Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 September 4

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 3 September	5 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:22, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aisi Bhi Kya Jaldi Hai[edit]

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

An article about a Bollywood film, sourced only to (non-WP:RS) IMDb since creation in 2016. A WP:BEFORE search turned up a 2-line plot summary at BFI and a blog (by someone who thinks that a 1996 film is "really old"), but nothing of any substance. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 05:50, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:17, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:17, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 15:12, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article does not meet GNG or NFILM. There is no WP:SIGCOV that addresses the subject directly and in depth. // Timothy :: talk 06:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:46, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Empire One[edit]

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

Notability concerns with this one (and quite possibly dozens of others created by the same author) if coverage by the independently run (and defunct) online magazine with a single proprietor, Sonic Boom, isn't deemed significant. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable album as it does not pass WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM.LizardJr8 (talk) 21:56, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NALBUM. Sonic Boom is not an RS, but even if it was, the citation is talking about an entirely different album to this one, so this is effectively unsourced. Richard3120 (talk) 16:04, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article does not pass GNG or NALBUM // Timothy :: talk 07:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A search brought up no coverage whatsoever. Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. Bingobro (Chat) 11:50, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Tribun News. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:23, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Warta Kota[edit]

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

does not seem notable. Only ref/external link is to its own webpage. ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 23:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:01, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:01, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Merge to Tribun News, as this newspaper is a part of the newspaper chain. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 08:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested. Bearian (talk) 20:52, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Tribun News: Does not meet guidelines for a stand alone article, but information has merit in target article. // Timothy :: talk 07:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nominated by a sock. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ajman University[edit]

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

The article does not have anything of value to be listed on WP. Even under WP:UNIV it does not stand. There are no references other than to its own website. Earlier it was put up for speedy by me because the entire article was copy vio. Unless the article can be substantially improved and referenced per WP guidelines (including the 'Notable Alumni') it should be deleted. AquariusWineOwl (talk) 23:24, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. AquariusWineOwl (talk) 23:24, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:33, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:33, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears significant with thousands of students ([1]), and covered by sources ([2][3][4]). Pikavoom (talk) 06:14, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pikavoom: - Do you have any other sources besides Google Books? AquariusWineOwl (talk) 13:49, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why on Earth would we require sources other than reliable books? They are far better sources that the web sites and news articles that are often cited in support of notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AquariusWineOwl, please outline what steps you took for BEFORE. Notability at AfD is NOT determined by what sources are in the article, but by what sources exist. If you didn't understand that, please withdraw this nomination. John from Idegon (talk) 17:47, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Phil Bridger: I was just asking if you had anything other than the books. I never said they were not of value, so I apologize if you interpreted it that way. @John from Idegon: The entire article was put up for a speedy as it was a complete copy and paste, an editor removed the speedy and reverted the article to way back when. When I look at WP:UNIV it does not meet any criteria nor does it have any sources other than the school website itself. The person who removed the speedy stated they removed it based on "all colleges and universities are de facto notable and should be included on Wikipedia" however, the rest of that states "Hence the advice is not intended to lend additional support to deletion discussions". The article has exactly one line in it "The Ajman University of Science and Technology (AUST) is a technology-oriented university in Ajman, United Arab Emirates.[1] The university was founded in 1988 as a university college. Notable alumni include Yaser Birjas." and nothing else. It had a references needed notice up there dated back a couple of years, however, I can not pull it up because the history for that part appears to be deleted (from 30 AUG 2020 to 4 SEPT 2020 is not clickable). I will not withdraw the nomination, I am sorry. This is not an article in the least. AquariusWineOwl (talk) 23:58, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- So please outline what you did for BEFORE (2nd request). John from Idegon (talk) 03:05, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@John from Idegon: Please be more specific about what you mean with "BEFORE". You have not linked to anything and "BEFORE" is a pretty ambiguous term. AquariusWineOwl (talk) 03:10, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- - Not if you'd actually read the instructions. John from Idegon (talk) 03:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@John from Idegon: Instead of being rude and vague, you could have simply stated WP:BEFORE, much easier that way. I have already stated my steps above. Now I will add that the first google book linked states what the capacity is, not how many are enrolled so that throws out "Appears significant with thousands of students ([5])" This source ([6]) is specifically for that area and is 12 years old and only describes the University. This source ([7]) is an Atlas that is 7 years (or more) old. It is a brief mention of the University being in the state. Then this source ([8]) again is only a passing mention of the University being in the area listed with other Universities. I did search for sources and there are not a lot of them of them out there. Just a basic google search only brings up it exists. AquariusWineOwl (talk) 03:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@John from Idegon: You have no right to close this as I was typing up my response to answer your question. It is now answered. AquariusWineOwl (talk) 03:30, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also need to add that I cannot get to the reference that is listed on the page. Is this site http://education.theemiratesnetwork.com/university/United_Arab_Emirates/Ajman/Ajman_University_of_Science_Technology_1007.html restricted to in country only? AquariusWineOwl (talk) 03:33, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- - Nothing you've stated speaks to before. If you found any reliable secondary sources, your opinion of what they show are not relative. There is nothing in the SNG about an editors opinion of importance. A Google news search shows multiple reliable sources. What did your Google news search turn up? What did your Google books search turn up? Be specific and tell us exactly why you are discounting those sources. And not having done an adequate BEFORE is an excellent reason to close an AfD. I'd suggest that your completely inadequate answers here are plenty of indication of the faultiness of your nomination. Especially since you couldn't even identify a required part of an AfD nomination. You haven't even got a post on your talk page for Pete's sake. How can an editor as new as you be conversant enough with notability to nominate anything for deletion? Almost every edit you've made has been on this subject. Do you work for a competitor? This nomination stinks to high heaven. John from Idegon (talk) 03:44, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - And since you reverted my sound good faith close of this hummer, I'll ask an administrator to close this. That shouldn't be necessary as you should have accepted my close per WP:AGF. You could have used this as an opportunity to learn your weaknesses as an editor. I'll be happy to put you on the administrators radar. Remember that was your choice. AGF is a many faceted policy. John from Idegon (talk) 03:52, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can see you are part of the reason why new editors do not want to be on here. You are a complete and utterly rude person. No I do not work for any college or any education institution. So what stinks is probably your own breath. I will close this because I am not wasting time with you. Why don't you use your "Has more experience on US school articles than probably any other WP editor" and make the article worth more than a sentence. PS - You can now close this and hopefully you learn some freaking manners! I mean you can't even follow talk page rules with indentation and such. AquariusWineOwl (talk) 03:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Fenix down (talk) 06:15, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Warren O’Hora[edit]

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. No caps for senior Brighton or MK Dons teams, and Ireland league isn't fully-pro. Brighton U21 squad can't be fully-pro by definition. BlameRuiner (talk) 23:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 08:34, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails GNG/NFOOTBALL, or draftily to pre-existing draft at User:GiantSnowman/Warren O'Hora. Note the correct spelling format is Warren O'Hora. Giant Snowman 08:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- His Premier League profile spells it O'Hora not O'Hara, and more tellingly so does his Twitter account - presumably he knows how to spell his own name..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:40, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think that was a typo from GS and he meant the apostrophe. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 18:04, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Correct, sorry!

Keep - has made his professional debut tonight. Giant Snowman 18:28, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and draft I am more inclined to merge and draft, well constructed article, also, if he makes his debut at 3pm, well then, that's a keep! Govvy (talk) 12:27, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- For info, he wasn't even on the subs' bench today..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:52, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Was going to say he'll likely play either on Tuesday against Northampton or next weekend against Doncaster when he's back from RoI duty, but apparently he's picked up an injury...FilthyDon (talk) 01:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep!! I find it a little... unfriendly.... when people nominate/support articles for deletion in cases where (a) somebody has clearly made an effort to try and construct a proper article, (b) it's reasonably likely that the article will have to be recreated at some point in the near future (, and sometimes (c) they clearly think this themselves because they have a draft article ready to go). What harm would it do to leave it for the season and then delete it if he hasn't played a game? Lets WP:IGNORE and leave it be. It's not doing any harm. Chris (talk) 20:22, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But that would be WP:COMMONSENSE rather than following the strict black-and-white rules that govern Wikipedia (spoiler - there's no such thing!) I wouldn't leave it for the whole season, but should get a good idea on what the likely outcome is, in a couple of days. At the same time, I fail to understand why User:GiantSnowman continues to provide delete votes, on a player that is so likely to play soon, that they created a draft themselves! I also don't understand, after repeated requests, they don't create drafts in draft space, rather than burying them in their user space, so as to avoid wasting the time of other editors who independently start creating the same article. Nfitz (talk) 03:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Another absurd nomination. There should be restrictions on AFDing players on new teams, just before the season starts. There's literally media coverage today where the manager is talking about playing him tomorrow! This is close enough to meeting WP:FPL to matter ... and no, when the manager is saying he's planning on playing him, it's not crystal ballery! If somehow he get's run over by a bus, and never makes a debut, we can revisit this. Nfitz (talk) 03:17, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A player cannot "meet" WP:FPL as you claim... Giant Snowman 10:06, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised that it wasn't clear to you User:GiantSnowman, after years of discussion, that this was shorthand for meets WP:NFOOTBALL because he has played on a team in a league listed in WP:FPL. I feel that either you are being deliberately obtuse, which violates WP:CIVIL, or you are violating WP:CIR. Is there another option I may not have considered? Nfitz (talk) 00:38, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - No debate now, O'Hora started today in the EFL Trophy against Northampton Town. I will remove the deletion banner. FilthyDon (talk) 19:15, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @FilthyDon: as it clearly states on the banner, you may not do that before the deletion debate has been closed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @ChrisTheDude: Why not? Surely that's just a formality and common sense? What is there to gain from waiting until the discussion has closed when the notability criteria has clearly been reached? If it's some kind of power trip admin based rule then where can we discuss this where common sense prevails? Just trying to be helpful, let's not make it something bigger than it needs to be. FilthyDon (talk) 19:38, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, I didn't get notified of being pinged here for some reason, but I see that someone has answered your query at WT:FOOTY -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes NFOOTY now Spiderone 19:37, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTY now. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:47, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Per Nfitz-- Padavalam ► 13:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:45, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Lascelles[edit]

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

68th in the line of succession to the British throne but no evidence of notability as a photographer. Rathfelder (talk) 22:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 22:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Z1720 (talk) 23:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Z1720 (talk) 23:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. This is a case of WP:INVALIDBIO bullet point #1. Articles only mention her in passing as a decendant of Queen Victoria, and no significant covereage for her photography. I searched Google, JSTOR, NYT, ProQuest and Gale. Z1720 (talk) 23:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She's closer to the throne than I am, but 68th is not a claim of notability. The current queen (and indeed the Prince of Wales) has enough descendants to mean that it is exceedingly unlikely that anyone else would become head of state, and I see nothing else that could make the subject notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:29, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No claim of notability as photographer or royal. -- Hoary (talk) 23:52, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 18:28, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If she was only 59th in line to the throne, it might be another matter . . . that is how far the succession to the British throne page goes - which may already be too far by half!Leutha (talk) 19:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Benild Joseph[edit]

