Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 October 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< October 16	October 18 >

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 redirect to University of North Carolina at Greensboro#College of Visual and Performing Arts. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:04, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UNCG College of Visual and Performing Arts[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to be independently notable ElKevbo (talk) 23:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 00:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 00:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 00:18, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to University_of_North_Carolina_at_Greensboro#College_of_Visual_and_Performing_Arts. This indeed does not seem to be notable on it's own. Plus, a lot of the content is either unnecessary and (or) semi-advertish. So, my suggestion is to redirect it to the article of university where it is located. Since it appears there is already a section about it and therefore this is an un-needed content fork. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:18, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to University of North Carolina at Greensboro#College of Visual and Performing_Arts. I concur with Adamant1. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 13:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Spudlace (talk) 03:38, 23 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. ST47 (talk) 04:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TechStorm TV[edit]

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

Google finds 36 hits for "TechStorm TV" - this may omit Chinese language sources of course. All the cited sources are very obviously press releases. All substantive edits are by one of three WP:SPAs, one of whom clearly identifies as an employee. In short, this is spam. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:16, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per G11. Foxnpichu (talk) 11:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORPDEPTH. There is a singular passing mention in Variety but that is not enough. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 13:18, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources. Willing to revisit if such coverage can be found, now or in the future. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 22:57, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG fail. I don't believe it meets either WP:SIGCOV or WP:NCORP. Ambrosiawater (talk) 05:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Serves only to promote. Duke of London (talk) 17:09, 24 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. ST47 (talk) 04:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of anarchist children's literature[edit]

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

"Anarchist children's literature", as a topic, has not been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) No such sourcing in the article, searches of major academic databases, or Google Books. czar 22:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. czar 22:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After reviewing the edit history, the attribution of certain books as anarchy related appears to be completely subjective and arbitrary. Graywalls (talk) 23:11, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete as just someone's (dubious) opinion. Mangoe (talk) 02:32, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per our anarchic policies WP:IAR and WP:NOTLAW. The nomination offers no evidence to support its assertions. Here's some counter-examples:

Tales for Little Rebels: A Collection of Radical Children's Literature
New World Orders in Contemporary Children's Literature: Utopian Transformations
Little Girls without Their Curls: Female Aggression in Victorian Children's Literature
Children's Literature, Domestication, and Social Foundation: Narratives of Civilization and Wilderness
Learning from the Left: Children's Literature, the Cold War, and Radical Politics in the United States
Order and the literary rendering of chaos : children's literature as knowledge, order, and social foundation
Translation, Children’s Literature, and Lu Xun’s Intellectual Struggles
Relentless Progress: The Reconfiguration of Children's Literature, Fairy Tales, and Storytelling
Fairy Tales and the Art of Subversion
‘No-one telling us what to do’: anarchist schools in Britain, 1890–1916

Andrew🐉(talk) 11:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which of these establish "anarchist children's literature" as a recognized genre, and/or cite specific books as examples? I'm not seeing it in what you listed/linked to at all. postdlf (talk) 15:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not only is there a lack of sources discussing "anarchist children's literature", the actual content of this list is entirely WP:OR and so should not be kept regardless. The slew of sources listed by Andrew actually have little to nothing to do with this topic - "anarchist" means a very specific philosophy in the context of this article, and none of these sources appear to be discussing that. They are simply about childrens' stories that go against established norms, which does not automatically make them about anarchy. The only source he listed that actually seems to discuss the concept of anarchism in depth is the last one, which does not have anything to do with childrens' literature. Rorshacma (talk) 15:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rorshacma. There is neither evidence of books that could be included in such a list nor evidence of the genre being sufficiently notable that it should get its own list. (I'm amused by the suggestion currently present in the article that the entire genre of young adult fiction is representative of anarchist thought...) YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 20:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does anyone take Andrew's comments seriously? No one denies that there are books for children with certain political viewpoints, but the list of search results above utterly fails to distinguish between leftism, radicalism, subversion, etc. from anarchism and fails to justify this list on Wikipedia. Reywas92^Talk 03:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The nay-sayers seem to suppose that anarchism is some narrow doctrine or party. Our articles on the topic indicate that there are many definitions and schools of thought which include leftism, radicalism, subversion, and more. Whatever label is chosen, there will naturally be synonyms and equivalent meanings. There are clearly books of this sort such as A Rule is to Break. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:34, 21 October 2020 (UTC)comment[reply]

Delete- per Graywalls. Since the subject of "anarchist children's literature" isn't covered anywhere, attempts to compile lists of individual books in that class is inevitably subjective and original research. Reyk _YO! 21:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's original research Spudlace (talk) 03:40, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 11:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Going through the sources, this is clearly synthesis. Dark knight 2149 06:06, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not that there’s much left to delete at this point. If an anthology or other scholarship emerged, it could be recreated later but for now there’s not much to keep. Innisfree987 (talk) 06:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per norminator, subject hasn't received WP:SIGCOV. Duke of London (talk) 00:47, 25 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. Views are split about evenly between keeping and merging; neither of which requires any deletion. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:41, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Complete Guide to Prehistoric Life[edit]

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

Unsourced; non-notable encyclopedia associated with a series of nature documentaries, there is nothing to suggest that this book in particular is independently notable enough to warrant its own article. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:50, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reviewed in The Quarterly Review of Biology, Palaeontologica Electronica and the Canadian Review of Materials. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hemiauchenia: I guess I should have checked more thoroughly before deeming this book "non-notable". I agree that this article could be reworked and expanded with reliable sources, then (I notice you've already begun doing so). Don't know if I can "retract" a deletion request but I now also support keeping the article. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:NBOOK, in addition to the reviews above, also reviewed by New Scientist (listed here), Science Teacher (review here), Science Scope (listed here), Resource Links (listed here). Coolabahapple (talk) 12:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reviews found. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - into the article about the series. FunkMonk (talk) 21:03, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge it's a companion book to the series, so it doesn't make any sense to split it off into a stand-alone article User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 21:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@FunkMonk: @Dunkleosteus77: Per Wikipedia:Notability (books)

A book is notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria: 1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.

The book easily satisfies this, as indicated by reviews noted above, and therefore is notable enough to have a stand alone article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I mean if you're just gonna go off of that, I can say that about a lot of random books, like The Hunters or the Hunted?: An Introduction to African Cave Taphonomy [1] [2] [3] but I think we can agree that it'd be odd to have a completely separate article for this book. The point is, just because someone talked about it doesn't mean it deserves a separate article. These are just guidelines, and it was not intended to apply to every possible scenario foreseeable or otherwise (which is why we have WP:IGNOREALLRULES), so at the end of the day, you have to go with the most practical. In this case, a small discussion on the Walking with Dinosaurs article as is done right now is best, as I don't see how you could have a full-fledged article unless you add a lot of padding and page-filler User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:04, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dunkleosteus77: I think that looks like a notable book, so I have gone ahead and created an article for it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the Walking With... article. The book was written as a companion to that series (I have both watched the series and have/read the book), and I don't see how it can be adequately treated separately from it.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This clearly meets WP:NBOOK. Accompanies notable programs too. Old-time classic by now, and I wouldn't mind having a copy either. Ambrosiawater (talk) 05:30, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, if Walking with...#Books is reformatted to be more than just a list, than maybe a merge would be appropriate. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:44, 25 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 Walking with Dinosaurs. Sandstein 18:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dinosaur World (video game)[edit]

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

Unsourced article on non-notable freeware associated with a documentary series. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment any media coverage of this game is likely to be relatively inaccessible by searching, considering it came out in 2001. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:32, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. I don't believe there to have been much media coverage considering (from what I can see) it was a quite obscure piece of freeware and essentially an alpha version of a game that was ultimately never finished. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - into Walking With Dinosaurs, I think there's still a chance someone will look it up, better end up at the series with a brief mention of the game than a red link. FunkMonk (talk) 15:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this article has a page on the Russian Wikipedia which is pretty decent. I'm not sure if the sources used there are the most adequate but perhaps a translation could save the article. Super Ψ Dro 23:19, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is interesting. Most of the sources used there are primary sources (referencing the game itself or the BBC website) and the ones that aren't (i.e. Qube Software, GameContractor and IMDB) seem a bit questionable to use, but I agree that the article itself looks significantly better than the English language version. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we could ask a place like the video games WikiProject about this page to see if the game is actually notable enough or not and if they can find better sources or translate the article from Russian. They seem to be quite organized and hard-working (apparently around 70% of the video game articles in Wikipedia have a start-class rating). Super Ψ Dro 00:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Walking With Dinosaurs per FunkMonk. Foxnpichu (talk) 11:12, 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. ST47 (talk) 04:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of creatures by Impossible Pictures[edit]

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

I believe this falls under Wikipedia:Fancruft; this is a list of prehistoric animals that appear in certain documentary series and other random programmes (only connected by having been produced by the same company). It would be equivalent to a "List of animals that appear in National Geographic documentaries". It is completely unsourced and animals are identified down to the species-level, which they aren't in the programmes themselves, meaning that there is plenty of original research here as well. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Much less reason to keep this than List of cloned animals in the Jurassic Park series. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:29, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We've reached the electroweak scale of fancruft, where fiction gets mushed together with nonfiction and reality. This is even more fancrufty than many of the "List of X in work Y" articles that turn up regularly at AfD. Unlike lists about a specific work, its scope (works by Impossible Pictures, such as the Walking with... series) lacks a unifying trait. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Not much else to say...surprised this ever existed to begin with. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Spudlace (talk) 03:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above. Fancruft at its best. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per norm. Duke of London (talk) 00:51, 25 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. – bradv🍁 22:59, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IVC Telecom[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:NCORP. References are either not independent (prlog.org, ivctel.com) or of routine events (remaining references). 1292simon (talk) 22:19, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Certainly doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Search from GNEWS turned up nothing. Duke of London (talk) 00:56, 25 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. ST47 (talk) 04:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paul F Glenn[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. The sourcing provided doesn't meet the bar and I wasn't able to find anything else that did.

