than using "notable" in such a confusing manner. I have no idea even what a "notable purpose" is supposed to be, WP:ITSUSEFUL is an argument to avoid. In an AfD, as you know, you are supposed to give policy- or guideline-based reasons to keep an article and to argue why the nomination is incorrect. Your keep does neither. The article now has three references, including one from 1986[28] (which can hardly indicate why the 1989 structure of the Austrian Army is a notable subject), one that doesn't even mention 1989[29], and another one that, surprise, doesn't either[30]. The bibliographical notes start with 2 primary sources and ends with another primary source. What is it actually in that article which has convinced you that it is indeed a notable subject (not 1989 in military history, not teh Austrian Army, but the actual topic of the structure of the Austrian Army in 1989)? Because the article makes no case for this, and the utter lack of reliable independent sources about this indicates that the actual outside world doesn't seem to consider this such a notable topic after all. Fram (talk) 12:07, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, the last desperate flounders of someone who really, really wants something to be deleted and knows it probably isn't going to be. "Your opinion isn't valid because..." "You should know better because..." "I know best because..." "I'm going to patronise you by explaining how AfDs work." Sorry, that's my opinion and this is an AfD discussion. It has been pointed out to you several times why 1989 is a significant year in world military history and why military organisation changed after that year, and therefore why military organisation of countries affected by the Cold War was significant in this year. Attempting to pooh-pooh the opinions of anyone who disagrees with you does no favours to your position and no service to Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Allright, so fuck guidelines, I have an opinion? The only reason I patronised you is because you apparently either don't know or don't care about what AfD is actually about, and that isn't "my opinion is that this should be kept because it is useful, and I'll add "notable" twice because that may confuse closers or other voters even though my opinion has nothing at all to do with what notable means on enwiki and in the AfD nomination." Yes, you really should know better. I don't care about "my position" and the favours or disfavours I'm doing it, whatever you mean by that; but upholding standards across enwiki, instead of discarding them for an article you like or a topic you are interested in, is actually a service to Wikipedia, and calling out people who impose their personal preferences over generally accepted guidelines, sourcing rules, and so on, also is a service to Wikipedia.
    - "Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments." So, what is your policy-based argument? Fram (talk) 14:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a smattering of information drawn from primary sources and basically amounts to one big WP:OR violation. No secondary sources have been put forward to demonstrate the notability of this topic. Find me some journal articles or books that talk about Austria's armed forces in 1989 in detail and I'll change my mind. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Can be improved. BlueD954 (talk) 12:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clifton College (Botswana)[edit]

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

This high school does not seem notable as the article lacks multiple in-depth reliable secondary sources about it and I was unable to find any in a WP:BEFORE. Plus, secondary schools are not inherently notable and still have to pass WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Which the article doesn't do. Also, it's written like an advertisement, would probably be less then a stub if it wasn't, and has mainly been edited by a SPA. As an alternative to straight deletion maybe it could be redirected to Independent Schools Association of Southern Africa or some other place per SCHOOLOUTCOMES. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:19, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:28, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:28, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:27, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Finance Companies in Jaipur[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a directory. Also this is not a notable topic for a list, and neither are most articles of the form "Companies of type X operating in place Y"----Pontificalibus 12:48, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. --Pontificalibus 12:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. --Pontificalibus 12:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. --Pontificalibus 12:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. --Pontificalibus 12:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most of the listed companies are not notable and lack reliable independent sources. WWGB (talk) 12:52, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This only exists to be a 100% spam magnet and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Nate • (chatter) 13:52, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I prodded this as failing WP:LISTN, and I believe it still does despite recent changes to the article. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:45, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTDIR. D4iNa4 (talk) 15:55, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 19:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear violation of WP:NOTDIR. Ajf773 (talk) 08:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely right, this violates WP:NOTDIR. Should be deleted. Fedderlloyds (talk) 18:05, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTDIR VViking_TalkEdits 13:32, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTDIR HighKing⁺⁺ 18:58, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Devokewater (talk) 14:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Radio Network Controller#Protocols. (non-admin closure) Pamzeis (talk) 01:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NBAP[edit]

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

This seems to fail WP:GNG and my BEFORE fails to find anything but few passing mentions. A PROD was declined with a suggestion to redirect, but I can't figure out which article would be best. Feel free to suggest a redirect target, but in the current state, this needs to go (or be improved, if anyone can find sources & time to invest in this). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Radio_Network_Controller#Protocols, where it is briefly discussed and showing its place in the context of other cellular telecommunications standards. The source cited in the article is a 3GPP standard first created in 1999 and updated until the present. International standards like this are reliable sources because they have been vetted by many contributors. It is also covered in books, such as in a chapter in a UMTS textbook and a page of description in the book Introduction to 3G Mobile Communications. These two books seem enough coverage to pass notability threshold, so I'd be fine with a 'keep' as well. The current state of the article is somewhat elliptical, so it may be better for our readers to redirect to another article where the protocol is briefly discussed and is placed in context. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 09:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Pamzeis (talk) 01:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Lee Peterson[edit]

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

Recommend deleting this article for not meeting notability guidelines. The vast majority of the sources in this article refer to primary sources such as from the subjects own website, books. Other sources are YouTube videos which are not appropriate sources for bio of a living person. FeWorld (talk) 14:55, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. FeWorld (talk) 15:17, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, while the article could be improved, Peterson is easily notable. See coverage in City Journal or The LA Times for example.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 15:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:07, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 14:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 14:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets WP:GNG since multiple reliable sources discuss Peterson, including the sources mentioned above and others already cited in the article. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Peterson is notable and article meets WP:GNG since it uses multiple reliable sources. --KenzoShibata (talk) 23:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: (NOTE: COI: I work with this subject at his nonprofit org, and have added to this article on my own time and without his input.) I've vastly updated article since Oct 6 listing for consideration for deletion, accurately conveying mainstream media coverage and notable activities from 1990-2020. He's earned the attention of figures across the political spectrum, from Pat Buchanan, Dennis Prager, and Sean Hannity to Michael Eric Dyson, Jesse Jackson, and Rep. Ted Lieu. Subject is also featured in Yahoo News in 2018, and in a recent documentary on the most prominent black conservatives, "Uncle Tom." JamesAntonHake (talk) 04:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I got here by searching for information on someone I saw in a widely distributed video. To me this is tautological proof of notability. 154.5.84.161 (talk) 07:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it really, really isn't. See WP:NBIO. Grayfell (talk) 06:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:46, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Axel Andorff[edit]