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

Non-notable cracker. The majority of the sources are pieces he wrote, and the rest are either name-drops or stuff he says. Two are 404-compliant (one of which is a newspaper clipping that returns a service-specific "this image doesn't exist" placeholder). Google News returns nothing (String: "Benild Joseph"). —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 22:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:02, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:02, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:02, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is supposed to be sourced to 3rd party sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about him aside from being talked about in a book. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject has been significantly covered by quite a number of sources, so i don't think this is not a valid reason for deletion. Please review, i can add more relevant sources. Book he authored can be found here [9]. A case for deletion could be made under WP:GNG with sufficient analysis of the sources.Mark (talk) 17:02, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sources in the article are not third-party significant coverage, and anything he authored is useless for notability as Wikipedia defines it. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 21:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:30, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Geana[edit]

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

Non-notable journalist. References are to his articles, not to articles that imply his notability or significance. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 21:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article relies too much on his own writings, not enough on things written by others about him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Small world. I am acquainted with this person. We are Facebook friends. He has had art shows in New York, has been on RHONY, and is known in Fire Island. No !vote due to conflict of interest. Bearian (talk) 20:50, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

and as per off-wiki evidence your friend is hiring freelancers to vote here in their favour @Bearian:. GSS ^💬 04:01, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have not seen such evidence, and I have not contacted the subject in any way. Bearian (talk) 16:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can ask him the same and I'm happy to share the evidence with any admin on request through email. GSS ^💬 16:44, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non notable photographer -- writer, lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. fails WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR and WP:CREATIVE. GSS ^💬 04:04, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:02, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of patient-reported quality of life surveys[edit]

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

I don't see why we need a list of all studies of a certain types. What's next? List of randomized single-blind drug trials? List of cohort studies?

This is textbook WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Consider this withdrawn, I read the article too fast. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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.. A redirect can be created if desired. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vehicular Lunatics[edit]

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

Non notable documentary, tagged for 9 years. Nothing found in a WP:BEFORE to help it pass WP:NFILM. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: all I can find are some passing mentions on Newspapers.com. Possible redirect to Nick Hogan as the passing mentions were in relation to his Toyota Supra crash. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 22:55, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:19, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sivaranjani (2019 film)[edit]

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

Couldn't find any reliable reviews. TamilMirchi (talk) 20:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 20:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 20:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Can't find any reliable reviews at all. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:15, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are no reliable reviews, only press releases. --Ab207 (talk) 07:48, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --CoryGlee (talk) 22:45, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 00:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:16, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Edmondson[edit]

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

Minor character in the reimagined Battlestar Galactica; no substantive coverage in reliable sources that I am aware of; not the focus of any substantive story arc either. Previous AfD was closed largely for procedural reasons, and looking through the google books results mentioned therein, I only see passing mentions. Delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series) per WP:CHEAP. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:02, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of existence outside of the work of fiction, not seeing any significant reception or analysis. Pure PLOT/FANCRUFT. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:49, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a not notable character without significant coverage. Redirect would be fine too. Archrogue (talk) 19:56, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:49, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All sources are primary. Nothing to pass WP:GNG is present. TTN (talk) 13:27, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Kelly (Battlestar Galactica)[edit]

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

Minor character in the reimagined Battlestar Galactica; no substantive coverage in reliable sources that I am aware of; not the focus of any substantive story arc either. Previous AfD was closed largely for procedural reasons, and looking through the google books results mentioned therein, I only see passing mentions. Delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of existence outside of the work of fiction, not seeing any significant reception or analysis. Pure PLOT/FANCRUFT. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:49, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable character without significant coverage. Archrogue (talk) 19:58, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:49, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The topic fails to establish notability per WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 13:26, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:54, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Devin Albert[edit]

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

The article fails WP:NACTOR; none of his roles are significant enough. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 20:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG. A a s i m 20:19, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If I am reading this right, even in the one role where he is said to have had a "notable" role, he was cast in other roles too. That is normally a sign that your role is not notable. At least in most TV, minor roles have repeat actors, major roles do not. The one exception of course is when you have an actor play a second role that is technically seperate, but meant to be someone who looks the same. So for example in Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman Dean Cain at various times played a clone of Superman and an actor who was a Superman lookalike. That is not what is going on here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:22, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sega controllers[edit]

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

There's nothing particularly special about controllers for Sega video game consoles as a whole that makes them notable enough for an article. Appropriate coverage for each controller is already included in their respective console articles, or in cases like Menacer, in their own respective article. Sources used here are unreliable save for the Loguidice book. Not really anything to merge here, either, as all of the Sega console articles are exhaustively researched and include details about the controllers and other accessories from reliable sources in their respective articles. Red Phoenix ^talk 19:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Red Phoenix ^talk 19:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Had no idea this page even existed. Any notable controllers for Sega consoles already have their own articles, I see no reason to list basic controllers for every system (they're already covered in their respective articles). Only one of the few sources here is reliable, the others are primary or come from fansites. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 18:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These controllers do not even have their own articles. They are not notable on their own or in a group, making this a non-notable list._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:49, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The topic of "Sega controllers" is not one discussed by sources. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 22:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The outcome was speedy keep under WP:SK ground 1: withdrawn by nominator, with no outstanding !votes to delete. Thanks to Yngvadottir for the WP:HEY.—S Marshall T/C 09:26, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DAVA Foods[edit]

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

About five years ago, someone translated the first two sentences of a Danish language article about this Danish company, and then abandoned it. Apparently, this corporation has just over three hundred employees and it sells eggs.

Well, I nominated it for A7 today, and the reviewing sysop decided to add one (1) reference and one (1) sentence about a historic salmonella scare, and then directed me to AfD.

The Danish language version of this article may be acceptable and could be translated, but nobody has done that and Wikipedia:Pages needing translation is so catastrophically backlogged with far more important work that I think there's little real prospect of anyone doing so for quite a few years. Until that happens, please will the community authorise its deletion. —S Marshall T/C 19:29, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:33, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:33, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is not listed on Wikipedia:Pages needing translation, so I don't see the problem. That list appears to be for bad translations, not articles with potential for expansion via translation. The current stub is useful; a deleted article is not. ― Hebsen (talk) 02:08, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Useful to whom, and in what circumstances?—S Marshall T/C 09:03, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - If one reads an article that mentions "DAVA Foods" og "Hedegaard Foods", but does not explain what the firm do, they can look it op here and see that they are Danish and produce eggs. Granted, that is not much, but it is the most important information there is to say. You have not questioned the notability of the subject. ― Hebsen (talk) 09:41, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - On the other hand, if we deleted it here, then instead of finding this microstub, they'd find the very comprehensive Danish Wikipedia article, although they might need to use google translate to read it. You're right to say that this isn't about notability; it's about a two-sentence microstub that someone generated with twenty seconds' work, five years ago, and then abandoned. I think it's an utterly disproportionate amount of effort to fix it and much simpler to delete, but if you'd rather fix it, feel free.—S Marshall T/C 10:22, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I used the Danish Wikipedia article to expand it, adding a couple of references I found myself for things where their reference was irretrievable or where they didn't have one. The company does dominate the Nordic egg market (I am out of time but need to hunt down more on its size and its market share in, for example, the Faroes), and has attracted press coverage that is not all regurgitated press releases and is not all about the salmonella outbreak (I kept the one ref we had on that but didn't have time to add any of the others da.wikipedia has). I believe notability is now established. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:10, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:19, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Kendriya Vidyalaya. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 1, Angul[edit]

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

Article about a secondary school that does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL / WP:ORG. Subject lacks WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. There is basic WP:ROUTINE coverage. Sources in the article do not meet WP:RS // Timothy :: talk 19:19, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 19:19, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 19:19, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:26, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete' Facebook Is not a reliable source of information. It seems that it is a paid article.Author Sanju (talk) 01:54, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per WP:NSCHOOL, schools are not inherently notable and need to pass WP:GNG; this school doesn't pass Spiderone 10:15, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as below Spiderone 16:36, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kendriya Vidyalaya, a notable body which runs these schools. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 14:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kendriya Vidyalaya, this article is not notable as per WP:NSCHOOL and lacks WP:ORGDEPTH. Roller26 (talk) 11:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Not a notable school - redirect to Kendriya Vidyalaya if the school later becomes notable an article can be created. Wm335td (talk) 19:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:08, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Appliance Technician[edit]

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

Non notable appliance repair company in a Ottawa. The references are mostly fake. Instead of supporting the claims in the article they either have nothing to do with it or are covert attacks on competitors. Does not pass WP:NCORP. Mccapra (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. This is basically WP:G11 worthy. Half of those references don't even mention Canada, much less the company. --~ฅ(ↀωↀ=)neko-chan^nyan 17:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on balance. I see no notability here. Deb (talk) 15:39, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet the requisite inclusion criteria. The coverage is just not indepth or broad enough. The content, while promotional, was not at my threshold for WP:G11. Did not decline-- another admin might G11. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:31, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. General consensus that GNG is met. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:30, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Katarina of Yugoslavia[edit]

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

Normally I might regard the granddaughter of a king as notable, but in her case she was born after the abolition of the monarchy in Yugoslavia, so never really a princess. PatGallacher (talk) 18:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject has gotten coverage for becoming patron of the Katie Cutler Foundation, her etiquette classes, being a double princess, and others. She is a patron of the Queen Charlotte's Ball, a notable event, and is patron of many other organizations. She is known for more than being the granddaughter of a king; while that gave her a platform, she has been active in her own right. --Kbabej (talk) 19:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:55, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:55, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:55, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete more deposed monarchy cruft.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Here's additional coverage about her charity efforts; becoming an ambassador for a Chinese tea company; and becoming the patron of the Society of Genealogists. She has been called a "leading member of London society" and has active charity efforts throughout the world. --Kbabej (talk) 18:50, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As well as being the granddaughter of a king, she does appear to be pretty high-profile. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:44, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on coverage shown here and in the article passes GNG. - dwc lr (talk) 13:36, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV based on the available sources. I trimmed some fluff and added a few sources. TJMSmith (talk) 00:44, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 01:56, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep obviously passes GNG. These nominations are getting tiring. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:20, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Hassan (Maldives cricketer)[edit]

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

Non-notable cricketer. Fails WP:NCRIC. While they have played in international matches for the Maldives, these matches were NOT in a World Cup/T20 World Cup Qualifier or Regional Final. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:36, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maldives-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails both NCRIC and GNG. only google results are stats listings Spike 'em (talk) 19:13, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this chap per Spike. However, there should be a reassesment for certain T20I associate players who may meet GNG, but that's a discussion for a different time and place! StickyWicket (talk) 17:52, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:52, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RetroSBK[edit]

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

It exists, but doesn't have the coverage to meet WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 18:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:33, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:33, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Doesn’t Qualify WP:GNG although got a reference here [10] Patrickmee (talk) 12:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 05:36, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Colegio Coya[edit]