PacBizTimes is a local publication for businesses (ie a double whammy of low audience impact)
CrunchBase is not only a business listing, it's user-generated, so unreliable
Sharon Herold obituaries are user-submitted, so are not reliable/independent
Obviously the Glenn foundation's own website is not an independent source
Inside Philanthropy appears to simply be a directory-style listing, although it's paywalled so I'm willing to AGF that there could be more in-depth content below what's visible without logging in
Rejuvenation Research is technically an academic journal, but it has, er, issues with self-citation and inflating its own impact factor, so reliability is questionable. It's also an interview, which is a primary source.
EurekAlert is a "news release distribution service", which means that any content on it is not independent.
InsideEko purports to be a newspaper but is hosted on WordPress. Come on.

Obviously if this is the best that's available we can't retain this article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Anyone can buy their name on a professorship at Harvard by contributing $5 million to the university. That does not mean you can get yourself a page in Wikipedia by doing that. DGG ( talk ) 07:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:GNG, and DGG. Harvard University is for sale, but Wikipedia is not. Bearian (talk) 21:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:09, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, PR, fails WP:GNG --Devokewater (talk) 11:13, 23 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) 01:27, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Keith Ashwin[edit]

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

The result of the last deletion dicussion was delete, and I don't believe this person is anymore notable than the last discussion. Most of the sources are YouTube videos, Google Patents, product pages, and the website of the subject. The other references sound like advertisements or make very brief mentions of the subject. Dylsss (talk) 21:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dylsss (talk) 21:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have we considered WP:ATD?GDX420 (talk) 16:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After trying to improve the article I just can't find any WP:GNG, and as with most things WP:ANYBIO if he had won an award or made a significant contribution in his field there would most likely be some RS somewhere. Some of his inventions may be notabe, but creating separate articles seems like too much effort.GDX420 (talk) 11:11, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was not able to find significant coverage of this person in reliable, independent sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sidebar comment I skimmed through the author's other creations, early revisions also look promotional. Some are on clearly-notable topics, some are not. Some have been cleaned up to Wikipedia standards, some have not. A note on the author's talk page less than a month after his last edit in 2019, along with the large number of deletion-warnings about now-gone pages suggests this editor's work may need further scrutiny. This comment should not affect the outcome of this AFD, as this AFD is about whether Ashwin himself is notable, not whether the author writes up to Wikipedia standards or if the author was a COI author. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 08:19, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Information Conversation involving an editor with a conflict of interest in this topic is happening on the article's talk page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:53, 24 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:41, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hurlingham Reggae Band[edit]

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

This is really outside of my area of expertise, but it's been tagged for notability since 2009, and makes no claim to notability, so it's time for this to get a hearing. From the article, this looks like a spinoff band that never really recorded anything and went around playing in bars and cafes in Argentina. I can't find any good English-language sources. I'm finding a few things in Spanish, but after translating, they mostly appear to be unreliable or primary source interviews. If significant coverage can be found, I will withdraw this with no qualms, as this is outside of my area of expertise or even really interest. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Since they were active in the 1980s, they are unlikely to have online coverage. I did a Google Books search and found them in several Spanish-language books, but always as a brief entry in lists of 1980s Argentinian music acts or in conjunction with their parent band Sumo (band). I agree with the nominator that this reggae band was a side project that didn't accomplish too much. They can be described in that fashion at the Sumo article. DOOMSDAYER520 | TALK | CONTRIBS 02:01, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. MBisanz ^talk 02:41, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SLIR[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. I had PROD'd this page before, but as pointed out on my talk page, for whatever reason the article history was never updated. Submitting a more formal deletion request at this time. --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG; virtually nothing about it. Not a hoax, though—this paper lists "Service laboratoire infrarouge" as an affiliation of one of the authors—so I'm going to remove the tag. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Jmill1806 (talk) 00:36, 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) 00:35, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Oriyomi[edit]

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

Non-notable. Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. Puffy. scope_creep^Talk 19:04, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Fails to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Celestina007 (talk) 21:15, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Celestina007. 1292simon (talk) 07:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per above, although arguably The Guardian might be a reliable source. Bearian (talk) 21:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:SIGCOV. The Guardian is generally a reliable source, but multiple that are independent of each other and by different authors is required; one is not enough. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete SandDoctor and Bearian the two citations are not from The Guardian but rather from a Nigerian site guardian.ng Since the exact same content appears on a number of other sites, it appears to be paid content/ press release. — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 15:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Nigerian Guardian, which has been described as Nigeria's most respected newspaper is a pretty solid newspaper as newspapers go. scope_creep^Talk 08:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not that the source is Nigerian. The issue is that the content is paid/press release. I mentioned that it is a Nigerian source to differentiate it from The Guardian as I perceived that the above two editors mistook the citation to be from The Guardian — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 14:46, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The references, as indicated by all who took time to meticulously check, have been improved with more reliable sources, so that it passes WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV.

That newssources are from "Nigeria" shouldn't in any way cause you to question the credibility, reputation, trustworthiness or veracity. There's such a thing as Print syndication or Web syndication which in no way, I believe, usurps Wikipedia rules. Again, Ad Meliora how do you prove that such print and web syndications are paid, as CNN, reuters, and other credible newssources, just as these ones, offer such syndication services for non-commercial use? These sources below are credible, and you can take time to check them out.scope_creep did address this. Many thanks.

Kindly let's examine some of the references judiciously:

[4] "Real estate expert tasks government on ease of doing business" This wasn't a trivial mention as per the above subject, but a significant coverage. Also, The Guardian (Nigeria) is a reliable source with editorial integrity. The publication is independent of the subject.
[5] This wasn't a trivial mention, but a significant coverage. Also, This Day is a reliable source with editorial integrity. Independent of the subject.
[6] Reputable media source, independent of the subject, from Business Day (Nigeria)

Comment Removed malware url/browser hijacker. scope_creep^Talk 14:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[7] Reputable media source, independent of the subject, from The Sun (Nigeria)
[8] Reputable media source, independent of the subject, another one from the The Guardian (Nigeria)
[9] This wasn't a trivial mention, but a significant coverage. Also, Vanguard (Nigeria) is a reliable source with editorial integrity. Independent of the subject. These references, therefore, are suitable to establish WP:GNG

WP:SIGCOV DEOL [[User:Adeoluakintunde|Adeoluakintunde]] ([[User talk:Adeoluakintunde|talk]]) (talk) 13:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is exactly 6 people working in this small private company: [10]. The fact there is so much coverage of this type, suggests they are press-releases and nothing else. It is entirely unlikely the papers are listening to one man from such a small company, on the same subject, unless it is paid promotion. The person is entirely non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 15:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment scope_creep This link you put out: [11] doesn't expressly state the staff strength, nothing of such. For example, I'm a departmental head of a team with a staff strength of 31. Let's be candid and fair: will it be logical to put out all the 32 pictures on a limited webpage? It only makes sense to put the head of the team! Lastly, rules are rules. If the article passes WP:GNG WP:SIGCOV WP:BIO, can we please keep out unproven and unfounded assumptions except verifiable thoughts. It's in no way WP:SPIP and adequately satisfies WP:WHYN. Regards.DEOL [[User:Adeoluakintunde|Adeoluakintunde]] ([[User talk:Adeoluakintunde|talk]]) (talk) 17:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Before you start casting aspersions about "unproven and unfounded assumptions" from other editors, can you please provide evidence that the company has more than 6 staff? Although it is a bit tangential, because notability of the company and notability of its current CEO are separate issues. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 21:24, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll need time to do more research on that. Hopefully, there'll be some reliable and independent sources that has addressed your question.RegardsDEOL [[User:Adeoluakintunde|Adeoluakintunde]] ([[User talk:Adeoluakintunde|talk]]) (talk) 22:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One of the sources I found did actually point out that the organization, most likely, works with a team of realtors outside their organization, could be just two, a thousand, or more, considering the article content: [12] This article from The Guardian (Nigeria) also made mention of staff, albeit with no indication whatsoever of staff strength. I'm also trying so hard to understand scope_creep arguments. The link you posted--which isn't independent of the individual--is not enough to establish or disprove the notability of an individual, for the same reason having a million pictures of humans in suits, on your OWN webpage, wouldn't suffice! Again, for some quick education: the topic must have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject! If the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, why is there so much rigmarole? Also, claiming the articles in these sources listed are paid promos because "the organization has 6 staff members" is unsubstantiated, preposterous and very ridiculous. It doesn't even matter anymore if the article gets deleted as a result of popular consensus or votes, but the points raised so far to establish or disprove notability is such a concern; it totally beggars the mind!DEOL [[User:Adeoluakintunde|Adeoluakintunde]] ([[User talk:Adeoluakintunde|talk]]) (talk) 03:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Most of the sources seem either promo or don't feature the subject. However, there is a little RS, so I will wait until the poorly sourced content dissapears before throwing my two cents in.GDX420 (talk) 16:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Seems". Regards. DEOL [[User:Adeoluakintunde|Adeoluakintunde]] ([[User talk:Adeoluakintunde|talk]]) (talk) 17:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment re above: Its a small lettings/real estate agency. They are not division heads, board members nor senior boards members. Job titles for a small agency. More so, did you just state you have a Conflict of Interest?
Comment I only gave an example. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deolkint (talk • contribs) 18:14, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Deolkint: can you put new comments at the bottom of the page per WP:TP, WP:THREAD, which is standard practice. Reference: [13] is another press-release. All the references are press-releases. scope_creep^Talk 06:30, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject operates a run of the mill real estate business and is good at PR. That’s how he gets the same story with the same publicity pic released in multiple ‘reliable’, ‘independent’ publications like The Guardian and Business Day Nigeria. Mccapra (talk) 06:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How about you going through the references, like the one I pointed out earlier: [14] instead of making pseudo claims? Kindly go through the content in these reliable and independent sources you've openly discredited. Regards.DEOL [[User:Adeoluakintunde|Adeoluakintunde]] ([[User talk:Adeoluakintunde|talk]]) (talk) 18:33, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is a press-release you keep trying to foist on to us. Why do you keep doing that when it is clearly non-rs. scope_creep^Talk 18:47, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Foist on us?" Who are the "us"? Is this a gangup or some sort of sockpuppetry?? I've been citing Wikipedia's policies and guidelines that truly establishes or disproves notability, verifiable links, the subject's significant coverage in independent and reliable sources, but your reasons why this page MUST be deleted are unfounded; no policies, no documents whatsoever! Regards.DEOL [[User:Adeoluakintunde|Adeoluakintunde]] ([[User talk:Adeoluakintunde|talk]]) (talk) 02:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is incorrect that reasoning is unfounded, since the arguments presented by scope_creep are clearly based on WP:IS, WP:ANYBIO WP:GNG, etc. Also, accusation of sockpuppetry does not follow WP:RESPECT; if you have a genuine concern, please complete an SPI report, otherwise it's just unhelpful mud-slinging. 1292simon (talk) 06:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Same editor that rushed to accuse me of COI when I clearly stated that I have none is talking about WP:RESPECT? Where's the good faith?? Cut me some slack! The premise of your arguments WP:IS, WP:ANYBIO WP:GNG are clearly non-supportive of your reasonings thus far. RegardsDEOL [[User:Adeoluakintunde|Adeoluakintunde]] ([[User talk:Adeoluakintunde|talk]]) (talk) 10:17, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't actually state that you don't have a COI, all you said was "I only gave an example". 1292simon (talk) 10:43, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's fine. But how did COI suddenly turn to "sockpuppeting warning?" Do you have anything against my person or my objective responses?DEOL [[User:Adeoluakintunde|Adeoluakintunde]] ([[User talk:Adeoluakintunde|talk]]) (talk) 11:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for understanding. To answer your questions: I don't have anything against you personally, and don't recall making any "sockpuppet warning" about you. 1292simon (talk) 21:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see. RegardsDEOL [[User:Adeoluakintunde|Adeoluakintunde]] ([[User talk:Adeoluakintunde|talk]]) (talk) 22:02, 26 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. Geschichte (talk) 07:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tereza Østbø Kuldova[edit]