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

Puff piece. Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. Non-notable insider. scope_creep^Talk 11:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:54, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:54, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeep Wagoneer (DT)[edit]

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

WP:AUTOCONV#Unannounced vehicles, WP:TOOSOON. Too much speculation at this point. Vossanova ^o< 13:19, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:19, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the Grand Wagoneer article for the time being. Looking at the web in general its looking like an announcement is bound to be made shortly. Nightfury 15:48, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
From what I gather, the Grand Wagoneer will be a more-luxurious and/or extended-length variant of a regular Wagoneer, so in the long term, the article title should not include "Grand". That said, the Grand Wagoneer article is the slightly less bad one, and the title most readers would be looking for at present since that's the one getting all the press. It also appears that the "WS" platform code is the correct one, not "DT" as this article states, so this title shouldn't exist regardless. I'm leaning Delete for this page as a result; when more information is available, the situation can be reassessed. --Sable232 (talk) 02:05, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:37, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although I would say it's a weak delete, there's little to no information worth adding to the redirect if that were to take place, so as of now I support a delete. Delta fiver (talk) (UTC) 14:16, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hanumanthegowda[edit]

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

Couldn't find reliable sources in English and Kannada in WP:Before. There are no reliable sources. TamilMirchi (talk) 18:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 18:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 18:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TamilMirchi:, Wondering all those are not sources?!! NinadMysuru (User talk:NinadMysuru) 7:07, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

There are many articles related to film personalities having only IMDB.com as their source. In this article, there are many sources are added. Kinldy check all those. NinadMysuru (User talk:NinadMysuru) 10:01, 29 September 2020 (UTC

@NinadMysuru: Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Just because one bad page exists on Wikipedia doesn't mean that we should go around creating more bad pages. If the page you're working on needs more sources, add some! If you think that a page should be deleted, nominate it for deletion! Always look towards the betterment of Wikipedia. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:27, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion:? This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-09 ✍️ create

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:29, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think that this should be deleted. This actor is active in films for the past 20 years and a notable one among Kannada audience. 8 sources are added to the article, cant we pick atleast one among them as source?? NinadMysuru (User talk:NinadMysuru) 22:30, 05 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSandDoctor:@TamilMirchi:, Kindly reconsider the article for review again, as I have worked and added a number of reliable sources. Thanks. NinadMysuru (User talk:NinadMysuru) 14:33, 06 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is worth one to be in Wikipedia. The actor is a well known actor in Kannada cinema. After studying the sources in the article, I voice my opinion here that the article is much better than the many existing cine articles on Wikipedia. It's good to keep the article alive and not to delete it. Regards. User: Dgiboti 8:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:36, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep this page. It is not violating any norms of Wiki. The way of writing is very near to neutrality which is very important. It has reliable source too. So, deletion is not correct and would be so discouraging. User:AjaykumarAdhisha, 6:04, 18 October 2020.

Filmibeat. Moviebuff, Maskmanreviews, Nettv4u, Viggy, Nowrunning, and Kannadabignews are all unreliable sources. The other sources in the article are not mainly about him.TamilMirchi (talk) 18:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined for deletion: No major roles, no awards, no significant coverage in reliable sources. see WP:NACTOR . Staszek Lem (talk) 20:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Transwiki. But just a note, Mccapra and/or Foxnpichu, it will have to be done manually, as no one runs the Wiktionary transwiki bot any more. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sabīja[edit]

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

Dictionary definition. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Transwikify to Wiktionary. Mccapra (talk) 17:51, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wikitionary, as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Foxnpichu (talk) 10:56, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Materialscientist (talk) 07:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Amer[edit]

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

Unsourced, and not mentioned in the long-established article for the victorious commander Shah Alam II. Was PRODded, then dePRODded without any explanation (by an editor with 6 edits to their name, created yesterday). It is possible that we already have an article on this major battle under a different title, in which case this needs to be redirected. It is also possible that it never took place. PamD 09:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. PamD 09:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. PamD 09:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. PamD 09:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:HOAX, no RS provided and the enormous casualty figures are not credible. Several of the supposed British commanders weren't even in India in 1761. Mztourist (talk) 10:33, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:HOAX based on assertions in the infobox. "Mughal Empire Make a Independent Kingdom": The Mughal Empire's heyday was in the 17th century, and by 1761, the claimed year of this battle, it had long been in decline. "Maratha Empire Not Attack on Delhi After this Battle": It seems the Maratha Empire retook Delhi in 1771, after 1761. "Ahmad Shah Abdali Successfuly Won Multan": Per Multan, Abdali (a.k.a Ahmad Shah Durrani) took Multan in 1752 and retook it from the Marathas in 1760, not 1761. Besides that, it seems strange that the Amer article would mention nothing in its history section about an eponymous battle. Largoplazo (talk) 10:54, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:HOAX, the dates and people don't align. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to the great Indian historian William Dalrymple, Shah Alam was in fact in this area on 21 June 1761.[31] However, he does not mention a battle, and the Alam's location is a 100 or so miles east of the purported battle location. But the article states it was against the "army" of Alam so it could have been a contingent. It might contain be a kernel of truth, like a small battle that lives large in local legend, but without sourcing impossible to say. -- GreenC 23:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OTOH looking at the infobox it is clearly bogus. But impressive they got the Shah's location for that date so close. -- GreenC 23:42, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Srnec (talk) 16:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The creator has had great fun creating an infobox. His original article text was somewhat fuller than the present stub, but the whole thing lacks any sources; and I strongly suspect a HOAX. If WP:RS are added before closure of this AFD is due, I will hapily reconsider my view. Currently, it looks like WP:OR or invention. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They originally copy-pasted material from Third Battle of Panipat which was a large and important battle in 1761, but in January. Looking increasingly like a hoax, copied content from another famous battle and given a fictitious name and date. -- GreenC 17:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NPOV and WP:RS. --C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 16:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anu Anand[edit]