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

First of all, I can't find any evidence of notability. But also, this article is such a dumpster fire of irrelevant info, unsourced claims, and incomprehensible English, that it's hard to see any benefit in keeping. Sourcing is going to be hard to come by, but if someone thinks they can manage, this probably needs to be rewritten from scratch anyway. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I agree with the nominator. Not only is the subject apparently non-notable, the article contents are too incoherent to be improved except by a big helping of trinitrotoluene. Reyk _YO! 09:40, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:26, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Workshop[edit]

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

I'm not sure what to make of this one The topic doesn't seem notable and anything that talks about a "newly emerging form of literacy, the Internet" , in 2020, may be unredeemable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article looks like an WP:OR. The term has found some coverage in scholar, but I'm not sure if they're connected to the contents of the article. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 05:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on having a gander through Scholar. Uses of the term fall into two camps: a) titles of internet workshops (non-capitalized) - clearly not applicable here; b) uses of Internet Workshop as a concept - all of which are sourced to one D. Leu, who coincidentally also provides three of the four functional/usable references in the article. This appears to be a novel coinage for a specific teaching approach that did not take of. - Also agree with Andy that the article displays rather awkward levels of zeerust. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

J. Gopikrishnan[edit]

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

The sources present in the article itself are either not independent, not reliable or are passing mentions. A before search presents a similar picture with mostly passing mention that too mostly from unreliable sources. At best the subject is a boderline case of WP:BLP1E. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 22:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 22:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 22:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very limited notability for the 2G spectrum case, which fails WP:N - a once-off success does not mean we need to have an entire article about them. Especially when the article is in rather desperate need of a tone rewrite. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 10:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Found few reliable references such as The Hindu and Hindustan Times. Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Awards is also a notability factor.Priyanjali singh (talk) 16:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Priyanjali singh: Would you be able to please provide those sources, as well as evidence for the claim that Gopikrishnan received that award? ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 02:35, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ItsPugle: Found these resources and i think these are enough to justify the subject's notability. Thhindu, HindustanTimes, ZeeNews. Priyanjali singh (talk) 05:41, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Priyanjali singh: The Hindu and ZeeNews sources gives a somewhat passive, one-sentence mention about Gopikrishnan, which was limited to again, the 2G spectrum scandal (See WP:NTEMP and WP:SUSTAINED) and the Hindustan source only lists Gopikrishnan as someone who gave evidence in a trial. I don't quite think that's notable enough. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 09:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 17:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As per WP:ANYBIO and WP:JOURNALIST. He was the pioneer in exposing 2G case which had huge social and political impact in India. He also won Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Awards in 2009, which can arguably be called the most prestigious journalism award in India. Both these facts can be confirmed on Indian Express website (which is good RS in WP), Ramnath Goenka Organization Website, Live Mint article. These facts alone qualify the subject as notable. - Roller26 (talk) 20:06, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject qualifies WP:JOURNALIST. -Hatchens (talk) 05:01, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Qualifies WP:JOURNALIST and a famous journalist in south India . -Patrickmee (talk) 05:30, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:07, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Maxwell[edit]

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

I came across this individual while looking into sources for the deletion discussion regarding one of his books, and found that not only was that book non-notable, but there are no actual sources demonstrating the author is, either. The only claim to notability in the article is winning a non-notable award. There are two sources included, but one is just in a local newspaper for the area he lives in, and the other is a one-sentence mention. Searching for additional sources turns up a handful of interviews in non-notable podcasts, and that's about it. It appears that many, if not all, of his books were self-published, and did not gain any kind of coverage or press. Rorshacma (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete winning a non-notable award does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. While some editors feel that the stations should be discussed on a case-by-case basis (and they still can), there is a consensus the content is generally notable. A merger (which would be controversial) can still be discussed outside of AFD. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:04, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greatest Hits Radio North Derbyshire[edit]

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

This is one of a large number of English local radio stations which have been closed and replaced with a national network. There does not seem to be a need for a page for all these stations - a single page listing Greatest Hits Radio stations should suffice CallLetters (talk) 16:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator has also tagged the following articles for deletion under this page. Nthep (talk) 17:33, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd suggest demerging the nominations and dealing with each separately. If all the GHR stations were new I'd support the nominators suggestion of redirection. However, they all had a previous independent existence and the notability of each station based on its entire life, not just its latest incarnation, needs to be assessed. Doing this in one mass nomination is going to be very messy. Nthep (talk) 17:33, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as these articles are needed to address the histories of so many stations at once; a merger of their contents would be a mess in the making. The GHR rollup ended the existence of a lot of separate stations—some of which were original ILR outlets, e.g. Radio Aire, and each of which have independent notability. Notability is not temporary. Raymie (t • c) 00:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also pinging Chocolateediter as they have been doing extensive editing on the GHR pages in the wake of the September 1 network restructuring. Raymie (t • c) 00:40, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe it would be better to keep these articles under their original station names (e.g. Peak FM, Signal 2, Radio Wave) and talk about their history in the past tense, rather than redirecting them all to "Greatest Hits Radio [area]" and treating them as currently broadcasting stations, which they aren't (the individual stations have no staff, no programming and no independent output - they serve as translators of a national network). There can be a note on each station page saying "This station was closed and replaced with Greatest Hits Radio on [date]". CallLetters (talk) 11:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that we have to treat each on a Case by case basis.
- 1. Merged Radio stations like radio Aire and Pulse should should get new articles as opposed to one of the station articles being dissolved into a new Stations (I don’t have confidence/experience with big article changes but I am gaining confidence and knowledge to start to).
- 2. ‘Stations’ that are basically now a name and 10mins of content should really be in a regional article with any previous name that hold actual content be in an properly justified article. In the TFM Radio case a Hits North East article should be created which holds information on current TFM and Metro radio and the TFM article be left to history with a little note at the top to go to Hits North East for current TFM(a copy of Metro).
- 3. A simple rebrand for a proper station.

PS: I suggest a predecessor and successor line in info box(just use code from old countries info box) for content rich older stations. This can also be on regional info boxes and saves constantly referring to and listing old stations in articles.

GHR North Derbyshire keep and GHR Derbyshire created. User:Chocolateediter (talk) 23:34, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deleting these articles would result in the deletion of the history of all of these stations, most of whom have been on air for more than 20 years - Minster FM (now GHR York and N Yorkshire) since 1992, Yorkshire Coast Radio (now GHR Yorkshire Coast) since 1993 and Signal Radio/Signal 2 (now GHR Staffordshire) since 1983. Rillington (talk) 14:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It would seem sensible to keep the pages under their origional station names and update them to show what has happened to the stations in te last few months. The pages would then become historical refernce to the heritage stations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pelican104 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chocolateediter and Pelican104: That might be the WP:COMMONNAME solution down the road where these articles are at the last non-GHR station name. We don't have predecessor/successor functionality in this infobox (because most stations we can write in one chunk of an article) but I wonder if the |above= field might be used here for "Merged into Greatest Hits Radio"... Raymie (t • c) 20:38, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Deleting this would mean you have 100s of other GHR articles to delete. Plus it's deleting information about stations that still exist in some way, shape or form. Bauer Media They have just taken over a number of stations and all of these are now similar to this article. All listed here. - Funky Snack (Talk) 10:47, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all: Per reasons above and WP:NTEMP. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The original station page should be kept, there should not be hundreds of Greatest Hits radio stations on wiki as they are now all area drop outs of a national station which could be covered in the main Greatest Hits Radio page. Tod55 (talk) 13:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Hog Farm _Bacon 17:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Glenarvan[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable fictional character, has been in CAT:NN since 2011 and has been tagged as no sources since that same time. This is the fiction story he appears in, so it's a primary source. I'm finding largely mirrors and the primary source materials on Google, along with a few blogs. This apparently refers to the unrelated Glenarvon. Here's the novel again. There's a ton of search engine noise for Glenarvon, the unrelated novel of a different spelling, but I'm finding nothing for Lord Glenarvan. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Lord Glenarvan has been discussed in literary criticism as a colonialist figure, and academia loves talking about colonialism. There's three pages on Glenarvan in Exotic Memories: Literature, Colonialism, and the Fin de Siècle (Stanford University Press, 1991). Roland Barthes wrote about Lord Glenarvan in New Critical Essays (Northwestern University Press, 2009). Russian playwright Mikhail Bulgakov wrote a play, The Crimson Island, that used the character of Lord Glenarvan to ridicule Western Europe's colonialism; it's discussed in Subversive Stages: Theater in Pre- and Post-Communist in Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria (Central European University Press, 2017) and Comedy in the Early Works of Mikhail Bulgakov (Georgetown University Press, 1968). I believe that this demonstrates notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 17:26, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Can't argue with that. Withdrawing. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:G5. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BabbarJatt. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WhatsApp University[edit]

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

Contested CSD. Reason was "This article may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as a page created by a banned or blocked user (Guy Foxx) in violation of the user's ban or block, with no substantial edits by others. See CSD G5." (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BabbarJatt

Reason for contesting stated as "CSD contested: sourced article, substantial edits by other editors"

The edits by other editors were not substantial, as the article history shows.

I am making a technical nomination because I think it should be discussed now. My nomination is Neutral, though I may offer an opinion as the discussion progresses Fiddle Faddle 15:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 15:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:09, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:09, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the subject has been significantly covered by quite a number of sources, ToI, The Hindu, The Print, NDTV. Also covered by books such as 2019: How Modi Won India. I.Bhardwaj (talk) 16:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I.Bhardwaj, Please comment on your rationale for contesting the speedy deletion that states in the edit summary "...substantial edits by other editors" Fiddle Faddle 17:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Timtrent, I thought there were enough edits by other users to contest the CSD. If you want I can revert my edits to restore the CSD notice and withdraw my contest. I.Bhardwaj (talk) 17:25, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I.Bhardwaj, We are here now. AfDs must run their course. I believe you were mistaken over the substantial nature of the edits Fiddle Faddle 17:29, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Timtrent, my apologies. I.Bhardwaj (talk) 17:32, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:04, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CIVSA[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:ORG. The article has been tagged as relying on primary sources and potentially not notable since 2010. 331dot (talk) 15:09, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No reliable sources. — Jeff G. ツ 14:03, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:31, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crayons Advertising[edit]

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

A advertising agency that lacks significant coverage and fails WP:CORP. A WP:BEFORE does not show in-depth non trivial coverage in reliable sources. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 14:51, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 14:51, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 14:51, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless a good article can be created out in draft than just a stub as it currently is. Mohanabhil (talk) 13:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a 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⁺⁺ 20:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NCORP and WP:NOTPROMO. Capankajsmilyo (talk) 04:09, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is agreement here that the article should be deleted. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abigail MacBride Allen[edit]