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

Clearly doesn't meet WP:ACADEMIC. Bjerrebæk (talk) 18:01, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bjerrebæk (talk) 18:01, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As an academic, she has less than 350 citations on google scholar which is a bit thin for WP:PROF, probably a bit too soon for a wiki page. Unless there is some significant coverage for non academic related achievements, I would remove the page. Lainx (talk) 21:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC) 16:04, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've not looked myself, but are there any reviews or similar to pass WP:AUTHOR instead of WP:ACADEMIC? -Kj cheetham (talk) 23:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have found and cited one review, but couldn't find any more. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is very unlikely that someone with the position of senior researcher and such a recent PhD would yet be notable under WP:PROF, and this subject does not appear to be. And one review is not enough for notability under WP:AUTHOR. I have tried to overcome my initial prejudice against the subject at seeing her own works cited as "sources". Phil Bridger (talk) 09:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. She earned her doctorate just seven years ago. Her writing career is not so well-cited to trump WP:PROF. Bearian (talk) 21:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 13:41, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 13:41, 24 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. czar 19:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MiRXES[edit]

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

Fail WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Non-notable startup. scope_creep^Talk 17:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:53, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:53, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not pass WP:NCORP. Author appears to be WP:GAMING the system by making 10 edits on 12 September, waiting 9 days to become Auto-confirmed, then publishing the article in main space to evade AfC. 1292simon (talk) 22:33, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:55, 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 Roman emperor. People agree that we should not have these articles, but disagree about whether to delete or to merge them (and how). Redirection is a compromise that allows editors to figure out through the editorial process whether and how they want to merge any of this content. Sandstein 18:23, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Emperor (Principate)[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related pages because they follow the same pattern as the aforementioned one, only for different historical periods:

This article intends to describe the nature of the office of Roman emperor during the period outlined in the title. I don't see why this needs a specific page rather than be treated in the Roman emperor page itself. I would have proposed a merge, but the entire article amounts simply to a listing of Roman emperors with information already covered in other articles. The article has no sources, has demonstrably wrong information, and adds nothing which other articles already do, so deletion seems appropriate here, per WP:CONTENTFORK and WP:DEL-REASON. Avis11 (talk) 17:34, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG. Shoving everything into one article isn't the solution to every subpar article. This page and the others need improvement, not deletion.★Trekker (talk) 17:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The pages are all basically 80% Roman emperor lists (there is already a page for that), 10% information on dynasties and individual emperors (already covered in other articles), 10% briefly and awkwardly worded stuff describing the imperial office (likewise, already covered in other articles), and 0% sourced content. The primary topic of these articles, i.e. the description of the Roman imperial office in the outlined period, can be summed into just a couple of paragraphs in the already existent Roman emperor page – it hardly needs a separate article for that, and so it's hardly 'shoving' as you say. Avis11 (talk) 18:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge These articles contain the sort of information that should be at Roman emperor. The relevant sections of that article, which point to these, should be expanded. Other information should merge with Principate and Dominate where pertinent. Agree that the nominated articles are unnecessary. GPinkerton (talk) 21:36, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The articles in question add nothing which isn't already covered elsewhere, so there's nothing to merge. Merging would also mean keeping pesky redirects around. See WP:DEL-REASON and WP:CONTENTFORK. Avis11 (talk) 17:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep or split~~ -- It is common for WP to have a general article and a series of more details sub-articles (described as "main" articles). That is the structure here. I feel that the balance between the general article and the detailed ones is less than ideal. It might have been better for the section of Roman emperor dealing with the Principate to have given a little more detail of about 4 successive dynasties, Julio-claudian; Flavian; Nerva to Commodus (where succession was by adoption, not descent); and Severan, each with a separate article, rather than combining them all into one article, but to merge this (as suggested) and by implication also those for the chaos; Dominate; and Fall periods would make the potential target grossly unwieldly. Nevertheless this is far from being a good article. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That you're labeling this as a case of main and sub-articles shows you haven't properly read or understood my point or the articles in question. This is a case of WP:CONTENTFORK, for which the solution is fewer, not more, articles. There is nothing to merge, and there's no "potential target" to be made unwieldy – this is a request for deletion, not merge. Your proposal to expand an already redundant article base is the exact opposite of what should be done here. Avis11 (talk) 17:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The points made by Avis11 are convincing to me. As stated, these are mostly lists, and they are not as informative, space-efficient, or accessible as the already existing List of Roman emperors. In addition, these articles strongly duplicate Principate, Crisis of the Third Century and Dominate - all of these articles are largely about the Roman Emperor in the respective periods; all of them are (shockingly) short, meaning that there is no justification for separating out the material in them on the imperial office (even if that were possible). Furius (talk) 18:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(second thoughts) Merge another way -- I accept the criticism of Avis11: I looked at the main nominated article, but not the additional nominated ones. I suspect that there is little worth merging to to nom's target, but the first nominated article could usefully be added to Principate, perhaps as a new section on "dynasties". The relationships between successive emperors in about four dynasties are worth having, though I do not like the current structure and would prefer to see the "dynastic relationships" sections worked into the main narrative text. Better still would be to have separate sub-articles on each dynasty: perhaps we do already, in which case the merge should be even briefer, with a link to that. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On investigating further, I find that we do have the dynasty articles, so that my reference is for a short merger to Principate and Dominate with links to the dynasty articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. To those (@GPinkerton:, @Peterkingiron:) proposing a merge, you have to READ the articles and take the trouble to outline what's indeed worth merging. If some careless administrator closes the discussion saying that the consensus is inconclusive or to merge, then the articles in question won't be deleted and will be around for another 15 years. Presumably those proposing a merger will leave to another editor the trouble of actually performing said merge, and never bother themselves with the subject again. Merge proposals = pointless obstruction. So, please, say either delete or keep. Avis11 (talk) 12:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this article is pointless. It is just a detailed list of Roman emperors down to Severus Alexander. We already have such list elsewhere. T8612 (talk) 21:04, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into other articles as appropriate. Just glancing over these, I don't see much that's particularly useful, and there's some very questionable writing (Agrippa was certainly never emperor; and why are all the instances of emperors' names in bold?). There certainly doesn't seem to be anything that wouldn't make more sense in other articles, whether about individual dynasties, or about emperors or time periods generally. Whatever is useful here, and not already in the other articles, can be safely moved there, IMO, and these articles redirected to the best targets—not sure deleting them outright would be a good idea, since the page history would be lost, but I can't see using these titles as search targets. P Aculeius (talk) 21:08, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge given previous arguments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.217.186 (talk) 02:40, 25 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 Nomination Withdrawn.. Nomination withdrawn. Missed the Order of Canada member of, equivalent to the MBE. (non-admin closure) scope_creep^Talk 17:51, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James C. Temerty[edit]

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

No effective references.Puff piece. Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 17:15, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep meets WP:ANYBIO for James_C._Temerty#Awards_and_honours Lightburst (talk) 17:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Lightburst, and noting in particular the Order of Canada. Curiocurio (talk) 17:33, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I missed the section. I went between the references at the top, and bottom and not the middle. Need to watch for that. Thanks for spotting that so quick. Nomination Withdrawn

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

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

The result was delete. czar 19:43, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Westin Savannah Harbor Golf Resort & Spa[edit]

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

There is nothing notable about this hotel and it fails the following requirement per WP:NBUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Wikiwriter700 (talk) 18:17, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:19, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesses-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:19, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero evidence of notability; no WP:SIGCOV and not inherently notable Spiderone 13:57, 24 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. czar 19:42, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Westin Westminster[edit]

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

There is nothing notable about this hotel and it fails the following requirement per WP:NBUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Wikiwriter700 (talk) 18:15, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:16, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Speedy really, with no claim of notability whatsoever. Incredibly generic hotel. Reywas92^Talk 07:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 13:52, 24 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Four Seasons Resort Carmelo, Uruguay[edit]

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

There is nothing notable about this hotel and it fails the following requirement per WP:NBUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Wikiwriter700 (talk) 18:08, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:11, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - leaning towards delete; a WP:BEFORE does show plenty of passing mentions but nothing in the way of WP:SIGCOV in any sources that could be described as reliable. Spiderone 14:03, 24 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. ST47 (talk) 04:47, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hyatt Regency Aruba Resort & Casino[edit]