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

Fails WP:RS. Also, seems to be created by a user who only came here to create this page. Palmsandbeaches (talk) 09:07, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to enough sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:05, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:04, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Been here five years too long. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 04:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as only has a few credits at this stage, does not pass WP:NSINGER imv, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero evidence of notability and not even an assertion of notability Spiderone 17:03, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)} 15:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

B. K. Adarsh[edit]

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

Fails WP:RS & WP:V

Palmsandbeaches (talk) 08:55, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability; as per WP:NOTINHERITED, we also can't assume notability just by relation to Taran Adarsh (who barely scrapes through GNG themselves anyway) Spiderone 17:07, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Pablo Cruise. (non-admin closure) Dps04 (talk) 11:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Day[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND, couldn't find reliable sources that show he has enough notability outside of the band he played in for his own article. Suonii180 (talk) 07:29, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:28, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:28, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pablo Cruise. Doesn't appear notable outside the band, but worth a redirect. --Michig (talk) 19:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pablo Cruise - I agree that he has no notability outside of the band. The fact that he once worked with Carlos Santana may be of historical interest, but that can be mentioned at the band's article, and already is. ☆ DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) ☆ 22:06, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirectto Pablo Cruise as not enough independent coverage, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Pamzeis (talk) 01:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Short[edit]

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

considerable publicity, but no major works, no works in museums, no significant critical studies of his work . Just PR DGG ( talk ) 17:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is true that he seems to fail WP:NARTIST. However he seems to meet GNG, since there is indeed a lot of coverage of his work (in addition to what is in the article). However the article needs a very serious trim.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:14, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep needs cleanup, but passes WP:GNG. Curiocurio (talk) 17:43, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A rare example of a maker whose cultural products sustain the legacy of the Wunderkammern, archives of objects of wonder. While I think of his work more as craft rather than art, historically his work aligns with David Wilson's Museum of Jurassic Technology; Thomas Dent Mutter's Mutter Museum; the historical Ashmolean Museum cabinets of curiousity; the Leverian Collection, and others in this niche arena. He has had sustained coverage; passes WP:GNG. I believe this article is a solid keep, altho he does not fit into the categories by which "artists" works are usually measured (museum collections, permanent public art works, critical/analytical art historical writing, etc.) - he's a rara avis; a horse of a different color; an anomaly. Netherzone (talk) 17:58, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per discussion before the relisting. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:05, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Edit The subject is notable in his field and the article does meet WP:GNG. The existing references from BBC are WP:SIGCOV. It needs further improvement in terms of content and references per WP:CCPOL and WP:MOS. A few notable references that can be added include the following: Quartz,The Indepdendent,Birmingham TV, Digital Journal, Art House Scotland. Unsourced information can be removed and replaced with information from the above references. Nasty Tunes of Sally (talk) 23:35, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per multiple references across multiple events. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:18, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trishana Gurung[edit]

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

Lack of reliable sources. I did't find any media coverage about the article's subject which can establish notability. --Gazal world (talk) 22:48, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:39, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:39, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trishana Gurung is a most famous Singer. Bhupendra Shrestha (talk) 04:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:13, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep - i have added few references to prove her notability.. lot more can be found on web also her name is ‘Trishna Gurung’ not Trishana remove extra ‘a’ from her name — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khagendrawiki (talk • contribs) 16:28, 6 October 2020 (UTC) — Khagendrawiki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. I've searched the artiste's name with both spellings, and there's still no evidence of notability as set out at WP:MUSICBIO. Media coverage seems to be confined to press releases and interviews. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftifying if not possible to keep article can be draftified where i can give my time and re edit this article .This article is made poorly and references are not provided properly . Khagendrawiki (talk) 07:55, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No effective referencing. scope_creep^Talk 11:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Substantial articles in national publications [32] [33]. Some enormous numbers for a musician in such a small country : 6m views for a video [34], 142k likes on Facebook. There appears to be substantial coverage in national Nepali language media but I can't read it so can't be sure. I haven't managed to find Nepali charts or gold record lists in English, but it seems likely with those numbers Gurung would have passed criteria 2 and 3 in WP:Music. [35] and [36] seem to suggest she passes criteria 11. -- haminoon (talk) 06:18, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

and 21m views on this song of her [[37]]— Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.199.205.50 (talk • contribs)

Keep as has significant coverage in reliable sources such as The Khatmundu Post linked in this discussion by Haminoon, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:49, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The sources currently cited in the article demonstrate notability under both the broad principles of WP:GNG and the specific criteria in WP:MUSICBIO. The Khatmundu Post and My City are both clearly reliable sources that are independent of the subject—and there is non-trivial coverage in each.^[1]^[2] By the same token, she satisfies criterion one of MUSICBIO, as she is "the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." In answer to ~dom Kaos~, neither of the aforementioned sources are press releases, and nowhere does it say that interviews are not both "non-trivial" and "independent" (be careful not to confuse publication of an interview in an independent publication with the unrelated warning against "publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves" in MUSICBIO). I'm not convinced this is even an edge case—the article may suck, but the subject is notable. —Kilopylae (talk) 11:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as per keep arguments above, has enough coverage in reliable secondary sources to pass GNG. Just. Spiderone 11:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "A tale of two singers". kathmandupost.com. Retrieved 2020-10-06.
^ Lama, Sonam. "5 things about Trishna Gurung". My City. Retrieved 2020-10-06.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bret Weinstein. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Articles of Unity[edit]