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

This is the extreme in one-event notability. 3 of the references are incidental mentions in coverage of a political campaign by her father. The article does not do justice in putting her "appearances" with her father in that campaign in perspective. She turned 6 some time in the year he ran for president. Then we have mention of her in her father's obituary. Then we have coverage of the lawsuit over the literary rights she inherited from her father. That case was settled in her favor 19 years ago, yet we have absolutely nothing about her since. Based on her fahter's name and her name, I assume she is or was at one point married, but no one seems to have cared about that. Being heir to a literary fortune is not a sign of notability. Keep in mind that the fortune is that of her adoptive father's some sort of pseudo-mother mentors, mother. In the time Ms. Allen has been the holder of the Laura Ingalls Wilder literary legacy, Mrs. Wilder had a major literary award unnamed after her in an example of cancel culture, yet it appears that no one in that debate thought that the holder of the Wilder literary fortune was someone worth consulting about the matter. Actually on further inspection it appears her father was chosen as the heir by Mrs. Wilder's daughter because he was his political disciple. Her father actually did things with the legacy at least, producing a TV show for example. There is no evidence Mrs. Allen has done anything with it. Any mention of her we can just include in the article on her father, but I see no reason to include much since almost nothing is known. Most of what I can find in a web search is Wikipedia mirrors, some of it demonstrating just how much influence Wikipedia having an article can have and how we need to be more deliberative about the article creation process. A show of how non-notable even in the lawsuit by the Laura Ingles Wilder Library to get control of the literary estate Mrs. Allen was, it took 10 praragraphs into the article to even name her. Beyond this, Mrs. Allen has actually turned over the control of this legacy to the Little House Heritage Trust, which may or may not have her as the sole controller. This New York Post article [11] says a little bit more about Mrs. Allen, but it says nothing about her by any normal standard, she had been the controlled of the estate for 4 years when the lawsuit was brought, yet there is no evidence she had done anything with it. We do get this short line "Miami-based MacBride suffered a fatal heart attack on March 5, 1995, at age 65, but his daughter Abigail MacBride Allen has overseen the publication of her father’s unpublished manuscripts, starting with The Other Side of the Hill (1995), Little Town in the Ozarks (1996), New Dawn on Rocky Ridge (1997) and On the Banks of the Bayou (1998). The books take Rose up to age 17 when she’s off to follow her dreams." from this source http://libertarianstvo.org/en/personalities/item/72-rose-wilder-lane, but overseeing publication of a few works is not a sign of notability, especially when they were largely written by someone else. I am reduced to scrapping up things like this [12] Amazon review of a book attributed to her father, but published under her perview, and the agreement here is her role in the work makde it worse, although this is a random Amazon review with no indication they even know what Mrs. Allen's actual role in the work was, so not a reliable source. We do here [13] learn the fact that she wrote an intro to a collection of travel diaries by Mrs. Wilder, and for whatever reason she is referred to in this reference as Abigail MacBride. There is no reason to have a freestanding article on Mrs. Allen John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to her father, Roger MacBride, per nom. Unlike her father, who ran for President of the United States, Allen seems to be a private person who has neither sought, nor really received, the public spotlight. There is not enough here to warrant a separate article about her. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it is worth, I am less than convinced that Mr. MacBride would merit notability just for being a 3rd party candidate for US president. His clear notability pass comes from having served as a member of the Vermont Legislature (as a republican though, not a Libertarian). He was also a faithless elector, but I am not as convinced as some people are that those are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Her connection to Laura Ingalls Wilder seems more relevant to notability than the one to Roger MacBride, but I think this is a WP:BLP1E case and the current contents of the page are a bit stalker-like (e.g. speculation about her location and appearance). She's not a public figure. pburka (talk) 16:35, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely delete this as notability is not inherited. Trillfendi (talk) 16:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The following comment was added to this discussion's talk page: pburka (talk) 19:26, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As the original author of the article, I saw it as an essential piece related to the history of Laura Ingalls Wilder. Because the settings of Wilders' books are in the 19th century, there is strong cross-interest by her readers in genealogy and Midwestern history. Every year new fans ask if Laura Ingalls Wilder has any newly-living descendants. Abigail MacBride Allen is the only "descendant" in any sense of the word, since there are no actual descendants. As such, and due to legal reasons, she is the sole heir of the Laura Ingalls Wilder's literary estate. Wilders' books have sold 60-100 million copies over time, and annual sales are still very high for books published nearly 100 years ago. The TV series based on her books, "Little House on the Prairie," shows in 140 countries--even though the last episode was filmed in 1984. With this level of attention, I do not believe any "family member" (even if by legal connection) is irrelevant--especially since there is only one. In addition, this article makes Wikipedia especially valuable. There are no other sources online that have any information on Abigail MacBride Allen.

There is another aspect that concerns me with Johnpacklambert's challenge to this article. The talk discussion is a roundabout of ideas on why this person is not notable enough. One is, it is hard to find information on Abigail MacBride Allen. This is true, making the fact that Wikipedia identifies her all the more valuable. She is not notable because of her father's presidency run, he states. Also true, but the Laura Ingalls Wilder connection is. The connection to McBride the presidential candidate is an interesting aside.

A final point I would like to make is that I am concerned about Johnpacklambert's motives. I have had resistance in the past from Abigail MacBride Allen about identifying her. Is he related? Has he been asked to challenge this? We must not let Wikipedia be altered due to editors being unduly influenced to protect/anonymize a particular person. And I am certain Wikipedia would not stand for any kind of censorship. The article should remain as is. Chuck Mall 19:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

The above fails the rule of assume good faith. My closest connection to Abigail MacBride Allen is that when I was little (up until maybe age 7, but I might not have been that old), my neighbor kitty corner across the street was a Mr. Ingalls. He was somehow related to Laura Ingalls Wilder, descending either from a brother or a cousin of her father. He had been on the local County Line School Board, covering parts of both Troy and Sterling Townships, in 1941 when they voted to consolidate with some other local school boards to form Warren Consolidated Schools. That was about 25 years before Sterling Heights, Michigan was made a city. My best guess is that Mr. Ingalls was born about 1905, and was about 80 when he died, which as I said was when I was about 6. So, no, I do not have any close connection to Mrs. Allen. However I would note that Wikipedia does respect the desires of non-public figures who did a few things of very minor note when they want to not have an article on Wikipedia. However as I have said I never have communicated with Mrs. Allen. I did not know she existed before I stumbled upon her article doing a review of all articles in the 1970 birth year category, mainly with the intent of removing those articles in that category for no good reason. Wikipedia is built on reliable, secondary coverage. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to make people notable who are not, and we do not have the topic specific expertise to ourselves determine who is and who is not notable, so we follow published works in this manner. My dad read most of the Little House on the Praire Books to us while we were children, mentioning how they connected to our neighbor Mr. Ingalls, I do not think we ever actually made it through "The First Four Years". I knew before today that Mrs. Wilder had a daugther, and I knew that there had been another series written fictionalizing the life of her daughter. Before today I could not have told you who did that, who held the rights to this literary estate, if anyone held the rights to it, if any of these 80-90 year old books were still under copyright, in part because as I mentioned before when a Library Association removed Mrs. Wilder's name from one of their awards, no one in writing articles on it felt a need to hunt down Mrs. Allen and ask her what she thought of the removal of her pseudo-great grandmother's mother's name from the award.Assuming good faith in nominations is wise. I have never had contact with Mrs. Allen (I am not ever sure why her last name is Allen), I created this nomination because Mrs. Allen is not a public figure on a level that would constitute meeting any of the guidelines on notability that Wikipedia has.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would also note that on the official Little House on the Prairie website at [14], I can't find one mention of Abigail MacBride Allen anywhere. I would expect that if she, the rights-holder, wanted to publicize herself to Little House fans as the heir, she could do so. But the fact that she doesn't publicize herself there, nor do the people who run the Little House website discuss her on that site, suggests to me that she is a private person and we do not need to have an article about her on Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability of the subject. While I am not one to shy from questioning Johnpacklambert's motives or calling out shoddy work, this nomination is a good one. To address points made above: People are interested in the Ingalls and Wilder genealogies and living descendants, but the Macbrides are heirs and passing them off as the holy descendants of the mother of American children's literature and her hack writer daughter as this article tried to do is ludicrous. Rose was eccentric and "adopted" a number of adolescent and young men when she wasn't off having other adventures. In terms of there not being other descendants, that is unencyclopedic and incorrect. There is a slew of collateral descendants of the Wilders, plus the stepchildren of Carrie Ingalls who she raised from ages c. 4 and 8. They were actually raised by an Ingalls, unlike Macbride, who came to them later. So if you're going to write fancruft or whatever they call this, get it right. I just edited the article down so it wasn't a mess of fawning over some gorgeous, mysterious heiress. The woman wishes to keep a low profile and rightfully so. The article read as stalkerish and creepy. I don't see anything wrong with citing some of these articles in relevant Wikipedia articles, but please no redirect. It's bad enough this article existed for as long as it did and will doubtless be backed up somewhere. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 02:00, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:ANYBIO, has not done anything wikisignificant, looks like a case of WP:LOWPROFILE, as for the article creator saying this article being the only place on the internet with this info and makes wp valuable, editors need to remember WP:NOTFANSITE. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Closing earlier per WP:SNOW, (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī (^talk) 05:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bin Badal Barsaat (1975 film)[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Only one cited source focuses on this subject. Most everything else I could find is a mere mention or inclusion in a database. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per WP:NFILM and WP:NPOSSIBLE. On the NFILM front, the film stars multiple notable actors, and is further noted for featuring music by a female composer, according to this article the only female composer in Pakistan; it thus meets criterion 1, 2, and possibly 3 of the inclusionary criteria section (not sure whether Pakistan circa 1975 would be considered a major film producing country). On the NPOSSIBLE/GNG front, we already have 2 online English-language sources, the source I already linked and [15]. Both of these sources attest that the film was a big hit on release (not to mention that it's still generating retrospective English-language coverage 45 years after its release), meaning that there's almost certainly additional newspaper coverage (likely in Urdu, although possibly also English) available, although it would be difficult for non-Urdu speaking editors living outside of Pakistan to find. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:27, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added 1 more reliable reference and a category. This article already has 4 other reliable references including a major Pakistani newspaper reference. This was a hit film of 1975 per the given references. Ngrewal1 (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources confirm notability. Donaldd23 (talk) 17:28, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:01, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clark – Vancouver Television[edit]

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

Non-notable cable access channel fails WP:GNG and WP:BCAST. Deprodded in 2018; I attempted to prod, unaware of the previous prod which was removed with the message "Television stations meet the general notability guideline". This isn't a broadcast station or the rare notable local cable channel, however. Raymie (t • c) 04:29, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 04:29, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 04:29, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Salvio

10:17, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 10:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet GNG or WP:BCAST. // Timothy :: talk 19:51, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Passes WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG with adequate WP:RS (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 14:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Terrace[edit]

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

While accomplished, meets neither WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR, or WP:NCREATIVE. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Needs more RS to establish notability.Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are enough sources to prove she is notable. She is the showrunner of a major show on the Disney channel and is notable as a result.--Historyday01 (talk) 19:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Does meet WP:NCREATIVE specifically the third section, as Dana Terrace created a well-known work that has been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical reviews.33felstark (talk) 13:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NCREATIVE guidelines, as she created a well-known work which has been discussed in multiple independent periodicals. A Template:Sources exist or Template:BLP sources template might be better for this situation; I have begun adding more sources to address this. Emflazie (talk) 15:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NARTIST #3. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:09, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in accordance with what @33felstark, @AleatoryPonderings, and @Emflazie have said. Perhaps it needs more sources, but what is there now is a good start! Its better than having the page be a redirect. Terrace is directing a show on the Disney Chanel, so she deserves a page, and is more than "accomplished" as the OP states. Historyday01 (talk) 18:09, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per other users above. Meets WP:NCREATIVE + per WP:NARTIST #3. Paintspot Infez (talk) 21:25, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because she is notable. —ÐW (talk/contribs) 01:42, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I dunno how the subject doesn't pass WP:NARTIST, definitely notable. EverybodyEdits (talk) 05:49, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:47, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great Big God[edit]