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

There is nothing notable about this hotel and it fails the following requirement per WP:NBUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Wikiwriter700 (talk) 18:11, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:17, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - ordinary hotel. Bearian (talk) 21:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 13:56, 24 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. ST47 (talk) 04:47, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hyatt Regency Portland[edit]

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

There is nothing notable about this hotel and it fails the following requirement per WP:NBUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Wikiwriter700 (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:05, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer: Stub creator. This one's easy. Strong and speedy keep. Just go to Google News and search "Hyatt Regency Portland", you'll see sufficient secondary coverage. I've shared some on the article's talk page. You seem to have nominated a whole series of properties indiscriminately. Next time please complete enough research before submitting deletion nominations. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a generic Hyatt which barely opened, notwithstanding its financing. To the above, I don't feel like this meets WP:INDISCRIMINATE in the least (and the talkpage sourcing is basically the convention center being built rather than the hotel), and I thank the nom for finally tackling this generic metro business hotel cruft. Nate • (chatter) 19:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page sources are about the hotel specifically, not the convention center. They go as far back as 2012 as this specific property has been in the news for years, often related to public funding. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:51, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards Keep. There's extensive coverage for this convention center hotel even before it was built as part of the Lloyd District Development Strategy in the early 00s, and even farther back as part of the Oregon Convention Center/MAX Light Rail station plans in the late 80s. In terms of the city's planning history, it's not your generic Hyatt. --truflip99 (talk) 21:04, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets our notability guidelines with SIGCOV. The hotel has 600 rooms and RS - the hotel is notable. I added a few sources Lightburst (talk) 17:45, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Public financing issues make this a matter of public concern. Reliable sources exist, article is being expanded/improved. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 17:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:SIGCOV and similar to various other notable hotels in major US cities. Has enough history of its own to be a notable historical hotel. Ambrosiawater (talk) 05:33, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while Hyatt hotels are not inherently notable, the sourcing does show just enough for WP:GNG Spiderone 13:56, 24 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. ST47 (talk) 04:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Hyatt Muscat Hotel[edit]

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

There is nothing notable about this hotel and it fails the following requirement per WP:NBUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Wikiwriter700 (talk) 17:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesses -related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - ordinary hotel. The description is not sufficient to tell us why it's notable, so it's borderline speedy delete. Bearian (talk) 21:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am going to have to agree with Bearian here that it is run-of-the-mill and the nominator that this specific hotel fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NBUILD. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 13:53, 24 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. ST47 (talk) 04:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DoubleTree by Hilton Chicago Magnificent Mile[edit]

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

There is nothing notable about this hotel and it fails the following requirement per WP:NBUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Wikiwriter700 (talk) 17:20, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesses -related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:32, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:Building, WP:MILL, and my standards. This is a 29-story hotel in an international city filled with tall skyscrapers and famous hotels. Bearian (talk) 21:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while it did receive enough coverage in The New York Times to determine (as if the Hilton site weren't enough) that it exists, a single passing mention is not enough. Fails WP:NBUILD and WP:SIGCOV. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:28, 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 keep. Consensus is that the article should be kept, though there is also consensus for it to be renamed. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DoubleTree by Hilton Harrogate Majestic Hotel & Spa[edit]

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

There is nothing notable about this hotel and it fails the following requirement per WP:NBUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Wikiwriter700 (talk) 17:17, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesses-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:34, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Is there any significant coverage under its old name, for a 120 year old hotel? Bearian (talk) 21:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A very large, 120-year-old hotel with enough coverage to establish notability. But rename to Majestic Hotel, Harrogate to get rid of the branding. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:28, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added more relevant information regarding the hotel which has enough historical coverage throughout the years. My suggestion here is to keep the current name as it is because it is already part of the building's history. Valgetova (talk) 11:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm guessing its WP:COMMONNAME is the Majestic Hotel. Can't imagine many people go around referring to it as the DoubleTree by Hilton Harrogate Majestic Hotel & Spa! -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable and reasonably sourced. Rename to the common name would be best. — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 13:53, 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. ST47 (talk) 04:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel Shanghai–Pudong[edit]

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

There is nothing notable about this hotel and it fails the following requirement per WP:NBUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Wikiwriter700 (talk) 17:14, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesses-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:34, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a Skyscraper the building passes WP:GEOFEAT Lightburst (talk) 21:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL - only 47 stories and is less than 20 years old, this is exactly 51st on the List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Shanghai. Bearian (talk) 21:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not aware of any consensus or precedent that skyscrapers are automatically notable. Generic hotel building low in the city's skyline. Reywas92^Talk 03:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete per above, and there is no claim to notability made in the article anyway. Mangoe (talk) 20:11, 24 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yousef Salama[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPROF. Assistant professor per bio at An-Najah National University; citations on Scholar are weak in a field where this is (as I recall) relevant; and the claim that he is an "ambassador" to Japan seems highly exaggerated, if not outright false, given [15]. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:15, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON. Mccapra (talk) 06:50, 24 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 withdrawal. (non-admin closure) Ysangkok (talk) 15:09, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vinny Lingham[edit]

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

notability not established, sources are not reputable, the reuters article is not actually covering Vinny Lingham, it is about Civic (the company mentioned in this article) Ysangkok (talk) 15:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 15:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 15:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 15:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 15:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 15:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 15:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found some about him.

Brainstorm "From geek teen to search hotshot" and "An entrepreneur in exile"

Forbes Africa Creating Africa’s Own Geek Valley and "A Million-Dollar Idea In A Coffee Shop"

Daily Maverick "Vinny Lingham: SA’s start-up king and Gyft-ed man"

Sunday Times "SA man hits the jackpot in Silicon Valley" and "Geek becomes entrepreneur-breeding dragon"

Finweek "The man who is about to disrupt identity protection" Ҥ (talk) 02:54, 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 delete. czar 16:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Laura-Jayne Hunter[edit]

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

No demonstration of notability. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NMUSICIAN. Edwardx (talk) 15:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:01, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:01, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:01, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Discogs lists exactly one appearance on a compilation, and that's it. In addition, the fact that the article was tagged for notability for a decade without improvement strongly suggests that there are no improvements to be made. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:04, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while the BBC did cover her twice, one RS publication is not enough. Currently fails WP:NMUSICIAN and lacks significant coverage by multiple reliable sources independent of subject and each other. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:45, 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 AIFF Elite Academy. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:10, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chowgule Sports Centre[edit]

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

Lacks independent notability and fails WP:GNG. I have done an extensive search and found:

[16] - primary source
[17] - this appears to be the website for the sports centre
[18] - painfully brief article in local paper
[19] - mentioned once
[20] - U10 futsal league which probably represents the best coverage of this sports centre
[21] - mentioned once

The content is already covered well enough in Parvatibai Chowgule College so I see no reason for a separate article. Spiderone 15:14, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 15:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to AIFF Elite Academy. Giant Snowman 15:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to AIFF Elite Academy. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 15:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the content somewhere. AIFF Elite Academy is fine for now - I see a lot of coverage of this place that's just short of significant, including X prominent team trained here, a youth international was played here, or that artificial turf was installed, without going into any greater detail, but we're really only about a source away from a keep. SportingFlyer T·C 15:42, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - no objection to a merge to AIFF Elite Academy as per WP:PRESERVE. Both articles are very short so can't see why not. Spiderone 16:37, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I fail to see how AIFF Elite Academy is notable, delete that as well I'd say as that appears to fails WP:NSPORT, GNG also. Govvy (talk) 17:10, 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. czar 16:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Loch Lomond Youth Soccer Festival[edit]

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

A football festival for teenagers and children that does not appear to meet WP:GNG. The article was started by an WP:SPA. It has been put forward for speedy deletion twice but declined both times.

Here is a summary of the sources available:

[22] - promotional flyer
[23] - review dedicated to the tournament but not likely to be considered an independent source
[24] - press release
[25] - reasonably short article but does show coverage from a leading Scottish tabloid
[26] - article in local paper about the festival
[27] - not sure if this is reliable or significant
[28] - promo piece Spiderone 14:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 14:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 15:01, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We are now done to one source in the article. This is a long way from meeting WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 10:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As it stands, there is nothing in the article to suggest that this is a particularly notable tournement/events, and I cannot find any obvious significant coverage of it. Dunarc (talk) 20:51, 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 redirect to Kabyle people#Politics. czar 16:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kabyle nationalism[edit]

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

Merge with (Kabyle people), the article is an Original research and there are two refs only (very poor Verifiability), in google search: major of sources talk about "Kabyle people" only not about "nationalism". Ibrahim.ID ✪ 13:14, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:34, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Algeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:34, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect The content should be replaced with a redirect to Kabyle_people#Politics or to MAK. Sami At Ferḥat (talk) 20:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:CHEAP. Right now, it appears to be a fork. Bearian (talk) 20:09, 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 redirect to List of Brisbane Broncos players. There is a consensus to redirect, as an alternative to deletion. This target garnered the most support but if a better target is developed (e.g. the suggestion to redirect to 2002 Brisbane Broncos season) this discussions should not get in the way of implementing that. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:31, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Lacaze[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby league/Notability, a former rugby league player with one professional appearance and not enough significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. A web search shows only WP:ROUTINE coverage, mostly in reference to the one game he and other reserve players appeared in.