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

Non-notable political stunt is poorly-sourced and fails WP:GNG. Open to a Redirect to Bret Weinstein. KidAd talk 05:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Freedom of speech wiki.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.0.231.121 (talk) 11:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect per nom. ST47 (talk) 18:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or more likely merge into Bret Weinstein. If I were evaluating only on current sourcing in the article, I would say delete. However, I looked very briefly and found a couple possible additions: [38][39]. Perhaps I'd find more if I looked harder, but this seems sufficient to at least create a section in the Bret Weinstein article. Much of this page needs to be cut, however--lots of trivial cruft not mentioned in reliable sources. Jlevi (talk) 19:13, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If this page is going to be deleted then I think it should be transferred to the Bret Weinstein article as a section since it is a notable event in his life and I believe he is planning to keep on working on it in the future. I agree with Jlevi Stagename2020 (talk) 03:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC) — Stagename2020 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mashkiran Jo Goth[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable TV series. Java Hurricane 05:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please dont delete this article help me for improve it Kaleem Bhatti ^Talk 10:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per last afd, 4 months ago. Nightfury 14:55, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per last AfD and Nightfury. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable Devokewater (talk) 14:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:A7, "Article about a real person, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rafi Radityo Daniswara[edit]

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

Non-notable person. JACKINTHEBOX • ^TALK 05:34, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: per A7. No credible claim of importance made. Java Hurricane 05:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete test page or db-bio. Captain Calm (talk) 05:44, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remillard, California[edit]

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

A railroad facility on the Southern Pacific RR, serving the Remillard brick works. Not a community, it was an industrial rail station. No other indications that it meets basic threshold for notability. Glendoremus (talk) 05:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Glendoremus (talk) 05:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Glendoremus (talk) 05:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There's no evidence of notabillity for this entity. Fails WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG Paul H. (talk) 01:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Paul H.: I'm just curious, where did you look for evidence? Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_contribute says "When making your case or responding to others, explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy." I've seen a number of comments from you in AfDs that are all fairly generic and don't indicate where you looked. Mainly I'd like to know where other people have looked for evidence so that I can look in other places. Thanks. Cxbrx (talk) 03:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially, my sources are mainly JSTOR, Goggle Scholar, USGS historic topographic maps, Ebsco History Reference Center, and Proquest- History Vault. Being faculty has its nontransferable advantages. As far as sounding "generic," there are not many different ways a person can say that they looked for and found nothing indicating that an entity meets the basic threshold for notability. To pass WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG, it is up to someone to provide affirmative evidence that an community meets basic threshold for notability, or even exists in some cases, as it is impossible for either Glendoremus, I, or anyone else to prove a negative. If people are unable to find and present any proof that there is anything notiable about either an entity, locale, or community, it by definition fails WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG.

Thanks, it is a big help to me to know where you looked. I know what you mean about nontransferable advantages, I was staff at a university for many years so I had library access. Fortunately, my local public library offers free access to a few Ebsco and Proquest resources. Cxbrx (talk) 15:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No post office. Searching newspapers.com for '"Remillard Station" in California' and 'Remillard Stanley Bernal in California' yielded nothing of note. Searching Google Books for '"Remillard Station"' yielded a citation for "Alameda County Place Names" which I added to the article (GNIS also cites this book). Searching Google Books for "Remillard Alameda" found some trivial mentions of the station. Google Books, points out Baker (1914), "Past and Present of Alameda County, California," which yielded nothing. Cxbrx (talk) 15:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Comments The 1953-1969 1:24,000 scale USGS historic maps show a well-developed, presumaby industrial railroad siding network and associated buildings at the location specified for Remillard, California. The 1943 1:62,500 scale USGS historic map also shows same railroad facility and indicates that it was named Remillard. The buildings are missing on later maps and the asociated track network disappear soon after 1969. These maps are consitent with the finding of the nom.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:SK#1. Nobody has advanced any rationale for deletion or redirection. If there is opposition to the proposed merge then please discuss on the article talk page. (non-admin closure) ansh.666 05:32, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic terrorism in Europe[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Editor TompaDompa has sugggested the article be deleted by merging its content to Islamic terrorism#Europe, List of Islamist terrorist attacks and List of thwarted Islamic terrorist attacks A Thousand Words (talk) 04:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG notable topic very well sourced article in very reliable international news sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:43, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge prose to Islamic terrorism#Europe, attacks to List of Islamist terrorist attacks, and plots to List of thwarted Islamic terrorist attacks, then redirect to Islamic terrorism#Europe. I'll copy my reasoning from the talk page of the article and paste it here: ideally we would have a wide variety of academic sources covering the same topic as this article does. And there we run into a problem, because those sources don't exist and never have. The scope of this article, i.e. the particular set of inclusion and exclusion criteria it uses, is wholly original to Wikipedia.
The conceit is that it is in some way meaningful to consider the 2004 Madrid train bombings, 7 July 2005 London bombings, 2015 Istanbul suicide bombing, November 2015 Paris attacks, Shchelkovo Highway police station attack, and 2017 Turku attack (and possibly also the 1995 France bombings, which was added recently) part of a single topic, a topic that does not also include the September 11 attacks, 2014 Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu ramming attack, 2015 Ankara bombings, or Orlando nightclub shooting. Of course, this does not even remotely match the scopes of any of the sources (I doubt there is even a single WP:RELIABLE source with a somewhat similar scope that includes East Thrace but excludes Anatolia the way this article does, for instance). Rather, this is an arbitrary collection of disparate topics which equally arbitrarily excludes things which the sources consider part of the same topic(s).
The issue is further compounded by the fact that there are four different types of content on this article: the prose (which contains, among other things, analysis of trends and patterns), the list of attacks, the list of plots, and whatever the "response" table is (really, that table is pretty much solely a navigational aid right now – if it were converted to prose it might however be able to be informative as well). The reason that that is a compounding factor is that the scopes don't match. The WP:LISTCRITERIA should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources, but they are not – the lists define the scope geographically, but the sources define the scope geopolitically. The prose takes the geopolitical approach, being based upon sources that do likewise. To solve this, we need to either match the lists to the prose or the prose to the lists.
There are ways to try to fix or at least mitigate the problems with the scope, but they all entail radically changing the way this article is constructed. We could adjust the scope geographically/geopolitically (perhaps changing it to Western Europe or "the West" in general) and/or temporally, or perhaps some other way, to better reflect the sources. Of course, we have tried to resolve the problem this way before without much success (and the successive scope changes may have even contributed to the problem). We could also remove the prose (or merge it to Islamic terrorism#Europe) and convert this to a pure list article. A problem with that is that it would turn this into a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of List of Islamist terrorist attacks and List of thwarted Islamic terrorist attacks. Conversely, we could remove the lists (any content that belongs on them also belongs on List of Islamist terrorist attacks and List of thwarted Islamic terrorist attacks, after all) and focus solely on the analysis of trends and underlying factors, but that would make it redundant in scope to Islamic terrorism#Europe instead. We could even merge the content to Islamic terrorism#Europe, List of Islamist terrorist attacks, and List of thwarted Islamic terrorist attacks (and perhaps additional others, as appropriate) and then turn this into a redirect to Islamic terrorism#Europe. That's the easiest solution and the one I would suggest. It wouldn't mean removing any content, only moving it around between different articles. This is content in search of an appropriate article (or several, rather) to be included within. The content itself is not the problem, the way it's assembled here on this article is. TompaDompa (talk) 05:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV. A Thousand Words (talk) 06:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep All I'm seeing in the nomination is a reference to some other editor proposing merger. This is not done by deletion. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:29, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Sorry, but you’ve failed to explain why it should be deleted. If you want it merged, that’s not what AfD is for. Besides, the subject has enough significant coverage to have an article if you ask me. Foxnpichu (talk) 10:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the editor who nominated for deletion, A Thousand Words actually opposes deletion, but appears to think that a merge discussion necessitates an AfD. I suggest a speedy close of this AfD by some uninvolved person. Pincrete (talk) 12:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this technically doesn't qualify for being closed as WP:Speedy keep since an argument for merging and redirecting has been made (sorry about that, I guess), but as the only editor to have expressed a preference other than (speedy) keep so far, I have no objections to a WP:Procedural close on the grounds that this is the wrong venue. I would, in fact, be in favour of a procedural close. A discussion already exists at the correct venue. TompaDompa (talk) 14:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't know the difference between a speedy and procedural close. Either way, it's obvious that noone (inc the proposer) actually wants to delete!Pincrete (talk) 15:07, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An AfD helps to decide on whether the article should remain as a standalone article. TompaDompa has argued that the subject does not warrant a WP:STANDALONE article by suggesting that all of its contents be merged to other articles. A Thousand Words (talk) 05:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:XFD: If you wish to merge articles, do not use a deletion discussion, but instead discuss it on the talk page. (I suspect this is why it's WP:Articles for deletion but WP:Redirects for discussion, WP:Templates for discussion, and WP:Categories for discussion). This is the wrong venue for a discussion about merging. TompaDompa (talk) 10:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obviously worthy of its own article with plenty of sources. --Local hero ^talk 14:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Blatantly notable.★Trekker (talk) 06:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 12:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