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

Non-notable music Dronebogus (talk) 11:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 11:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 11:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable music artist.Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable music artist. Most likely COI as well since the article creator's (probably someone who works at the company) edits are connected to this "Vineyard Records UK" label and its artists.GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HandWiki[edit]

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

This page was recently accepted through the AFC process, but the reviewer apparently did not notice that every reference that discusses HandWiki is either posted by HandWiki itself, or by Jwork.org, which according to the article is the org behind the HandWiki project. I've searched I have found no independent reliable sources, so I think this ought to be deleted per WP:GNG and WP:NWEB. MrOllie (talk) 11:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, has not received any independent coverage. Is pretty much just a Wikipedia mirror. – Thjarkur (talk) 12:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Needs more RS to establish notability.Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:17, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to the absence of independent coverage. XOR'easter (talk) 23:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Two articles cited are publication platforms (data science central and jwork) used for article posts, not related to Handwiki). I cannot establish relation of these portals to Handwiki. It is a certainly a very new project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jconwiki (talk • contribs) 23:25, 6 September 2020 (UTC) — Jconwiki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Both Data science central posts (blog posts, so not reliable) were posted by 'jwork.org'. Jwork.org is a project of 'S.Chekanov'. HandWiki is also a project of 'S.Chekanov'. These sources are neither independent nor reliable. - MrOllie (talk) 00:41, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By denying such an obvious resource, we confirm the reason for its existence (a science encyclopedia bigger than Wikipeadia for science topics, cannot be in Wikipedia, because we need a 3rd opinion?). It looks a special case to me. I cannot even find it in any place on Wikipedia (see List_of_online_encyclopedias or Wikipedia:Alternative outlets). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jconwiki (talk • contribs) 03:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 04:18, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of passing WP:GNG. The only independent sources I could find for anything by this name were for a small, defunct and unrelated 2012 "handwiki" project of the American Society for Surgery of the Hand. Becoming big by making a copy of Wikipedia is not cause for notability; it just means you're a scraper. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough significant independant coverage. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:43, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable at this time. Cannot find any independent coverage of HandWiki. Schazjmd (talk) 12:54, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant news coverage and does not meet WP:GNG. Expertwikiguy (talk) 00:59, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 21:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Isaiah Hudson[edit]

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

Arunjithp (talk) 11:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Arunjithp (talk) 11:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:13, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:13, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:51, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - scrapes through WP:NFOOTY on one appearance but is an overwhelming WP:GNG fail so leaning towards delete Spiderone 12:02, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG and NFOOTY.Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:21, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move to User:ArsenalFan700/Isaiah Hudson: Would love to keep the basis of the article until he is notable. Also, was the TT Pro League removed as WP:FPL? I swear it was listed there at one point. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 14:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Soccerway says he doesn't play for Vancouver Whitecaps. Seems to have been a trial only? He did sit on the bench for the national team. Geschichte (talk) 21:35, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails NFOOTY. Tessaracter (talk) 14:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. No valid reason given for deletion Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:51, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Makan Hislop[edit]

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

Arunjithp (talk) 11:02, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Arunjithp (talk) 11:02, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:12, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:12, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has 21 caps so more than a borderline WP:NFOOTY pass Spiderone 11:35, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly notable as international player for T&T (WP:NFOOTBALL). Giant Snowman 11:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets NFOOTY.--Mvqr (talk) 13:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is a general consensus against deletion, particularly after the relist. While there's no consensus in favor of a merge, it can, of course, be discussed further outside of AFD. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:47, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apokolips[edit]

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

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. The usual dePROD with no helpful rationale, so here we go. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:06, 27 August 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} 04:06, 27 August 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} 04:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Apokolips is a planet that is highly integral to the Superman franchise in multiple forms of fiction. Just the many reviews of the film Justice League Dark: Apokolips War gives coverage of Apokolips, considering that is where much of the plot takes place. Similar coverage can be seen for the video game Superman: Shadow of Apokolips. There is also coverage such as Batman v Superman Deleted Scene Links Apokolips to Justice League (2017). Deleting this article would be similar to deleting the article on the major Superman villain Darkseid, and practically all coverage for that villian would have coverage on Apokolips, the planet that he rules over. SL93 (talk) 04:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Instead of saying WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES can you link to articles that contain non-trivial (non passing, in-depth) discussion of this setting that go beyond plot summary? The first link you provided is a collection of reviews of a game that feature this location, that's a fail of WP:NOTINHERITED. The second links is a mention in passing, and again, the fact that this was a setting of a notable movie does not make the location notable. The source very clearly does not go beyond trivial plot summaries. As for Darkseid, let's discuss it at his own AfD, if he gets it one day (given his current article is a pure plot summary/list of appearances), WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not going to change my vote and responding to every keep vote rarely helps matters. SL93 (talk) 05:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Piotrus: I proved Darkseid's notability easily after only three minutes of searching on Google and I added those sources to the article on the character. I would potentially understand merging the article to Darkseid, but deleting the article entirely doesn't make any sense. SL93 (talk) 05:40, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Piotrus: At this time I have no objections to merging this article into Darkseid's. Characters tend to on average more notable than locations. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Darkseid per WP:ATD-R. This is definitely a valid search term that should take the reader somewhere relevant. I could be persuaded to go keep if good evidence is brought here, but I don't have the energy to go looking for it. Maybe someone highlighted the design somewhere... For now, I just wanted to at least state that outright deletion is not necessary. -2pou (talk) 06:36, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An important location in the DC Universe for decades and has been depicted in multiple media. I think it is best for users for this to remain as it's own page, rather than be redirected to Darkseid. One other possibility, and this is just a thought, is to merge with New Genesis considering their histories are so intertwined and they are often depicted in stories together. Sources about Kirby's creation and design of the planets could also be added. Rhino131 (talk) 13:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete - Being a prominent setting is not indicative of coverage in sources. Wikipedia is no longer a site that covers fiction for the sake of covering fiction like in the 2005-ish era. Sources need to be provided to meet WP:GNG and fulfill WP:WAF. TTN (talk) 13:23, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Highly pivotal part of both Superman and Jack Kirby's Fourth World lore, and integral to the topic of comics. Dark knight 2149 11:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Darkknight2149: WP:ITSIMPORTANT being what it is, are you seeing any good sources for us to review? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is some analysis of the location in the book Superheroes of the Round Table: Comics Connections to Medieval and Renaissance Literature. Chapter 2 is specifically about Kirby's fourth world. Unfortunately not all pages are available in the preview (I wish I could see page 71- I bet there is some good content). At any rate, even if the page is redirected to Darkseid this would be a useful source for that article. Rhino131 (talk) 22:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Rhino131: Good news is that you can read page 70 on Amazon: [16]. But I don't think it helps much, it is more PLOT summary, through at the bottom there are two sentences about aesthetics and such, but it is still more description than analysis.PS. Ah, you meant 71. No, that one is not available as well, but since it doesn't come up in the search at all for "Apokolips" it may have no relevant content. It could be just a picture, for example. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Piotrus: I think you are right and it is a picture. I can read page 72 from the Google preview and it looks to start up right where page 70 ends. And I'd give a bit more weight to the source than you do; anything associated with Jack Kirby will get more attention than the average comic location. There is a difference between Apokolips and something like Tamaran, for example, which is truly minor. Rhino131 (talk) 01:39, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Rhino131: Based on a number of recent AfDs comments I am thinking Kirby's article needs some additional expansion (even though it is a GA already). Or perhaps Fourth World (comics) would be a good place to discuss this. Or maybe a new dedicated article about impact / reception of his works in general. But the sad truth is most of what we have is pure plot / appearances fancruft, and most of the reception we find is both in passing and not in our articles anyway. Sigh. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:06, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Piotrus: I could get behind that idea. The Fourth World article could use a good impact/reception section- there is certainly real-world information out there about the concept as a whole, if not all the individual characters and locations. Rhino131 (talk) 03:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect as lacking real-world coverage to pass the WP:GNG, and also create something that's WP:NOT#PLOT. This location can be covered in the context of the stories in which it appears, and does not support a stand-alone article. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - planet is integral to DC Comics storylines and has been depicted in fictional media already.Valkyrie Red (talk) 05:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither of those issues is relevant to being included in Wikipedia, per NFICTION. 99.99% of things that have "been depicted in fictional media" should not be on Wikipedia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "Hell Hath No Furies", a two-page article in The Collected Jack Kirby Collector, Volume 1 (TwoMorrows Publishing, 2004) about the gender power balance on Apokolips. Yes, before you say that it's plot information, it does include descriptions and explanations of fictional material — and then it reflects on that material, doing textual analysis on a particular theme. That's what you do, when you write analysis of fiction. Similarly, the article "Love of Anti-? Life" in The Jack Kirby Collector #71 (2017) analyzes the meaning of several major Fourth World concepts, including Apokolips. Check out page 30: "No one on Apokolips evolves spiritually because there is no love. It is a stagnant society, its inhabitants living in ignorance, the legacy of oppression." This is also not plot information; it is lit-crit analysis. For my third of WP:THREE, The Comics Journal #175 (March 1995) has an article about Kirby's work and influence. I can only see a snippet view, but the snippet of page 76 shows the first part of a passage that looks like analysis: "Kirby tells us what the citizens of Darkseid's realm feel about their lot in life: 'Apokolips is an armed camp where"... I think there's a good chance that that passage is going somewhere significant. I believe that this demonstrates that analysis of Kirby's work focuses on Apokolips as a significant concept. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:02, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Toughpigs' convincing analysis. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 12:24, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Indeed, on rethinking this, it looks like there is enough sources, and this is a major concept in the comic univerise - Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:27, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An IDONTLIKEIT nomination bolstered by failure to expend the effort required to review the many print sources where extensive coverage can be found. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 00:23, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect to maybe Fourth World (comics)?. This is a major setting that has appeared in at least a dozen series as well as a handful of cartoons and games. Easily passes WP:NCOMIC. --~ฅ(ↀωↀ=)neko-chan^nyan 16:55, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge. I see some short mentions here and instead of arguing about whether they are trivial, there is enough to write a few sentences in another article, with the potential for expansion if more sources are found. Archrogue (talk) 19:31, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Darkseid as it is only notable in the context of that character._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:05, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. No valid reason given for deletion Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kennedy Hinkson[edit]

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

Arunjithp (talk) 11:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Arunjithp (talk) 11:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:13, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:13, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL as international footballer. Giant Snowman 11:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per that last comment. Ivan Milenin (talk) 12:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. International player, meets NFOOTY.--Mvqr (talk) 13:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. General consensus is that this, while an interesting topic, has not been discussed enough to be notable, seems to be both OR and an essay. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:59, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retroactive nomenclature[edit]

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

Not verifiably notable. This essay has been unsourced since its creation in 2006 by an editor who has not edited since 2011, and has been tagged as unsourced since 2007. I came across it while stub-sorting because another editor had labelled it recently as a Stub, which it certainly isn't.