Please see related AfDs, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alwyn Simpson and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Hanrahan. Ytoyoda (talk) 14:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ytoyoda (talk) 14:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Ytoyoda (talk) 14:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - from RLN Any current or former rugby league player who has played none or limited first grade rugby league should not be eligible for an article unless it meets the general notability guideline including reliable secondary sources. However, normally these players only have information listed on their club's official website, which is a violation of Independent of the subject in the general notability guideline. Spiderone 18:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:RLN. This is indicative of the other articles available at the time: https://www.pressreader.com/australia/the-weekend-post/20121215/282424166537492 Doctorhawkes (talk) 21:28, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's just a passing mention to establish a butcher shop's connection to rugby league. If there has been enough coverage to meet WP:GNG, we shouldn't have rely on an article about another player for indications of significant coverage to assume there's coverage. As it remains, his only claim to fame is that he appeared in one game and didn't have much of a career otherwise. Ytoyoda (talk) 22:09, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete he only seems to have played in one game and all the coverage is trivial passing mentions. So, the article fails WP:GNG and the general consensus lately seems to be that articles about athletes who do should be deleted. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a single competitive game is never enough in any team sport unless the appearance became widely noted. Geschichte (talk) 17:00, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:RLN. In addition to that none of those calling for the deletion of this verified content has given a good reason why it should be Deleted when alternatives exist such as redirecting to List of Brisbane Broncos players. That does not require deletion, provides a useful redirect and preserves valid content for when someone is able to do a dead tree source and expand the content. Sources such as The a to Z of Rugby League Players includes him. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And the mention in A to Z is totally non-trivial, yeah? Geschichte (talk) 09:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't have rugby encyclos but AFL encyclopaedias tend to have a couple sentences on each player. SportingFlyer T·C 20:17, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agree with the arguments put by duffbeerforme. Cabrils (talk) 00:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - alternatives to deletion must be considered before deletion. List of Brisbane Broncos players meets that criteria. Deus et lex (talk) 10:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Something in-between is best here. Lacaze does not appear meet the WP:GNG on his own and isn't eligible for his own article, but there's also enough in the article to preserve somewhere. The issue with the "List of Brisbane Broncos players" is it's just a list. I would recommend a redirect there and adding a blurb about the match he appeared in (which was a famous upset) to 2002 Brisbane Broncos season. SportingFlyer T·C 20:16, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a rule of thumb about how much accompanying details any single item in a list can have? --Adamant1 (talk) 23:38, 25 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Goldface[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded by User:Andrew Davidson with no meaningful rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD). Again, this has a short sentence on publication history (and a longer but mostly unreferenced section on appearances in other media), plus the usual fancrufty plot summary, no shred of claims of significance, impact, receptions, etc. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Discussions of Goldface appear numerous times in Comic Book Resources (seen as a reliable source on Wikipedia), he seems to be a key plot item in television show The Flash, and even ranked #3 in a Top 10 list. I'm relatively new to AfD's, but my thinking is "what's the harm in keeping?" - AppleBsTime (talk) 13:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CBR puts out between twenty to fifty lists per day. It seems they were previously a better regulated site, but it has turned into a nonsense clickbait garabage dump. Nothing of what they put out should be included in an article. TTN (talk) 18:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point me to the community discussion that concluded that about CBR? - AppleBsTime (talk) 20:12, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If there is none, I'd support starting one at WP:RSN (the only thing I found was a passing mention 11 year ago at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_43). Also, User:AppleBsTime, since you asked "what's the harm", please reasd WP:ITSHARMLESS. Anyway, the two sources cited are pretty bad - they are both just pure plot summaries. Inclusion in one of zillion CBR lists is really nothing special, since their lists are mostly meaningless repeats of plot summary organized as a type of clickbait, note they have usually no analysis or explanaiton of rankings. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your use of terms like "zillions" and "clickbait" indicate to me that you are not being subjective in evaluating the source that you've formed a personal opinion about, but which the Wikipedia community has not even attempted to form a consensus, other than allowing hundreds of links as source material over the years. - AppleBsTime (talk) 15:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article fails to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:NOTPLOT. TTN (talk) 18:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. William Harris (talk) 23:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep CBR putting out a lot of articles is not a good reason for deletion. Unless a previous discussion can be cited for the site no longer being regarded as a reliable source on Wikipedia then its irrelevant and quite possibly POV.★Trekker (talk) 00:27, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly we need to make some sort of policy regarding using sources like CBR, Screenrant, and others of the like. Some users don't like them, others like myself don't have an issue with them (usually). But it's really just opinion on both sides at this point; we need to establish an official consensus. Rhino131 (talk) 00:34, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I just want to point out to the closing admin that the two votes above contain not a shred of argument for keeping this particular article, they are just commenting on whether CBR is reliable or not. Even if it is reliable, this is irrelevant (and as I noted above, the CBR content cited is a pure plot summary anyway).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:41, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Similarly, the closing administrator should note that the two "delete" votes don't provide an argument either. One is purely WP:PERNOM, while the other is from someone who has been copy/pasting "Delete - Fails GNG and NOTPLOT" on just about everything. Dark knight 2149 04:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto for the one below. Dark knight 2149 04:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep contra nom as article satisfies WP:GNG. --Moscowdreams (talk) 02:37, 10 October 2020 (UTC)Blocked sock account[reply]
Delete - Contra Moscowdreams, the article unquestionably fails GNG in my opinion. - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per @AppleBsTime:, @*Treker:, and @Rhino131: --Rtkat3 (talk) 23:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "The DC Comics Encyclopedia" does not indicate notability; as it is arguably a primary source. CBR does not indicate notability as they have zero editorial oversight to what they publish which often includes reaching for bottom of the barrel fancruft. Overall, fails GNG and is Wikia material._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:50, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Zxcvbnm: Nonsense. CBR does have editorial oversight and have always been regarded as a reliable news publication on Wikipedia. Maybe you can make an argument that not all of their lists or opinion pieces constitute coverage (there have been a lot more of those since Comic Book Resources became CBR after a buyout), but claiming that they are unreliable as a whole displays an obvious ignorance of the site. And to be frank, the only reason specific users started having a problem with CBR is because they got tired of them having articles about their nominations. That's really what all of this is about. Dark knight 2149 21:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - My two cents here would be that CBR is reliable - but not for the lists. Such lists, whether from CBR or from one of the other copycats, are unreliable and pretty much worthless. See also recent discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_315#Popculture_Top_10_lists, where this was the unanimous consensus at RSN. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:FICTION. WP:FICTION says Articles on fiction elements are expected to cover more about "real-world" aspects of the element. This article right now contains lots of info about their fiction, and the sources are either WP:PRIMARY or used to source that fictional material. The CBR source also seems to speak about the fictional universe, so regardless of its status as reliable I do not think it helps show notability. I searched Google News, Scholar, and Books, JSTOR, ProQuest databases, and Academic OneFile for sources that show his notability in the real world but did not find anything. In order to change my delete endorsement, additional sources need to be posted that show why Goldface is notable in real life. Z1720 (talk) 16:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it fails WP:GNG. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 17:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Z1720. Article does not have out-of-universe context to meet WP:PLOT, let alone WP:GNG. Sources cannot be found that would remedy this. Shooterwalker (talk) 05:37, 23 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. Geschichte (talk) 10:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio T. de Nicolás[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NPROF, except for this, which may be a Festschrift but looks self-published. I also found this review, but that's about it. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. GS cites just OK for elderly poet and philosopher. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. I just added 12 published reviews of 4 of his books to the article. I think that's enough for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:38, 24 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:33, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Craven[edit]

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

The subject is a darts player who has competed in a couple of professional tournaments, but doesn't appear to have won any significant awards (his best result in any competition, according to the database, was a quarter final place.) There isn't an SNG for darts, but going off WP:SPORTSBASIC I don't believe the subject is notable - the existing article is supported only by an external link to a darts database; I searched for more coverage online, but found only listings in other databases, and passing mentions in local media sources - nothing that would meet the sourcing criteria required. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not all darts players are the biggest names. These people did play in event which have some merit. They might not be well known, but they have won events and have featured in events of note.12:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JRRobinson (talk • contribs)

Delete per nom; no SNG met and GNG is not met either; only references are databases. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; fails WP:GNG --Devokewater (talk) 11:17, 23 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 by Jimfbleak per G11, G12. (non-admin closure) Shellwood (talk) 13:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tinius Olsen Testing Machine Company[edit]

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

Declined multiple times at WP:AFC. Zero independent sources fails WP:NCORP Theroadislong (talk) 12:04, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 12:04, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on balance. Deb (talk) 12:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:26, 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 -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:19, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Windows 2.x[edit]

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

Unnecessary disambiguation. Windows 2 (currently redirect to this page) should redirect to Windows 2.0, then add a hatnote to Windows 2.1x in Windows 2.0 article. Hddty (talk) 12:01, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Hddty (talk) 12:01, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect WP:ONEOTHER. Hatnotes are appropriate in this case, the DAB page is unnecessary and should be deleted or redirected to Windows 2.0, the more notable of the two articles. Footlessmouse (talk) 18:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it should be deleted because the title "2.x" is not similar to either "2.0" or "2.1x". Hddty (talk) 05:23, 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 keep. – bradv🍁 23:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Democratic Secular Front[edit]

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

The article is about a coalition which was formed on 8 October 2020 and does not have enough coverage to meet the general notability guidelines let alone those on organisations. There is also a lot of original research leading to inaccuracies. For instance, it was formed with the merger of two alliances whereas it refers to one of them as it's former name (UDSA).^[1] Even if we were to consider either or both of the former alliances to be contributing towards it's notablity, the coverage still is not sufficient to meet guidelines. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 13:30, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2020_Bihar_Legislative_Assembly_election#Parties_and_Alliances seems appropriate to me. Reywas92^Talk 16:54, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Asaduddin Owaisi, Upendra Kushwaha Form Front Of 6 Parties For Bihar Polls". NDTV. Press Trust of India. 8 October 2020.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 13:30, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 13:30, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KeepJust seen its coverage.No its notable and seems to have more coverage until now. Also it may expand in future following elections result.Though i have not seen WP:OR related issue....but if they exist that can be removed. Also in 2020 Bihar Assembly Election this should be written as third front besides NDA and UPA as 6 parties are involved and media is reporting that they constitute third front. A LOT of news regarding it is there.Heba Aisha (talk) 02:04, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : as per Heba Aisha. -- Manasbose ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per wide coverage in reliable sources including The Hindu, a Newspaper of record. Inaccuracies can be fixed. Bearian (talk) 15:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian, could I ask you for examples of this wide coverage? Tayi Arajakate _Talk 01:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, just to clarify on my nomination. Most of the coverage that the alliance has received is regarding its formation, usually bundled with other alliances that exist in the concerned election. There is otherwise a lack of any significant in-depth coverage, the kind of, one would require for a corporation, organisation or political party or coalition would require to be considered notability per WP:ORG. Many of the parties in the alliances themselves are notable but that doesn't make a transient alliance like this notable too, and not to mention notability is not inherited. I have otherwise also cleaned up the article a bit in case it survives this AfD. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 15:39, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is a significant alliance and do not fulfill criteria for delition.Many useless articles are on wikipedia which are not nominated even though they are not notable.But significant pressure is given on its religion meanwhile many other editors are not in favour of delition its only a concern of a particular editor.Heba Aisha (talk) 03:03, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also the user who nominated this for delition is deliting the candidate list and other related stuff from 2020 Bihar Assembly election page meanwhile keeping small parties like Lok Janshakti Party.An Rfc is there on talk page Talk:2020 Bihar Legislative Assembly election where brother has not given a satisfactory reply about the same.Many other editor wanted its inclusion and to keep this article.I would like to tag Manasbose and TATHAGAT586 who are among those who want to keep it and include its candidates in 2020 assembly page as it is a bigger alliance than LJP.Heba Aisha (talk) 03:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have already adequately explained why I've done so on the concerned page and not to mention this isn't the page to bring it up. Also I'm not a "brother".