VfB Stuttgart kits[edit]

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

WP:NOTGALLERY. Discussed before in 2018 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AFC Ajax kit history), and furthermore in 2007 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of Bradford City kits). As the result, there are several pages like this in Commons, either made by me or not. This page belongs there. Flix11 (talk) 04:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Flix11 (talk) 04:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:29, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:54, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:55, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTGALLERY. A summary of the club's kit history can be included in the main article (it may well be there already, I haven't checked). There is no need for an article which consists of images of endless minor variations on the same basic colour scheme -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:20, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and previous AFD consensus. Giant Snowman 09:51, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Overly detailed for an encyclopedia. Nigej (talk) 11:06, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 17:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Devokewater (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:56, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Humane Society of Huron Valley[edit]

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

Not notable and doesn't meet WP:NCORP for a standalone article. Of the 7 citations in the article, 5 are primary sources (from hshv.org themselves). Of the remaining two citations, one is about a bond related to their municipal contract (boring city business stuff) and one covers HSHV (the subject). A WP:BEFORE search finds a few recent news articles offering assistance to people during COVID-19 or covering this or that rescue of a particular neglect or abuse incident (all routine animal shelter stuff), but there is no real "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" to satisfy NCORP. Normal Op (talk) 04:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 04:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 04:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 04:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. There are thousands of animal shelters around the world doing excellent jobs; this one is no different. William Harris (talk) 08:16, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am finding significant and ongoing coverage for this organization that was formed in 1896 including an NBC Today Show citation. I have added some of these citations and deleted some text that is not needed as well as changed one header and added another and deleted text for neutral tone issues. This article should be kept for its notability and more citations could be added to improve the article. BrikDuk (talk) 10:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence for being any more notable than any other animal rescue organization. Also, the article reads as being very promotional (addresses given in text, etc.).--SilverTiger12 (talk) 01:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Most of the coverage is either not independent, or is hyper-local. The exceptions are the TODAY piece, which provides no encyclopedic information about the topic in that it only mentions where the cats originated, the Michigan Radio piece, which only states that the topic wants to halt a deer cull, and provides no other information about the topic, and MLive, which I believe counts toward GNG but that is only one source with reliable, significant, independent coverage of the topic. The only other possible source I found was [40], and although I would normally consider something appearing in the Detroit Free Press to count towards GNG, this particular piece appears in a "local" section, which was not distributed to all subscribers. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dawson's Creek#Cast and characters. (non-admin closure) Pamzeis (talk) 01:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gail Leery[edit]

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

Does the mother of the main character really need her own page when other actual main characters on the show don't have ones of their own (Pacey/Jen)? Donaldd23 (talk) 02:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 02:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 02:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dawson's_Creek#Cast_and_characters. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NFICTION, also totally unreferenced so fails WP:V too. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dawson's Creek#Cast and characters, no references can be found so the article fails GNG, and the article also currently fails WP:PLOT, as it is comprised entirely of in-universe information. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:55, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EAC European Automobile Clubs[edit]