While the phenomenon discussed undoubtedly exists, there is no evidence that it has been recognised as a named entity, or given this name (which does not appear in the Oxford English Dictionary, while terms such as "retroactive continuity" and "retroactive inhibition" are included). Google search seems only to produce mirrors of this article, including a couple of YouTube videos of the article being read out by computer, and the option to buy a 92-page paperback book of the article for $67.53 from Australian Amazon, but no other use of the term. This suggests that the term has no notability, or indeed existence beyond Wikipedia. The talk page shows a couple of grumbles about the article from 2010 and 2011, but no-one seems to have suggested deleting it until now. Although there is no inter-wiki link in the left sidebar, Wikidata shows that there is a Spanish wikipedia article ... created by apparently the same editor, in April 2009 - one of his only 10 edits on that Wikipedia, 2006-2009.

Some of the content, if sourced, might fit into Anachronism, but that article has no mention of this phenomenon (on a quick scan for "nomenclature" or "name").

It's slightly sad to see an interesting article disappear, but there seem no grounds on which this article ought to be appearing in our encyclopedia. I suggest that the time has come to delete it. PamD 15:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. PamD 15:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The strongest argument for deletion is OR, which this article certainly is, given the available Ghits. Google Ngram comes up with zero occurrences. That's sufficient grounds for a deletion. Also the article is also completely unsourced as you might expect, a dictdef at best (if the term even existed outside of wikipedia), non-notable, its examples are a mess, and -- that seems like enough said. --Lockley (talk) 22:45, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The topic of the article itself seems encyclopedic, maybe it is simply the title that is problematic? I feel like I have come across discussion on this when reading about how people tend to refer to Roman emperors and other historic figures.★Trekker (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a bit tricky. As the nominator notes, the phenomenon definitely exists (the example that immediately springs to mind for me is Octavius/Octavian/Augustus) and I agree with the comment above in that I think it is most likely notable, even if this term might not be used. The lack of use of this specific term of course makes it difficult to search for sources. Of course, WP:Notability depends on the existence of sources and not whether they are actually cited in the article per WP:NEXIST, and I'm inclined to give this article the benefit of the doubt in this regard (because I too feel like I have come across discussion on this, though I cannot recall exactly when or where). I don't think this qualifies under WP:DELREASON#6 as a neologism, because the article is about the concept as opposed to the term. It might however qualify under WP:DELREASON#7 (Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed). Even then, I am tempted to go with an WP:IAR keep, because I honestly think that the existence of this article improves Wikipedia (even in its current, unsourced state). It might be appropriate to change the title, but I have no suggestion as to what the new title should be in that case. TompaDompa (talk) 19:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- A Google search did actually turn up a few uses of the term that are not from mirrors of this article. These uses are not all necessarily from WP:RELIABLE sources (such as this forum thread where somebody says Back in my day, we called it "hard rock." Hair metal is a retroactive nomenclature. We didn't call it hair metal then, but it sure is called that now.), but I would like to draw your attention to this source, which says We can look back on past actions of others and interpret what they did as an act of self-improvement, but if the concept of self-improvement did not exist yet, can what they did accurately be characterized as self-improvement? (Bochner, 1994) Nevertheless, this type of retroactive nomenclature says something about the attitudes that have prevailed since the beginning of the Twentieth Century. I also found not one, but two uses of the term "retroactive nomenclature" to mean retronym. TompaDompa (talk) 19:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After some further searching, I found this source which discusses at some length the use of the name Augustus to describe Rome's first emperor before he was called that, including Virgil's use of the name in relation to the Battle of Actium (4 years before he was called that) and Horace's use of the name in relation to the Battle of Philippi (15 years before he was called that). TompaDompa (talk) 00:14, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this is a common thing with the Roman imperial people, they're often known best by a single name but had many during their life (and a lot of the time some of their names were also the exact names of at least one of their relatives, which leads to a heap of confusion, hence why historians tend to stick with their best known name even if its anachronistic).★Trekker (talk) 00:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sadly, while I initially agreed with TompaDompa comments above - that while this appears to be a concept that does exists, there are examples of it.....and the sort of thing there should be a page on. However I tend to now agree with other editors, the problems is, there isn't actual published discussion of the concept, and this article tends to be synthesis of different examples, with no overall commentary on the concept published. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an essay with valid sources for each individual cited case, but no source which covers the topic in a general way. While the phenomenon certainly exists, no source has been presented that support its WP:notability, and the non-prevalence of the term "retroactive nomenclature" already has been shown. So it is genuine OR. Changing the page title won't change this, only reliable sources could do so. –Austronesier (talk) 13:19, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, regretfully. I agree that this stuff is a) interesting and b) descriptive of a real phenomenon, as demonstrated by multiple examples. However, as long as there is no outside treatment of the topic under a unified term, we can't go ahead and collect these examples and assign a name to them. There's some overlap with retronym and maybe some of the material could be treated there, but again that would require someone (not us) explicitly and verifiably making that connection. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:03, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. No valid reason given for deletion Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Judah Hernandez[edit]

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

Arunjithp (talk) 11:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Arunjithp (talk) 11:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:13, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:13, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL as international footballer. Giant Snowman 11:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, international player that meets NFOOTY.--Mvqr (talk) 13:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. No valid reason given for deletion Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neveal Hackshaw[edit]

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

Arunjithp (talk) 10:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Arunjithp (talk) 10:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This AfD does not have a reason. I have left a message on Arunjithp's talk page. I an not enamoured of cleaning up after careless AfD's --Whiteguru (talk) 11:06, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly passes WP:NFOOTY Spiderone 11:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly notable as International player for T&T. Giant Snowman 11:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. International players, meets NFOOTY.--Mvqr (talk) 13:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. No valid reason given for deletion Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Dillon[edit]

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

Arunjithp (talk) 10:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Arunjithp (talk) 10:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly notable as international player for T&T (WP:NFOOTBALL). Giant Snowman 11:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. International players, meets NFOOTY.--Mvqr (talk) 13:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:FOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. No valid reason given for deletion Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sean de Silva[edit]

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

Arunjithp (talk) 10:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Arunjithp (talk) 10:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, played for the national team of his country, has received considerable attention in newspapers in his country as well (e.g. here and here), and (at the moment) no deletion reason is presented (which, if not changed, makes this a speedy keep candidate). Fram (talk) 10:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for all the reasoned mentioned by Fram, should be kept- and speedy kept if no deletion rationale is given. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:19, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Played international football, easily passes the threshold for WP:NFOOTBALL and if the article is cleaned up, sources added sure GNG would also be set. It's a strange nom as nothing is stated in the nomination which appears to be a disruptive nomination. Govvy (talk) 11:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:32, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly notable. Nominator has clearly not checked the relevant guidelines or the article before nominating. Giant Snowman 11:33, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NFOOTY; nominator does not seem to have provided a rationale for their nomination, and may not have checked the criteria for inclusion. Eagleash (talk) 11:45, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. International players, meets NFOOTY.--Mvqr (talk) 13:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, passes WP:NFOOTY Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. No valid reason given for deletion Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Norville[edit]

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

Arunjithp (talk) 10:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Arunjithp (talk) 10:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly notable as international player for T&T (WP:NFOOTBALL). Giant Snowman 11:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. International players, meets NFOOTY.--Mvqr (talk) 13:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. No valid reason given for deletion Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Noreiga[edit]

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

Arunjithp (talk) 10:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Arunjithp (talk) 10:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - he appears to have 7 full caps [17] [18] Spiderone 11:32, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly notable as international player for T&T (WP:NFOOTBALL). Giant Snowman 11:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. International player, meets NFOOTY.--Mvqr (talk) 13:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep nominator has provided zero rationale for this article's deletion and it clearly meeting WP:NFOOTY.--User:Namiba 14:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. No valid reason given for deletion Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trent Noel[edit]

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

Arunjithp (talk) 10:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Arunjithp (talk) 10:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly notable as international player for T&T (WP:NFOOTBALL). Giant Snowman 11:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. International player, meets NFOOTY.--Mvqr (talk) 13:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. No valid reason given for deletion Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marvin Oliver[edit]

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

Arunjithp (talk) 10:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Arunjithp (talk) 10:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - played in the USA A-League, which is WP:FPL, so meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. professional player in fully-pro league, meets NFOOTY.--Mvqr (talk) 13:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Fenix down (talk) 06:13, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony O'Garro[edit]

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

Arunjithp (talk) 10:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Arunjithp (talk) 10:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and wP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on below - looks like my reading of FPL was wrong and he does indeed met NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per GiantSnowman Spiderone 11:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - now passes NFOOTY Spiderone 17:08, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, doesn't pass NFOOTY or GNG.--Mvqr (talk) 13:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Keskkonnakaitse demonstrates O'Garro passes NFOOTY.--Mvqr (talk) 12:19, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – meets NFOOTY, made 18 appearances and scored a goal in the USSF Division 2 Professional League, which is a WP:FPL. As this article mentions, he scored the first goal in AC St. Louis history. @GiantSnowman, Spiderone, and Mvqr: I don't know if this information would lead you to change your votes, but contrary to them the player does meet NFOOTY. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 16:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For starters this is procedural keep, as User:Arunjithp didn't even provide a reason to delete it. Could they say something here? Secondly, it easily meets WP:FPL. This should probably be withdrawn. Nfitz (talk) 22:38, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My sincere apologies for not having quoted the reason. Preliminary research did give any info to verify notability. However, after a thorough search, found that article meets NFOOTBALL. Please count my vote as KEEP. Arunjithp ^talk 01:23, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fenix down: might be eligible for 'speedy keep' as the nominator has voted keep Spiderone 10:42, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NFOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:20, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then She Was Gone[edit]

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

Non notable short film. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Awards are not major. No full length reviews. Simply promotion from one of multiple SPAs dedicated to promotion the director. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independant RS for this film. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 15:31, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:46, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Don't think those awards are "major" enough to meet WP:NFILM. Doctorhawkes (talk) 03:02, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johan Peltier[edit]

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

Arunjithp (talk) 10:45, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Arunjithp (talk) 10:45, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and wP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GiantSnowman Spiderone 11:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) IceWelder [✉] 10:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sanne Group[edit]

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

The topic fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. The three non-primary sources presently used are already WP:RUNOFTHEMILL articles rehashing press releases. A WP:BEFORE resulted in no source that could match GNG's "significant coverage" requirement. Furthermore, half of the article is unsourced and written non-neutrally. IceWelder [✉] 10:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 10:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 10:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is company listed on the London Stock Exchange; it is part of the FTSE 250 Index and has some 1,800 employees. See WP:LISTED. But I agree it could be improved and expanded. Dormskirk (talk) 10:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dormskirk, the section reads:

There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations ... are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above.