Regarding the AfD itself, the alleged existence of "other useless articles" or your presumptions of a local consensus does not override community guidelines. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 04:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've struck the second keep !vote by Heba Aisha. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 04:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've already pointed out what I see is clearly significant coverage. I'm not replying to sea lions. Bearian (talk) 17:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian, are you seriously accusing me of sea-lioning for asking you one question about what you find to be "examples of wide coverage"? The article as it stood at the time you made your comment had one citation with the The Hindu as the publisher, a citation which did not even mention the alliance. The only coverage that I can find in The Hindu which does mention the alliance is the following one:

Tewary, Amarnath (8 October 2020). "Bihar Assembly election | Six parties form a new front with RSLP's Kushwaha as CM candidate". The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X.

It's an article about developments in the pre-election campaign which includes the formation of the alliance and is bundled with other developments. Otherwise, I have not found any coverage of it in from the newspaper in particular and from what I understand most others have the same degree of coverage, a report about its formation. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 06:52, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bearian You are right. There is 100 of source on google which covers it. Searching it on google gives hundreds of results. Heba Aisha (talk) 12:13, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficient coverage per WP:SIGCOV to establish notability. scope_creep^Talk 12:52, 26 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. Geschichte (talk) 10:52, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beekrumsing Ramlallah State Secondary School[edit]

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

This school doesn't seem notable. Since all the sources in the article are primary except for one (which isn't about the school or in-depth), I couldn't find any sources in a BEFORE that would pass either WP:GNG or WP:NORG, and secondary schools are not inherently notable per the RfC about them. Given the irrelevance of SCHOOLOUTCOMES for secondary schools and that WP:BIAS is an essay, it would be good if keep arguments were about the actual guidelines and sourcing (or lack there of) per WP:AFDEQ. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:51, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mauritius-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:54, 17 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 Spiderone 08:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article does not pass GNG or NORG. BEFORE showed only sparse routine run of the mill local coverage, nothing that establishes notability. The references in the article does not meet IS or SIGCOV // Timothy :: talk 00:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL, WP:SIGCOV, and my own standards for secondary schools. This seems to be an ordinary secondary school, one of over 50 on Mauritius. Since there is lack of significant coverage, we'd have to delete it. It only has 4/10 of my factors for secondary school notability, less than the 7/10 I would prefer. Bearian (talk) 17:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'd seriously question a few of the standards, your 10 point notability system seems at least a little more resonable then whatever the "keep every school article, because school" crowd has going. Have you thought about doing an RfC about it? Because while I'm fine with the current standards of the GNG and NORG for schools, more specific guidelines would be a good thing and maybe it would help tamp down the angry mob some if they were a little more strict, or at least actually catered to schools. Adamant1 (talk) 18:26, 23 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. ST47 (talk) 04:51, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Islamic and Secular Studies[edit]

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

This article has been unreferenced since 2014, I was unable to find multiple in-depth reliable sources about the school in a WP:BEFORE and secondary schools are not inherently notable per consensus in the RfC about it. There was an AfD for the school back in 2014, but no one was able to find sources for it and everyone who keep cited SCOOLOUTCOMES and the inherent notability of secondary schools. Which again isn't valid anymore. So there has been no guideline based discussion about it so far. I'd like there to be one this time based on WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Instead of people who vote keep just citing a no longer valid standard or an irrelevant essay. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:29, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mauritius-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not meet GNG or NORG, BEFORE showed nothing and article lacks RS with SIGCOV that addresses the subject directly and in-depth. // Timothy :: talk 17:24, 22 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. Geschichte (talk) 10:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sel Guevara[edit]

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

Not seeing anything that satisfies WP:BIO. There are no references, although she is apparently a pro bikini competitor. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:35, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable per WP:GNG. I couldn't find any suitable citations for her. A quick Google search returns a few results only. HiwilmsTalk 12:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I know her for her stint as a DJ of RX 93.1. Barely found any news article about her. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 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. Geschichte (talk) 10:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Ayo Mary Laurent[edit]

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

No indication of being notable. Some minor coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 21:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:09, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:09, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A lot of the coverage is borderline tabloid that does not indicate any fact checking. Her being a "princess" seems more marketing gimmick than reality. We seem to lack an article on her great-grandparent who seems to have been the last to hold an actual title. Keep in mind that at least after 1900 most "royal" titles in Nigeria have not actually been connected with actual political power. This has the potential to morph into another expression of deposed monarchy cruft.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:30, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Doesn’t satisfy our general notability criteria. Celestina007 (talk) 18:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this princess meets notability and has yahoo and international coverage & sources on forbes and almost every reference source is ethentic, l am sure this article meets the guidelines. John Pack Lambert you are saying right, the monarchy in Nigeria is tribal and never been interwoven in political power, a prince or princess of Nigeria is known to be princes or princesses of their tribes as we know Nigeria has the largest tribe and most spoken languages in the world, about 520. This princess is a princess of her tribe and from the particular hometown information on wiki, the monarchy exist and up till date and tribal monarchy is forever in Nigeria and can not be deposed. Look into this and judge rightly. I believe they meet. They are the richest african princess too, I see this is notable.Arslan Ahsan (talk) 17:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 09:05, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes is deprecated on Wikipedia and can't be used to establish notability. scope_creep^Talk 09:47, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:scope_creep The forbes is not deprecated and your claim is wrong again at this point. Why did you say it is deprecated when it is not, look, we both know here that forbes references has never been the notability criteria to be on wikipedia, many notable people on wikipedia here but not necessarily forbes only proves notability. There are rules and guidelines that wikipedia entry should follow and this page follow all the following Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Original Research, WP:NPOV, WP:POV, WP:NOT, WP:BIO, WP:NFT, WP:N & has more worthy and trusted sources and references that are on the news. The fact that these links is not deprecated proves more readily that it is honourable to keep.Arslan Ahsan (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is deprecated dude. WP:FORBESCON. Forbes isn't a good reference. It is low-quality, and because they have churned out so much junk over the last 10 years, the WMF has had enough, changed the software to flag it up and the community has deprecated it. Check before you spout a bunch of such nonsense. More so, this is about the 9th time this past week or two that I've stated the exact same thing. Does nobody check. scope_creep^Talk 19:11, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OUTCOMES and WP:SIGCOV. Over the past three months a consensus has emerged that princesses of non-sovereign states are not automatically notable, whether from Europe, Latin America, or Asia. This is the first I've seen from Africa, although I don't see how this one would be an exception to the new rules. Ping me if you find anything other than the single Yahoo news. Bearian (talk) 20:16, 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. czar 21:12, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overs Piano[edit]

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

Apparently, non-notable piano manufacturer. The company only has minor coverage, mostly rutinary. I did not find enough independent sources to confirm the topic's notability. Urbanoc (talk) 21:46, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Overs is highly regarded in the world of piano technicians and rebuilders. As a manufacturer he appears to be less successful. His marketing probably hasn't been on par, having minor resources. He isn't a car manufacturer. You should look at his work as a Mona Lisa. Very special, you shouldn't look at it quantity wise. 2001:1c02:30d:3600:d9c:bf3e:707d:e53d (talk) 23:13, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:04, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:01, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:01, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 09:05, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator. Capt. Milokan (talk) 09:30, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While Overs may end up being remembered as the Leonardo da Vinci (or Stradivarius) of pianos at some point in the future, at the moment this manufacturer fails WP:CORPDEPTH. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 14:31, 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. ST47 (talk) 04:51, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Shofiul Alam[edit]

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

Not notable personality. Sources are just trivial mentions. Coriannakox (talk) 08:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Coriannakox (talk) 08:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coriannakox (talk) 08:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, more close to advertising than anything else. Geschichte (talk) 17:02, 24 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. Geschichte (talk) 10:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PriyoShop.com[edit]

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

Mostly based on press releases (6th year celebration), and blogs etc. Coriannakox (talk) 08:53, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coriannakox (talk) 08:53, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Jumpytoo Talk 01:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Jumpytoo Talk 01:49, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jumpytoo Talk 01:49, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages nor a platform for promotion. I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:CORPDEPTH --Devokewater (talk) 11:36, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about the company aside from its 6th anniversary, an indication of WP:ONEEVENT. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all of the above Spiderone 19:15, 23 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Blue Book (India)[edit]

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

Non notable. No reliable source. Coriannakox (talk) 08:50, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coriannakox (talk) 08:50, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article referenced by at-launch start-up publicity. Searching is complicated by use of "blue book" as an official term, but the further coverage which can be found is that relating to a funding announcement in December 2016; neither batch of coverage rises above trivial coverage. Fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 08:59, 23 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. Sandstein 13:30, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BHIVE[edit]