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

Fails the notability guideline for organizations. All references but one are from the organization's own website; the exception no longer exists but from the context it would appear to have merely appeared in a list of similar organizations. A search turned up no other reliable sources to establish notability. Sable232 (talk) 01:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Sable232 (talk) 01:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My search only finds one passing mention of the organization in reliable sources: 1, so this clearly fails WP:NCORP. The organization isn't mentioned elsewhere on the encyclopedia either so there isn't a good place to merge or redirect this to. -- Dps04 (talk) 11:37, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORPDEPTH. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greatland[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM due to insufficient non-trivial coverage in reliable sources and appears simply WP:TOOSOON at this point in time. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too soon. Donaldd23 (talk) 02:29, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The only views expressed are the nominator's delete rationale, and Charmk's 'weak keep'; I don't read a consensus either way. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Banthi Poola Janaki[edit]

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

Couldn't find reliable sources and reviews for this film. TamilMirchi (talk) 20:07, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 20:07, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 20:07, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 20:07, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Are 123Telugu and IndiaGlitz not reliable sources? Spiderone 11:47, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are not. They are filmy websites. TamilMirchi (talk) 15:29, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Has there been a discussion regarding 123Telugu? They seem to have lots of reviews, but I can't find a discussion where they were ruled unreliable. I don't see them on WP:RSPSOURCES. Thanks. Donaldd23 (talk) 16:29, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently a discussion at [41].TamilMirchi (talk) 17:26, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:24, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I consider "123 Telugu" is a reliable source and the article contains 2 reviews. Charmk (talk) 03:51, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. In the absence of a response from the article's author to a request for sources, I am forced to discount their !vote somewhat, so in light of Charmk's assessment, I see a consensus to delete. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Erum Azam[edit]

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

fails to meet basic GNG as well relevant WP:NACTOR. cited sources are not reliable enough. I don't see she has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Saqib (talk) 06:43, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:09, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:09, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep she is known for role in Muqabil drama and Bad guman, Rasm E Duniya with Sami khan, Bilal Abbas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeauSuzanne (talk • contribs)

Citation please? --Saqib (talk) 13:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note above Keep vote is added by the creator of this BLP. --Saqib (talk) 17:32, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:41, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She played roles in notable movies, but I checked all of the references in the article (22 references) and nothing provides significant coverage, all of them are are just passing mentions. The actor is not notable, so the article topic fail WP:GNG. Charmk (talk) 03:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anumta Qureshi[edit]

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

fails to meet basic GNG as well relevant WP:NACTOR. cited sources are not reliable enough. I don't see she has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Saqib (talk) 06:44, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:08, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:08, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep she is known for roles in Bharsoa Pyar Tera, Mera Rab Waris and she is known for her role in Suno Chanda series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeauSuzanne (talk • contribs)

Citation please? --Saqib (talk) 13:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note above Keep vote is added by the creator of this BLP. --Saqib (talk) 17:32, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:42, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tigurats[edit]

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

Subject does not appear in any sources in Google Scholar or Google Books; ትጉራት only has four hits on Google, the other three of which appear to reflect content from this page Pathawi (talk) 07:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:35, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:35, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, i note that the article has around 30 references, it would be helpful if the nominator could let us know why/how they do not contribute to the subject's wikinotableness? Coolabahapple (talk) 13:37, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Gladly. Mostly, these are good sources… but they are not sources about the term Tigurat. I have not been able to access all of them, but I have been able to access most, & not one of these mentions the term in question. Even the one source in Tigrinya does not mention Tigurat people, but instead talks about the Tigrinya language and the Tigray people. The author of most of this article has taken sources about Eritrean Tigrinya-speakers & sources about Tigre-speakers, & then brought them together to speak about the two together as if they were branches of one ethnic group distinct from Ethiopian Tigrinya-speakers. There's language-historical justification for the first part of this: Tigrinya & Tigre are the two living North Ethiopic Semitic languages—it seems normal to want to think of them together in some way. However, the sources presented do not provide justification for treating them as halves of a meta-ethnic whole, nor for imagining a meta-ethnic identity that ends at modern state borders, nor for recognising Tigurat itself as a notable term. While I have not been able to access all of the sources, four things lead me to believe that the remaining half dozen or so will not provide justification for Tigurat's notability:
  1. The use of the other twenty-something sources to make claims about Tigurat people when these sources are in fact about smaller ethnic groups & do not employ this meta-ethnic identifier.
  2. The fact that these usages do not generally support claims about Tigurat people specifically in the article, but are instead about the history of Eritrea in general or specifically about Tigrinya-speakers or Tigre-speakers—for which they're (in most cases) apparently reliable sources, but these uses do not support the notability (or reality) of the overall topic.
  3. The absence of any sources in Google Scholar or Google Books for the English term Tigurat with this meaning†.
  4. The absence of any sources in Google at all for the Tigrinya term ትጉራት other than three mirrors of this article.

I suspect that we're looking at propaganda intended to help establish a meta-ethnic identity. This may be well-intentioned, but it does not appear to reflect actual usage in the sources presented.

† There are a few hits for "tigurat", but all such cases appear to be erroneous OCR representations of other words. Pathawi (talk) 15:58, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, so as well as this article being non-notable, there may be the issues of WP:REFBOMB, and WP:OR here? Coolabahapple (talk) 17:03, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The former seems clear to me; the latter looks probable from the comments of the main author, Mesfun Ghebregergis, on the Talk page last year. (Mesfun Ghebregergis claims that written references exist in Tigrinya/Tigrigna [& makes a political distinction between these spellings—I'm not trying to weigh in one way or another], but does not actually provide these references. As noted above, the term does not appear in the sole Tigri(g)n(y)a source cited.) Pathawi (talk) 17:13, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The creator & principal author of the page has weighed in on the Talk page, & consented to page deletion. I know that's not the process, but I thought it was noteworthy & might not show up in this conversation.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we can’t keep an article without proper sourcing. Like the nominator I’ve looked at all the current sources which are accessible and see no mention of the term ‘Tigurat,’ while a search for the term online produces only very recent items that appear to be mirrors of this article. The article creator has a theory or belief but I don’t see any RIS to support it. I don’t read any East African languages so can’t search in them. Mccapra (talk) 06:07, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:56, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

William E. Simon Prize for Philanthropic Leadership[edit]