(emphasis mine)

The company might be on the LSE, but there are no sources that could be found at a glance that provide independent analyses of the business, as opposed to the press release rehashes (WP:RUNOFTHEMILL/WP:NEWSORG) that are currently used in the article. Listed status and employee count alone do not make for notability. IceWelder [✉] 11:18, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, but the fact that it is a significant company means that we should try all the harder to find some material which would be useful to the reader. I have added a bit and am working to find more. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 11:25, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have trawled through some of the independent analysts' comments and although I have reflected some of the material, I have no wish to turn this article into an advert for the company. However, there was some criticism of signing up shareholders secretly, the high floatation costs and poor succession planning all which I have added. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 14:17, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I have improved the article (there are now some 16 reliable sources) please can we get the nomination withdrawn? I don't believe there there is any need to emphasis in WP:LISTED but if there is, my emphasis would be as follows:

There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations ... are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above.

Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 09:56, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work. I cannot speak for the reliability of each source, but the sheer amount seems to satisfy a bare minimum for GNG. Withdrawing... IceWelder [✉] 10:17, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for dealing with this so professionally. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 10:27, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. No valid reason given for deletion Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andrei Pacheco[edit]

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

Arunjithp (talk) 10:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Arunjithp (talk) 10:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - played at international level for T&T, clearly notable. Giant Snowman 11:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. International player, meets NFOOTY.--Mvqr (talk) 13:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. No reason given for nomination Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Atiba Charles[edit]

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

Arunjithp (talk) 10:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Arunjithp (talk) 10:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per WP:SK #1. No rationale for deletion has been given. (And, if it turns out that Charles has received the Chaconia Medal, there's a decent case for WP:ANYBIO in any event.) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 11:13, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly notable as international player for T&T. Giant Snowman 11:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. International player, meets NFOOTY.--Mvqr (talk) 13:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jennie Franks[edit]

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

wife of Jethro Tull frontman Ian Anderson, but doesnt seem very notable in her own right Rathfelder (talk) 10:31, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 10:31, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being a wife to a somewhat notable person does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Misogyny is not (yet) one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. Dismissing nearly fifty years of a creative person's career because she was briefly married to a notable male singer is offensive, biased, and stupid. Her ex-husband had noting to with her starring as "Miss Julie" in a BBC tv production, writing a play staged in Manhattan, making documentary films, etc. This AFD is an embarassment and a waste of time. Stick a flute in it and close it; it's done. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 00:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is, sadly, a lot more in the article about her husbands than about her achievements. Rathfelder (talk) 08:23, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:42, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:42, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She's not nearly as famous as her first husband, but she's sufficiently notable as a filmmaker[19] and playwright[20][21]. pburka (talk) 23:56, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Improve This has nothing to do with who she is married to. Jessamyn (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to withdraw this now there are some decent references. Rathfelder (talk) 22:48, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Emmanuelle in Space. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Michael Robinson[edit]

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

Non notable actor. WP:BEFORE shows no evidence of reliable, secondary, substantial sources Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge to Emmanuelle in Space. He's really only notable for that one role. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed just to redirect—not really anything substantive or sourced to merge. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 12:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. I wouldn't say this was even worth a redirect. Boleyn (talk) 08:22, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 10:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per AP. I don't see how a redirect isn't worthwhile, they are WP:CHEAP, after all. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as noted above, to the one noted work. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:34, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Sandstein 15:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of M-1 Global events[edit]

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

Could be merged to M-1#List of Recent and Upcoming M-1 Global events as an ATD, but I think that would make the article too long. Recent ones are already covered there, so this is partially a duplicate. This doesn't meet WP:LISTN or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:14, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:16, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:16, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The events are already listed by year, see Category:M-1 Global events. In my opinion the article should be split into each of the sub-articles by year, then deleted once completed (or redirected if there is a plausible target). Ajf773 (talk) 00:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Salvio

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 07:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bitcoin Center NYC[edit]

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

basement store no more notable than any other walk-in store in NYC. does not pass GNG. Sources primarily about Stockman, (like e.g. the Texas Tribune source) only mention the center in passing. Sources like IBTimes are unreliable. The UCLA source only mentions the center in passing in two sentences. the mention in Reason Magazine is just a short three minute snippet, it is not significant coverage. Ysangkok (talk) 08:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 08:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 08:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 08:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 08:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Salvio

11:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not seem to pass WP:NCORP to merit its own article. Graywalls (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 07:58, 4 September 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⁺⁺ 11:58, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Compassion & Choices. And/or elsewhere as desired. Sandstein 20:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Compassion & Choices of Oregon[edit]

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

WP:NORG failure. Graywalls (talk) 05:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 05:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 05:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (Having not done much research besides looking at page histories.) This seems like a good candidate for merging. It was created by a COI user. I pruned out the text of the Death with Dignity Act back in 2012, and as of 2015 the org is defunct and not much has happened with the article in terms of expansion. Local branches of national orgs don't seem particularly notable unless there are multiple reliable independent sources mentioning it. Notability is not temporary. This was likely not notable to begin with. Valfontis (talk) 14:32, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