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

Full of fundraising press releases indicating unreliability of sources/paid/promotional sources. Coriannakox (talk) 08:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coriannakox (talk) 08:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, it appears to be a very promotional article about a little-known company. Notice how it claims to be the largest coworking space? Based on all of this, I propose a Speedy Delete per G11. Foxnpichu (talk) 10:30, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:45, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This can buzz off. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ahaha. Very clever. Foxnpichu (talk) 11:01, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: per G11 ChunnuBhai (talk) 11:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Refbombed spam. I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails all relevant criteria Spiderone 20:43, 22 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. Sandstein 13:30, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excitel[edit]

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

Based on press releases and company profiles. Not reliable sources. Coriannakox (talk) 08:39, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks independent coverage to pass WP:NCORP. 1292simon (talk) 22:01, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
oppose/keep Independent and secondary sources for notability

a. The subject has also been mentioned by an Indian English-language business newspaper owned by The Indian Express Group

https://www.financialexpress.com/industry/mukesh-ambanis-jio-commands-52-of-indias-internet-user-base-market-adds-this-many-users-at-march-end/2087617/

b. The subject has also been mentioned by another Indian English-language business newspaper owned by The Times Group: httpshttps://economictimes.indiatimes.com/company/excitel-broadband-private-limited-/U63090DL2015PTC277612

c. The subject has been mentioned in TRAI (Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, Govt. India)'s website as the 10th largest broadband service provider with a substantial subscriber-base:

1. https://trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/PIR_08012020_0.pdf

2. https://trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/PIR_17092020_0.pdf Wisdomwiki 40 (talk) 11:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only 0.05% of the total market share and is not a notable company. Ambrosiawater (talk) 05:19, 24 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. czar 21:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two Lick Run, West Virginia[edit]

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

GNIS calls this one a post office, and states that it's exact location is unknown. Perhaps unsurprisingly, this doesn't appear on topographic maps, or in county histories, on in the 1981 USGS listing of West Virginia places (all of the Two Lick Runs there are streams in other counties). Possibly a minor stream of this name in the county, but the claim of an unincorporated community seems to be decidedly false, and the claim of a post office is barely verifiable. All newspapers.com hits are for minor bodies of water. Even if the stream does turn out to be notable, WP:TNT would apply, as the entire contents of this current article is decidedly false and any claims of a community are WP:OR as GNIS doesn't even call it a populated place. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:23, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:23, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:23, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete Both Google and the topos agree that the stream running through Tesla and down to Little Birch is named "Twolick Run"; the areal between them has a more or less continuous scattering of houses along the road, at any era one wishes to look at the maps or aerials. There isn't any specific cluster I could identify with a town of Two Lick Run, but it hardly matters: we have no testimony that says this is a settlement, and it's possible that this post office is a predecessor name for one of the two towns. Fails verification, it does. Mangoe (talk) 02:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:34, 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 redirect. Geschichte (talk) 04:17, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sully & Son Company[edit]

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

A clothing brand that does not pass either WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. The sources cited are PR pieces. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 05:39, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 05:39, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is one of a series of recently created articles creating what appears to be a WP:WALLEDGARDEN around George Sully. I am not clear on notability on any of them, but wanted to flag. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:51, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:51, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:51, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to George Sully. The company by itself does not satisfy WP:GNG and WP:NCORP as stated by the nominator. The sources in the article are all PR about one fashion brand, which is not notable in itself. Additional reliable sources were not found on Google, JSTOR, ProQuest or OneDrive. Since this a company created by Sully, it is appropriate to redirect to his article. Z1720 (talk) 19:06, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:29, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:29, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above. Company fails NCORP/GNG so a redirect makes the most sense. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:31, 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. Geschichte (talk) 04:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mattos, California[edit]

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

Durham calls it a locality. Another source identifies it as a railroad facility at a ranch owned by John Garcia Mattos. Nothing indicates it was a community and otherwise not notable. Glendoremus (talk) 19:38, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:43, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Glendoremus (talk) 19:43, 10 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) 01:23, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete Things are made a lot clearer for this one by the old aerials, which show in the 1940s a spot in between two orchards with no buildings nearby; then in the 1950s a siding appears which curves off to a factory or warehouse next to the then-new FAA facility (which is still there). The orchards are overrun by dense suburban development, and eventually the factory and its siding do as well, although there is a trace of the latter remaining in the form of fence lines and pavement. The topos show the name on one very early map, and then it disappears until the siding shows up, and then disappears again. All this points towards a railorad point name, and there's certainly no sign of anything resembling a separate town. Mangoe (talk) 20:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No post office. Alameda County Place Names says it was a railroad station, WP:STATION applies. Searching GBooks or Newspapers.com is not very fruitful because Mattos is a common last name. Searching for "Mattos Alameda" yielded a trivial mention. [29] has a bio of John G. Mattos, but the portion I can see does not mention the locale. As this locale is not legally recognized, it does not fulfill WP:GEOLAND #1. As there is only trivial coverage (and not much at that), it does not fulfill WP:GEOLAND #1. Cxbrx (talk) 20:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonnotable siding. Just a locale. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:44, 22 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. Sandstein 13:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thekao Mastan[edit]

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

Non notable film, nothing found in a WP:BEFORE to help it pass WP:NFILM. Tagged for notability since July 2019. Even the article in Bengali has no good references. Donaldd23 (talk) 19:39, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 19:39, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 19:39, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - concerns around WP:NFILM and WP:GNG; the article seems to suggest that there is critical reception for this film but I can't find any evidence Spiderone 11:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:46, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:17, 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 keep. Geschichte (talk) 04:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Swapan K. Gayen[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACADEMIC. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 19:41, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:43, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:19, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Swapan K. Gayen publications indexed by Google Scholar. I defer to the experts on this, but it looks like there's enough citations of his papers to suggest a WP:NPROF#C1 pass here. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:50, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of highly-cited papers for WP:NPROF C1, including ones as first/last author (in a field where that matters). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment that someone familiar with Bengali culture/language/etc might be able to add to the article from the video interview under listed external links. The interview is in English, but I'm missing some cultural references, and have trouble hearing the place names. (It's obviously a primary source, but I think that it would be fine for basic biographical details like birthplace, etc.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 00:00, 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. Geschichte (talk) 10:35, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James Andrews (businessman)[edit]

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

Non notable. Sources are not reliable, mostly PR and Blog. Coriannakox (talk) 06:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coriannakox (talk) 06:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL - one of hundreds of VPs and marketing executives in the United States. Bearian (talk) 20:12, 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. Geschichte (talk) 10:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Tenpenny[edit]

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

Not notable. Being a city council member does not establish notability. Neither does claiming the COVID is a hoax, and neither does dying from it. Grave-dancing in the irony that someone (asterisk, in the lowest possible elected office) did both of the latter things does not justify writing a stub about him. Finding any additional information to add seems very unlikely due to the circumstances. But if he were alive, there would be even less to say. Delete. ―cobaltcigs 06:05, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:34, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:34, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Borderline case depending on whether Nashville Metro Council meets Bearcat's criteria for a city of global importance, but otherwise Tenpenny would not meet WP:NPOL. I agree with the assessment by cobaltcigs in their above case. Bkissin (talk) 14:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, they're not my criteria: they're Wikipedia's criteria, established by a consensus of users, and the only thing I am is the person who's most commonly called on to explain them when they're in question. Bearcat (talk) 14:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nashville isn't classified as a global city by any of the standard indexing organizations that we turn to for that determination: I can easily find coverage of its efforts to attain global city status, but self-branding isn't how a city gets that designation — it has to be conferred by an external organization, and isn't a title cities can just hand themselves. So no, Nashville's local municipal councillors don't get an automatic inclusion freebie just for existing as municipal councillors, and his only path to inclusion is if he can be well-sourced as much more nationally significant than the norm for non-global city councillors. But a small blip of coverage about the irony of his dying of COVID-19 soon after labelling the disease as a hoax just makes him a WP:BIO1E, not a person who would pass the ten year test for enduring nationalized significance. Bearcat (talk) 14:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The expectation under WP:NPOL is that a city councilmember should receive international or national coverage that is much more than the average municipal official. --Enos733 (talk) 05:32, 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. Sandstein 13:27, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Association of Licentiates of Medical Council of Hong Kong (ALMCHK)[edit]

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

Not meet Notability requirement SCP-2000 09:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. SCP-2000 09:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:43, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Respectable well-established medical association. 28 references. Some to their own website, but very unlikely that it is not notable. Rathfelder (talk) 07:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No judgment on independent notability, but editorially, this might be covered better under an article called "Medical licensing in Hong Kong." If this results in anything but "delete" or "keep," does anyone want to write such an article, then start a merger discussion with the goal of turning this article title into a redirect? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 13:34, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note on the Article for creation banner on the talk page was: The page was moved into the main encyclopedia by the author, 59khcmla, with this edit. Later, UnitedStatesian, an AFC reviewer (reviewer list as of that edit) put an AFC WikiProject banner on the article's talk page with this edit. Articles which go through the AFC process and which are moved into the main encyclopedia by an AFC reviewer normally have at least a slight presumption that the reviewer who moves the page has reviewed it. Unless UnitedStatesian gives his input, there is no way to know if this review was done. Sidebar: I realize the use of {{U}} may look like WP:CANVASSING and, technically, it may be canvassing. I thought hard about leaving them out, but it is only fair to alert both editors that I am raising this issue. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 13:52, 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 keep (withdrawn). Geschichte (talk) 04:10, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vamsee Juluri[edit]

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

~~Appears to fail WP:NPROF and WP:NAUTHOR. His book Saraswati's Intelligence may be notable ([30], [31]) but I don't think he is. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

Withdraw. Per below, meets WP:NAUTHOR. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:56, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. No readily available evidence of WP:NACADEMIC or other notability criteria. I don't think their book would be notable either. Jmill1806 (talk) 00:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this article shouldn't be deleted. He was an important participant in the California textbook controversy. He is also the author of notable books. I'd in fact like to see this article get expanded. Czar-peter-123 (talk) 23:13, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added nine published reviews of five of his books to the article. I think that's enough for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
David Eppstein, Thanks. Not sure how I missed those. I agree that's enough for NAUTHOR. Jmill1806, would you mind giving your !vote fresh consideration in light of these reviews? I see no reason to leave this open any longer, but am unable to withdraw unless you strike or amend your vote. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AleatoryPonderings, yes, I withdraw my previous Delete vote. Thanks for finding those, David Eppstein. Jmill1806 (talk) 20:44, 22 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. Geschichte (talk) 10:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney Trilogy[edit]

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

This article is about a re-release of the first three Ace Attorney video games, but goes against MOS:VG#Dealing with remakes: If you can verify enough information to write a non-stub section about the distinct reception of a video game remake, as well as a non-stub section about its distinct game development or design, then the remake will qualify for its own article. [...] If there is not enough distinct information on the remake for a complete article, the few distinct aspects of the remake should be covered in the original game's article.