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

There is nothing to indicate that there is any notable about this prize. The only sources are links to the organization that hands these prizes out. A brief mention on the page of the organization that hands these prizes out is sufficient. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:11, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:22, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:22, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:22, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, hi Snooganssnoogans, any consideration of merging some of this to William E. Simon#Simon's legacy? Coolabahapple (talk) 22:29, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think one or two sentences can be added to that page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:13, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:49, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The prize sum is considerable and the recipients are all notable, all but one having their own Wikipedia article. There is no need to delete this page. I have added the recipients of the last three years. Eissink (talk) 15:42, 26 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Why does it matter that the recipients are notable? Did the prize make them notable? There is zero RS coverage of this prize. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:15, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Subjects can make lists interesting. While this is far from a minor prize, the character makes it less suitable for coverage – it's not an annual "Who is the best X in year Y?", contest-like prize. It might have gotten coverage around 2000/2001, when the award was created, most likely also in peer-to-peer charity magazines and the like, sources that are not available to the average Wikipedian (I did find several RS mentions of the prize, though). Eissink (talk) 16:32, 26 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Delete no evidence that this organization (it is effectively about the activities of an organization, William E. Simon Foundation) meets NCORP. Possibly a redirect or selective merge could be done. (t · c) buidhe 13:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

weak merge to William_E._Simon#Simon's_legacy, seems a way to preserve the content. DOn't merge the list of recipients, though. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was closed, wrong forum. Please feel free to nominate this at Wikipedia:Files for discussion instead. Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:20, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Train of one gauge loaded onto train of another gauge[edit]

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

This is a page created by an inexperienced user (their first contribution) who has no idea of "fair use" criteria or the meaning of Description requirements. Clearly it qualifies for "no fair use rationale". However, irrespective of that, this file can be speedily deleted because I have uploaded a CC BY 4.0 licensed version to Wikimedia Commons. Please see the Talk page for further details.

I have notified the author. SCHolar44 🇦🇺 💬 at 08:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong venue - try WP:FFD. Hog Farm _Bacon 00:36, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ignacio, California. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fairford, California[edit]

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

More obscure than most. Not listed in the GNIS database. Durham said it was a short-lived post office (less than a year in 1879) located at the Pacheco railroad station on the Northwestern Pacific RR. Everything I can find online appears to draw from this incorrect Wikipedia article. As has been pointed out many times before, the presence of a post office is not a guarantee of a community. Clearly not a community and not notable. Glendoremus (talk) 23:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Glendoremus (talk) 23:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Glendoremus (talk) 23:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I did a little better with turning up coverage [42], but besides that the post office only lasted four months, making it the shortest-lived in the county, the coverage doesn't look substantial. Fairly clearly a 4-class post office, not a community. Hog Farm _Bacon 00:06, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Ignacio, California The GNIS entry for that latter, citing Gudde, says that Pacheco and Ignacio are the same place, and it's certainly in the right place from the description. Mangoe (talk) 19:30, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:46, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:01, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator, I would prefer redirect rather than "no consensus". Glendoremus (talk) 05:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ignacio, California is the best option. While I'm a local, this place is very obscure. KidAd talk 18:24, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect No evidence of notability Reywas92^Talk 19:12, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ignacio, California . The place had a post office. Redirecting is better than deleting because if in the future, someone attempts to recreate the article, they might just end up updating the Ignacio, California article. As Fairford is in the GNIS and presumably in lists of post offices, it is likely to be recreated. Cxbrx (talk) 15:11, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. has been relisted multiple times with little additional input Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Dada's Aphrodisiac[edit]

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

Searched under Dr. Dada's Love Dope and Dr. Dada's Aphrodisiac. There isn't even an IMDB entry and couldn't find any of the actors or director on IMDB. Sources in the article are a movie poster and a database entry from a Japanese website. // Timothy :: talk 17:37, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 17:37, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 17:37, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Seems to have been big(ger) in Japan. The Japanese title is ダダ博士の媚薬. I would love for this to be notable, but I don't read Japanese. Sorting this into Japan-related deletion discussions in the hopes that someone can find Japanese sources. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I tried finding more Japanese sources for the Wikipedia article but most of them were pinterest links or movie websites that lacked any valuable information. Also, while this isn't related to my delete decision, I'd like to point out that the plot section of the article has major grammatical issues. — Coastaline (talk) 19:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The movie was shown at the 2018 Kanazawa Film Festival: [43]. More from Twitter: [44], [45], [46]. --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:09, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just dropping by because I saw it listed, but it seems the Japanese release date must be earlier than December 13, 1958. By some chance, this turns up in the cinema schedules (last page, upper right) on a scan of this copy of the Sanwa Shinpo, a defunct newspaper from the Fukushima area and the newspaper date on the upper border is November 5, Showa 33 (1958). Bullpup11 (talk) 13:20, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:54, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:32, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:01, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gate Petroleum[edit]

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

This article looks promotional in return of undisclosed payments and violates the Wikipedia terms of use. Rodney Araujo Tell me - My contributions 16:54, 26 September 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 September 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:19, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Comment The issue of undisclosed payments looks to be based on two edits from last month [47]. This is applying TNT to something that easily can be cleaned up if there's promotional language. – The Grid (talk) 21:21, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @The Grid: I just reviewed it and I don't think the main issue is promotional language, the subject seems to fail WP:NCOMPANY. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Piotrus: I see. The AfD was brought up originally because of COI and looking at the history - those edits were reverted. – The Grid (talk) 12:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Almost 40 sources, but only 4 mention the company in heading and all read like press-release-like coverage of routine business operaitons. My BEFORE failed to find anything resembling independent, in-depth coverage. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:41, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- this is plainly an advertising brochure and, despite attempts at ref-bombing the significant coverage just doesn't seem to be there. Reyk _YO! 10:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The article has been altered to show it as an extinct community, and discussion seems to have petered out; I can't read consensus on the issue, but I don't see any benefit to relisting it for a third time. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flag, Missouri[edit]

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

Non-notable GNIS error. The State Historical Society calls it a post office and possibly a flag station, although there was also a Flag School in the area. Modern Taney County history doesn't mention it. I'm not finding any meaningful results on Google books, although it's hard to search for. Google maps has no idea where this place is, and it doesn't seem to appear on any topos, which isn't all that surprising, since the GNIS entry is sourced to an old plat book. Before decrying that WP:ITSNOTABLE, please find clear proof that this passes WP:GEOLAND - That it was legally recognized as a community. A post office and a school don't necessarily indicate it, especially since we can't prove they were even at the same place (GNIS has no coords for the school). Hog Farm _Bacon 03:34, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:34, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:34, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my post on Sagrada: there's no reason why a suitably-motivated person wouldn't be capable of finding out more about the place, the GNIS entry and historical records pretty reliably establish that the place does/did exist, obviously not a hoax or contentious in any way -- nobody's going to get misled by this article existing. At absolute worst, I'd say to merge it into the page for the county it's from. Moreover, I don't think Google Maps is a reliable source on historical information about places that did/didn't exist if they're small enough... jp×g 05:25, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think it would probably have been better to BUNDLE these nominations, since they all proceed from the same general premises, and arguments that are valid for one will be valid similarly for the others. jp×g 05:25, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, GNIS is not a reliable source for establishing the existence of a community, and there is no other evidence that this was one. As a result, it fails WP:GEOLAND, and it also fails WP:GNG as there is no sourcing that would cause it to pass GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:39, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "Flag" is indeed a hard place name to search for. But a quick look in the archives of Taney County Republican yielded a few right away, and I added two to the article as a start. It was considered an unincorporated Taney County community, to be sure. Here is the 1930 plat book [48]; you can see Flag to the west of Branson, in the Newtown township on the far left of the map.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:55, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has been improved to show it was a rural community. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:17, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. weak keep is still a keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sagrada, Missouri[edit]

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

State Historical Society calls it a post office. This old source implies that there was a store there, but the pre-GNIS small-scale topos either don't show Sagrada or only show one or two buildings there. An old Mormon church source refers to Sagrada as just a post office. References to a Sagrada Ferry on the river are likely to a nearby, but distinct place, as this Sagrada appears to be a bit off the river. A church camp with the name Sagrada is in the next county over, but appears to be unrelated. Based on the sum of the evidence, I'd say this is just a WP:GEOLAND-failing post office. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:57, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:57, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:57, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; it's a stub, but there's no reason why a suitably-motivated person wouldn't be capable of finding out more about the place. I think the one source from the book, the GNIS entry, the existence of the post office and the historical society publication are more than enough to establish that there is in fact an unincorporated community named Sagrada in that county. It's obviously not a hoax or contentious in any way -- nobody's going to get misled by this article existing. At absolute worst, I'd say to merge it into Camden County, Missouri. jp×g 05:17, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Tons of references to Sagrada in the archives of the Camdenton Reveille.[49]. Perhaps I should make this general observation about those researching rural American geography stubs, as I've seen lots of AFDs on small American places in different states in recent months. Many rural parts of the United States were more populated a century ago than they are today. As farms were much smaller 100 years ago, rural communities, with active schools, churches, etc., were more common. They were communities more than they were towns. Camden County's population in 1900 was over 13,000, and fell below 8,000 by 1950 - a 40% drop. The growth of the Lake of the Ozarks area explains the modern growth in that county (now over 45,000). In other words, these parts of America look very different than in the late 19th century. The lack of recent references to these communities or lack of obvious ruins on Google maps doesn't mean they didn't exist. Communities everywhere in rural America are largely gone and faded to whispers. Just as mounds of sand today in Iraq were once villages (albeit 4100 years ago, not 100 years ago). Thus, I find looking for local newspaper archives in rural America to be very useful in determining whether a place was really a community. Sure, there are places being found in these AFDs sometimes that were simply a single house, but I wouldn't over-assume that GNIS entries are misguided! Thanks to all who work on these articles!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:42, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with looking at a newspaper like this is that the heading "Sagrada" does nothing more than establish a locale. I grew up in Howard County, Maryland, in an early subdivision there, and the Howard County Times would have news stories which referenced that subdivision, and at times even had sections of local news about it and others; it even has its own schools. But there's no way it's notable. Mangoe (talk) 20:48, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a subdivision. I can't speak for the endless subdivisions of Columbia, even though they do have their own articles, e.g., Wilde Lake, Columbia, Maryland, and those are not real "villages". Though I am clearly just messing around right now in Olga, Arizona, which is not notable, I do think this was an actually known rural community and is notable.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to have been a rural community rather than a town per se. No reason to delete, and there are mentions of Sagrada in the archives. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. It had a post office (yes, others disagree). Newspapers.com indicates that people lived there. The article has multiple references, though mostly trivial. Cxbrx (talk) 16:05, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No real consensus has emerged after over a month of discussion. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rowland, Missouri[edit]

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

State Historical Society calls it a "little trading point" with a post office; trading point seems to indicate a country store based on some of the other entries. Doesn't appear on any of the small-scale pre-GNIS topos. Google books is mostly bringing up people with the last name Rowland, particularly this one guy who was described as if he were the Nimrod of Missouri. Not seeing any indication of an actual legally recognized community here. Google maps leads me to an isolated farm. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Community has history as being a local trading point. Do not delete this. Either Keep or Merge with township in which it is located.72.49.7.25 (talk) 03:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:36, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my post on Sagrada: there's no reason why a suitably-motivated person wouldn't be capable of finding out more about the place, the GNIS entry and historical records pretty reliably establish that the place does/did exist, obviously not a hoax or contentious in any way -- nobody's going to get misled by this article existing. At absolute worst, I'd say to merge it into the page for the county it's from. jp×g 05:25, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think it would probably have been better to BUNDLE these nominations, since they all proceed from the same general premises, and arguments that are valid for one will be valid similarly for the others. jp×g 05:25, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GEOLAND. Just because a place exists fails makes it significant. Paul H. (talk) 19:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as someone was born here, indicating a population. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "A tale of two singers". kathmandupost.com. Retrieved 2020-10-06.

[2] Lama, Sonam. "5 things about Trishna Gurung". My City. Retrieved 2020-10-06.

[1]

[2]