As is, the article's development section is massively padded with things such as release dates, what date the release dates were announced on, what news publication the release dates were announced through, what date the trailer was revealed, and so on, giving it the false appearance at first glance of a well developed section... but no actual development information. As such, I recommend that we redirect this to List of Ace Attorney media#Compilations, with relevant reception information covered in the series article and/or our articles on the individual games. Alexandra^IDV 02:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Alexandra^IDV 02:36, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep You yourself said If you can verify enough information to write a non-stub section about the distinct reception of a video game remake, as well as a non-stub section about its distinct game development or design... the article has such a thing with a potentially vast reception section due to the many, many distinct reviews of the Trilogy collection. I see this as a clearly distinct game from the Nintendo GBA/DS versions, with the art having been totally remade and gameplay features added. Also, this qualifies as WP:WRONGFORUM as I can never imagine this actually being deleted, even if it was redirected._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:53, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It says "as well as", not "or". Rescinding the second requirement opens up the door for having individual articles for every port of every single multi-platform game. Since there is essentially no content to merge, and redirection is a common outcome of AfD discussions, I didn't see this as an inappropriate venue - I don't exactly mind converting the discussion into a merge proposal if that's deemed more proper.--Alexandra^IDV 10:17, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Plenty about its distinct design (the second requirement) can be extracted from the reviews. For example, drawing from this review: The Ace Attorney Trilogy collection on Switch features completely redone art that breathes new life into the crazy world the game takes place in. One small but significant change is the addition of a magnifying glass icon in investigation segments that makes it easier to tell where you’re supposed to check for evidence. Besides the addition of multiple save files, there isn’t much else in the way of quality of life updates. While the games aren't by any means a massive overhaul of the originals, it's at least enough to qualify for their own article as they are not exact duplicates bundled together._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:33, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Good point, I did not consider this - depending on how much development-related information can be mined from RSs, that could work. The MOS cites this as the minimum of what a development section should be for this type of article, so we should see how much we can get from the reviews.--Alexandra^IDV 23:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasoning by @Zxcvbnm based on a example reading of cited external source (www.nintendoworldreport.com). It appears the trilogy remake is not identical or a slightly touched up version of the original games, and the article fulfills the second requirement of MOS:VG#Dealing with remakes. I have concerns however about the soundtrack section. Is it really necessary to pad the article out with a full track list? I believe the current MOS guidelines tend to discourage a comprehensive listing of tracks unless there is significant coverage about that aspect of the subject? Haleth (talk) 05:53, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Haleth: That can probably be moved to Music of the Ace Attorney series as it's not exactly suitable for the Trilogy article. The section doesn't even describe the soundtrack of the game, but rather, a collection of remixes._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge if the meaningful content can comfortably fit into the other articles about the series, otherwise keep without the padding mentioned in above posts. Unless I’m quite mistaken, this is little more than a port with no significant changes beyond making it fit larger screens, so merging would be preferable. —96.8.24.95 (talk) 15:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd call totally remade graphics, totally redone UI and added gameplay features significant changes. I agree that if it was just 1:1 with the Nintendo DS version, like the WiiWare one, it wouldn't be worth an article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to coverage in reliable secondary sources separate of the original games. This version has attracted a reception of its own and is easily cited. Not that metacritic should be the only standard but it shows numerous publications treating it as its own entity. There are sufficient distinct aspects about this topic. It can't hurt to WP:IMPROVE how the articles relate to each other through headings and blue links. Jontesta (talk) 15:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: I think the situation is comparable to BioShock: The Collection and Borderlands: The Handsome Collection, both of these articles survive till now. The difference between this and a simple remake perhaps lie with it being a compilation game that bundles several games together, forcing reviewers to review them again. However, the article needs to demonstrate a stronger case for why this couldn't exist as a section in the parent Ace Attorney article. OceanHok (talk) 15:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above This is definitely an encyclopedic article that fits in very well with all other existing articles. Ambrosiawater (talk) 05:28, 24 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. Sandstein 13:26, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quintus Caecilius Metellus (tribune)[edit]

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

There's no evidence for the existence of the person which matches the biographical details given in the article. The page was created in 2007 by a now banned user, using an unreliable source which somebody later removed. Avis11 (talk) 01:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: there is actually a vaguely-sourced bit which was later added by an IP, but the information pertains to the similarly-named Quintus Caecilius Metellus Nepos (consul 57 BC), of which an article already exists. Avis11 (talk) 18:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:HOAX, seems to be a common name, but no-one of that name seems to exist in that time period. Mztourist (talk) 03:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:HOAX. T8612 (talk) 14:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The situation is more complicated than a hoax. I have written a short explanation & a much longer one for why this article needs to be deleted.
The short version: This article is a mess, even without the material copied from the consul of 57 BC. Searching thru Thomas Robert Shannon Broughton's Magistrates of the Roman Republic (vol. 2), I was unable to find any plebeian tribune with the name of Q. Caecilius Metellus. Further, another source gives the filiation for Q. Caecilius Metellus Creticus Silanus as "Q.f.M.n." (son of Quintus, grandson of Marcus), so the claimed parentage in this article is wrong. And if this person existed, were he the son of a notable person & the father of another, notability is not inherited.

The long version

There are four claims in this stub of an article:

Q. Metellus (using the short version of his name) is a plebeian tribune
Q. Metellus is the son of Q. Metellus Creticus
He adopted Q. Metellus Creticus Silanus
He participated on Mark Anthony's side in the Battle of Actium.

The first claim has been addressed: there is no reliable source for it. The fourth claim is a bit trickier: Appian (B.C. iv.42.173) tells of a Caecilius Metellus who fought under Octavian/Augustus at Actium, who successfully pleaded for the life of his father, who had fought on the other side. However, there are no further solid facts about either person, such as their complete names. This hasn't stopped experts from speculation (e.g. that Caecilius Metellus the Younger from Actium was the same person as a proconsul of Sardinia in AD 6), but these inferences need to be clearly labelled as inferences & speculation, not facts.

This period is full of inferences & speculation. Often one secondary source will state A is the son (or brother, or otherwise a relation) of B, but further research will show that this relationship is inferred from something admittedly shaky such as similar names -- or even simple hand-waving. And sometimes the discovery of a new inscription or a papyrus document will upset all of the theories & force us to accept a prevously discarded one.

Ronald Syme in his The Augustan Aristocracy (pp. 190, 253) has a stemma of the children of Q. Metellus Creticus which includes 2 sons -- a Quintus & a Marcus -- which he indicates are hypothetical. (He doesn't provide any information why he thinks these 2 men existed.) Here claim 2 is confirmed; could he be the subject of this article? Maybe. But the rule about notability comes into play, since at most what we can say is that he existed, & notability is not inherited.

This stemma, which relies on a paper T.P. Wiseman published in Latomus in 1965 [32], also shows Creticus's hypothetical son Marcus with a hypothetical son Quintus, who is identified as Creticus Silanus' adoptive father. (Confirming claim 3.) Could this be the subject of the article under discussion? Again, notability is not inherited.

(A warning: yes, the two secondary sources I cited are over thirty years old. But the material they discussed hasn't changed in that time; what I am doing here is relying on their expert experience. And Syme is widely considered a far more intelligent scholar of ancient Rome than most who have come after him. His opinions cannot be discarded simply because he lived so long ago.)

Maybe the content of this article is invented out of thin air, or maybe it confuses details from two or more people. At this point, we can't say. To repeat myself, this is a mess & the best solution would be to delete this article & add all theories about the connection between Quintus Caecilius Metellus Creticus & Quintus Caecilius Metellus Creticus Silanus to the existing relevant articles. -- llywrch (talk) 17:57, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it is not a hoax, but since the article mixes elements from several people without source, I don't think it is worth saving. T8612 (talk) 21:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It could be a hoax, or not one; its creator is no longer active at Wikipedia, so his motivation cannot be learned. But you T8612 & I are agreed it is a mess & should be deleted; the only possible point of debate (as I understand) is whether all verifiable information should be added to the articles on Creticus & Creticus Silanus now or after the article is deleted. -- llywrch (talk) 06:28, 23 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. Sandstein 13:26, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Model A (band)[edit]

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

Looks to fail WP:NBAND, notability tagged since 2010. Going for the AFD route, not PROD, as I'm not too familiar with the art rock scene, but this isn't looking notable. Sources in the article are a primary source, a blog, and myspace. A further WP:BEFORE search brings up this. I found one more short piece in a "local bands" review, but everything else seems to be for band saws and tractors. Looks like one of those underground bands that never got coverage beyond the local level. Hog Farm _Bacon 00:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 00:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 00:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, too few releases on too insignificant labels equals no encyclopedia article. Geschichte (talk) 09:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no evidence of anything approaching notability per WP:NBAND. While the band's name creates difficulties in searching for coverage, the "History" section suggests that this is exactly the kind of band which inspired the essay No one cares about your garage band. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 12:14, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above. COI also applies, as the article creator's Wikipedia activity revolved only around this band.GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:39, 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. Sandstein 13:26, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Ganzfeld[edit]

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

No evidence this was a notable art magazine. Reference one might establish notability for the founders, but it's not sufficiently in depth to establish notability. Note: lots of false ghits due to the science term & associated publication. StarM 00:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. StarM 00:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. StarM 00:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Jmill1806 (talk) 00:38, 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.

[1] "Asaduddin Owaisi, Upendra Kushwaha Form Front Of 6 Parties For Bihar Polls". NDTV. Press Trust of India. 8 October 2020.

[1]