response @Valfontis:, and I'm not so sure if the target on its own meets WP:NORG. Graywalls (talk) 00:35, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect' into How to Die in Oregon. Not notable on its own. --Lockley (talk) 03:15, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
if we're gonna merge, I'd say Compassion_&_Choices is a better choice per WP:BRANCH. Graywalls (talk) 08:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:35, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 07:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is consensus he is notable, at minimum, for his work in academia. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:15, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Canova[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL, no notability except in connection with multiple failed political campaigns HouseOfChange (talk) 13:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete we have decided that major party candidates for US house are not default notable. This applies doubly to people who failed to even win a primary election.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep has non-routine coverage that meets GNG. This feels less like a credible deletion, and more like a WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination. Quidster4040 (talk) 15:39, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(footnote that Quidster4040 is the creator of the article.) Please cite 2 or 3 examples of coverage unrelated to his failed campaigns. Is there anything post-2016 aside from embarrassing Seth Rich speculation? HouseOfChange (talk) 14:49, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are multiple, independent, non-trivial sources that covering this person in detail. Whether he won office or not is irrelevant. Many people are notable without winning office. The sources, not their actions, dictate notability.--User:Namiba 16:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Canova's campaigns for Congress have received substantial national media attention, particularly his first campaign, when he was endorsed by Bernie Sanders and ran against the DNC chair. Canova also probably meets Wikipedia:Notability (academics): "has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research." Canova was the Betty Hutton Williams Professor of International Economic Law at the Chapman University School of Law. The school is rated 111th best law school out of 198 law schools. TFD (talk) 16:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NPROF specifies a "major" institution, i.e. implies rank well above the 50% percentile. Although Chapman did better than his current employer, which apparently lies somewhere between #148 and #194. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To me, a "major" institution, in the US context, is an R1 or R2 university, which includes Chapman.--User:Namiba 17:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPROF specifies: "Major institutions, for these purposes, are those that have a reputation for excellence or selectivity." If our benchmark for excellence is as low as Chapman's research ranking of R2 or the 111/198 ranking of its law school, then our benchmark for excellence is very low. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsuccessful political candidate fails WP:NPOL. The article is mostly supported by trivial mentions, local/regional reporting, and election-related coverage. KidAd talk 20:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems to meet one of the criteria: "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." TFD (talk) 17:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Likely mets PROF, but definitely meets GNG. Plenty of non-trivial coverage. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 07:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 07:51, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per User:Editorofthewiki. Meets WP:PROF as he held a named chair appointment at a major institution. Paisarepa (talk) 17:50, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep under WP:NPROF rather than WP:NPOL. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:05, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kj cheetham: and Paisarepa Both Chapman (scoring 48/100) and its law school (ranked # 111th of 198 law schools) rank BELOW the median level of quality. NPROF specifies a "major" institution. Would any RS call Chapman a "major" institution? HouseOfChange (talk) 02:08, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that every ABA-accredited law school is a major institution. "Major" and "better than average" are in no way equivalent concepts. Would you argue that the Gorilla Monsoon Professor of Folding-Chair Throwing at Vince and Linda's Wrestling College is "major" because it's better than its one competitor? That Dartmouth isn't a major institution because it's below average quality in the Ivy League? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 02:22, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So many straw men, jammed in so closely together! Did anyone claim that "'Major and 'better than average' are equivalent"? No. Did anyone raise the topic of what it would mean to be above or below the "average" of a tiny unrepresentative group? No. Also, and importantly, "median" doesn't mean the same thing as "average." Chapman is below the median for all law schools rated by US News -- not because someone took an average of law school "quality" and Chapman had less -- but because when ranking all law schools from the best down to the worst, more than half of all law schools are better than Chapman. (And fewer than half of all law schools are worse than Chapman.) Being below the median of a large representative group of one's peers is not exactly a position of honor. This does not imply that a law school at or barely above the median would be "major" in the sense of having "a reputation for excellence or selectivity." HouseOfChange (talk) 16:08, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to weak keep as less confident about it now, but still a keep. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meeting NPROF as holder of a named chair. Keep as meeting the GNG due to extensive national coverage in 2016. Tring (very credibly) to knock the chair of the DNC out of Congress was a major front in the battle between the Clinton and Sanders forces and was covered as a major news story. There is no excuse for the out of hand dismissal as just another unsuccessful candidate; that's just IDONTLIKEIT denial of the real world. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 02:15, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting NPROF: "Major institutions, for these purposes, are those that have a reputation for excellence or selectivity." That is a higher bar than accreditation. The "extensive national coverage in 2016" was for Sanders v Clinton and Debbie Wasserman Schultz, not for Tim Canova. Redirecting his name to the 2016 Senate election (and adding more specific info if needed to DWS's article) loses nothing of value to our readers. (Do we have an article that covers Sanders v Clinton proxies in local races? That could be interesting and useful, I think.) Responding to IDONTLIKEIT, this nomination is not about Tim Canova's politics but about his notability. I argued to keep Marquita Bradshaw and Saikat Chakrabarti in Wikipedia, because MB is notable and SC is notable. HouseOfChange (talk) 12:15, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're just talking nonsense. There's no disputing that the subject received enough coverage to satisfy the GNG. It's IDONTLIKEIT to nevertheless deny notability without a principled, generally applied reason -- which is conspicuously absent here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 18:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: You say there's "no disputing" TC passed GNG. I am not the only person here disputing that he passes GNG. The principled, generally applied reason I gave when I nominated this article for AfD: "Fails WP:NPOL, no notability except in connection with multiple failed political campaigns." If you disagree, give URLs of 3 independent in-depth RS that are not "in connection with multiple failed political campaigns." (And The Intercept is not an independent RS when promoting a Sanders-backed candidate.) HouseOfChange (talk) 01:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have a much better idea. You, @HouseOfChange:, should stop talking until you understand the GNG and stop arguing that a failed proposal to modify notability guidelines should inexplicably be enforced. The GNG has exactly nothing excluding coverage related to "failed political campaigns". Not one fracking word. Exactly the same is true of NPOL. Not only that, the attempt to add that standard to NPOL in a recent RFC has gone down in flames, meeting overwhelming opposition while receiving minimal support. And it's fracking uncivil of you to issue demands that other editors comply with your policy delusions. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 23:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz Multiple editors in many AfDs have said that routine coverage of a failed political campaign is not equivalent to the kind of press interest that rises to GNG. For example Bearcat:"the fact that some routine local campaign coverage happens to exist is not a WP:GNG-based exemption from having to pass NPOL: every candidate in every election everywhere can always show some evidence of local campaign coverage, so if that were how it worked then every candidate would always get the exemption and nobody would ever actually have to pass NPOL at all anymore." Can you link to an RfC where that sensible idea was rejected? I still have not seen "multiple independent" in-depth interest in Time Canova, even within the 2016 campaign coverage. And I take it you have given up your claim that Chapman Law School is a "major institution" as described by our policy. I am glad to hear you dislike behavior that is "fracking uncivil" and hope you will apply that standard to your own contributions. HouseOfChange (talk) 11:29, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who the hell cares? Editors present lots of lousy, non-policy/guideline-based arguments in AFDs all the time, just like you do here. And why you need assistance in finding the relevant RFC, when it's in plain view on the NPOL talk page, I have no alternative but to ascribe to the arrogance of indolence. You also never responded to my substantive argument about what constitutes a major institution, preferring to repeat your original position, unsupported by policy language. Arguing that a school with a Nobel laureate on its faculty must be minor strikes me as insensible. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 21:52, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: If you missed my earlier policy citation, NPROF defines what it means by a "major" institution: "Major institutions, for these purposes, are those that have a reputation for excellence or selectivity." Considering what a high bar NPROF sets with the other 8 possible criteria e.g. "a highly prestigious academic award at a national or international level," it is unlikely they intended to drop the bar so low as Chapman Law School when specifying a chair at a "major institution." Having antique Nobel laureates on the faculty is associated with a wealthy institution, not necessarily one that has a reputation for excellence or selectivity. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:27, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You created an article in 2018 about Gina Ortiz Jones, who had won the Democratic nomination for Congress and subsequently lost.[22] She is trying again this year. While her campaign received local coverage, it was not covered in national media. Even though she got further along in the process than Canova, just being nominated does not guarantee notability per WP:POL. Why do you think she is notable, while someone who received far more media attention is not? The main difference I see is that Canova took on the party establishment while they supported Jones. But that's why he received more coverage in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 04:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @The Four Deuces: for another example, of which you can see more in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gina_Ortiz_Jones. Jones herself, not the race she had run in, met the criterion of 'A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists' described in Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#cite_note-note6-8. Unlike Canova, where "running against DWS" got significant coverage, in the case of Jones it was SHE, the candidate, who got significant coverage for being an unusual candidate of particular interest, in (among others, and talking only about sources I found in 2018) Harvard Political Review, Huffpo, Ozy (magazine), ABS-CBN, news stories that include long quotes from the subject and in-depth material about her life, with shorter articles in Teen Vogue, and Time Magazine.[23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37] If there were similar number and focus of stories in-depth about Tim Canova, I would not have nominated this article for AfD. IMO, the GNG exception to NPOL is when a CANDIDATE is notable separately from his/her campaign, not when one got multiply mentioned in the context of a notable contest. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:05, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any real difference. Take your reference to "U.S. Rep. Will Hurd gets first major Democratic challenger for 2018" in the Texas Tribune. It's a brief article in a local paper saying that Jones is challenging Hurd. There are numerous articles about Canova challenging DWS. Your article from ABS-CBN is an opinion piece,[38] which cannot be used to establish notability. Meanwhile, Canova has received in depth coverage for example in the Miami New Times ("Inside Tim Canova's Bernie-Fueled Bid to Upset U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz".) Also, the focus of the coverage on articles about Jones is her sexuality, with little or no coverage of her political views, which is an important element in biographies of politicians. And it goes over the jobs she has held without saying what she accomplished in them. Accomplishments are also a major part of any biography. You could say that Jones is notable because she is a lesbian challenging a conservative Republican in Texas, while Canova is notable because he was a progressive challenging an establishment Democrat in Florida. TFD (talk) 16:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is not in routine local coverage, which both got. The difference is national interest in GOJ's unusual characteristics. She did not get national coverage as "a lesbian." HuffPo and TeenVogue were inspired by her hardscrabble background ("A first-generation American, Ortiz Jones and her sister, who is currently serving in the navy, were raised by a single mother who worked multiple jobs after emigrating from the Philippines."[39], "Trump’s plans to gut education and housing aid hit too close to home for Jones, as someone who relied on reduced-cost school lunches and subsidized housing when she was a kid being raised by a single mom in San Antonio."[40]) HarvardPolitics and emphasized the role of her military career as "a path to the American Dream."("For Gina Ortiz Jones, the military was more than just a career...Ortiz Jones won an ROTC scholarship to study at Boston University; after graduation, she served a total of more than 15 years in the U.S. Air Force and the national security sector." [41]) Despite much more coverage than TC ever got, GOJ's first AfD closed as No Consensus and the second closed as "Redirect." (although Sandstein restored the article in June 2018.) Clearly GOJ got more coverage and more widespread GNG-caliber coverage than TC, and yet GOJ was not a slam-dunk "Keep." Neither is TC a slam-dunk GNG Keep, and I would like to see examples of in-depth coverage of TC rather than examples of routine local coverage of GOJ. That one local article cited by TFD is one in-depth example, although very closely tied to the a single campaign. For GNG, TC would need two more. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:49, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's almost a requirement for U.S. politicians to have hard-scrabble backgrounds or service in the armed forces. Bill Clinton, Obama, Hillary Clinton, Biden, Harris - all claim hard-scrabble backgrounds. TFD (talk) 20:07, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the sophisticated political insight. My point was multiple RS covered GOJ for multiple reasons; this was in response to your suggestion that being "a lesbian" was her only notable feature. But let's get back to the topic of whether or not Tim Canova passes GNG, where are some in-depth sources supporting GNG? HouseOfChange (talk) 20:30, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You said that HuffPost and TeenVogue were inspired by her hardscrabble background~~, not her sexuality~~. But the HuffPost article says in the title, "Democrat Gina Ortiz Jones would be the first lesbian, Iraq War vet and Filipina-American to fill a U.S. House seat in Texas."[42] Similarly, TeenVogue says in the title, "If elected, Ortiz Jones would be the first openly gay Congresswoman of color from Texas."[43] TFD (talk) 18:36, 10 September 2020 (UTC) (Striking the part of your comment where you attribute to me a claim I did not make. To say that they were inspired by X is not equivalent to saying they failed to mention Y.) HouseOfChange (talk) 20:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Four Deuces: Let's set aside GOJ, saying merely that national-level coverage of GOJ was much more than the national-level coverage of TC. (The national-level coverage of DWS in 2016 was probably more than the national-level coverage of GOJ.) But the topic here is the claim that TC meets GNG, for which we need two more independent sources that are in-depth about TC. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseOfChange: Here are two: [44] and [45], plus a recent mention establishing some enduring notability: [46] Js2112 (talk) 02:38, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Js2112: Thank you for your courteous addition of information. (Although the Bernie-boosting, Hillary-hating New Republic is hardly an "independent" source per GNG.) So, if profiles by partisan boosters plus campaign coverage suffice to make failed candidates "notable," as others have claimed, then you have established that Canova does reach to that bar. In my opinion, the 2016 campaign created very temporary interest in Canova--and aside from that BLP1E he remains not notable. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Canova received far more national coverage. More importantly, they were not just Human interest stories like the TeenVogue article about Jones, but discussed his political views, which is important in articles about politicians. TFD (talk) 15:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still no links to in-depth coverage of Tim Canova? HouseOfChange (talk) 15:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:20, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

South Pointe Tower[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBUILD. The claim about being the first skyscraper in South Beach is unsourced, as are the claims of notable residents. Even if these were true, I don't think they'd confer notability on the building. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's lots of coverage of this development in journals such as Architecture, Architectural Record and Progressive Architecture because it was quite intrusive and the work of a controversial developer, Thomas Kramer. There are lots of plans to build giant towers in my own neighbourhood now and they certainly cause a stir. See books such as Fool's Paradise for a general history. Applicable policies include WP:ATD; WP:BEFORE; WP:IMPERFECT; WP:NOTPAPER; WP:PRESERVE; &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:55, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I noticed I did the original tagging for notability and sources. Couldn't this information be in South Beach before it gets separated as its own article? I'm surprised there's not a separate section about the architecture along with the history. I have been noticing several articles for Florida skyscrapers can be one-two sentence stubs. I know stubs are cheap but still... – The Grid (talk) 16:44, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Not opposed to a Redirect if material is added to the parent article (but there's nothing to merge, as there's no sourced content). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:V. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 07:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't know where this "lots of coverage" is, I couldn't find any. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:48, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kismat 2[edit]

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

Non notable film, nothing except youtube videos and film database sites showing up in a WP:BEFORE search. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:I am also nominating the following related pages because both films fail WP:NFILM - hako9 (talk) 17:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment as nominator of the sequel, I support hako9's nomination of the original film. Donaldd23 (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An article without sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:12, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete both the original and the sequel. Does not pass GNG or NFILM. // Timothy :: talk 20:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:13, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kashana Home[edit]

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

An article that is about a WP:NORG failing organization that is only covered in the context of one event which fails WP:NEVENT. W 42 15:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. W 42 15:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. W 42 15:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no significant coverage that isn't within the context of the one event. SL93 (talk) 22:48, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to Keep. SL93 (talk) 01:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The girl's death (around which most of the sources revolve) occurred around 8 Feb 2020. There are sources dated March 1 as well as Dec 2019. I haven't looked very closely but there appear to be two different events for which this has been in the news. Not sure if WP:NEVENT is applicable as such. SD0001 (talk) 13:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep Fixed and updated all the existing references. This article only needed some clean up work. It already had 6 references from newspapers and major Pakistani TV News websites in addition to a Government of Punjab, Pakistan reference. Ngrewal1 (talk) 23:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. killer bee  14:50, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:52, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

George S. Elrick[edit]

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

Fails WP:NAUTHOR. There is an obit in the Chicago Tribune ([47]) but that's all the sustained coverage I could find and since he was from Chicagoland it's arguably local coverage. Not to be confused with George Elrick. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 17:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 07:38, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I haven't been able to find significant coverage in reliable sources or any indication he meets any of the WP:AUTHOR criteria. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:17, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I wanted to vote keep on this but couldn't find anything. I remember General Whitman's Adventures, they were always in the waiting room at the doctor's office. // Timothy :: talk 20:33, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Interviews are generally not considered sources which establish notability. However, there is clearly enough dissension that closing as delete would not be appropriate. No prejudice to a renomination in hopes for a broader discussion. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jasandra Nyker[edit]

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

I prodded this with "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 (biographies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." The article has been expanded since, but I am afraid this still fails WP:ANYBIO. The subject received a minor award and is a CEO of a minor company, the coverage is in passing and not in-depth or is obviously written by the subject or her representatives like the bio-blurb at [48] (a site of a company she works for). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:39, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:39, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:39, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:39, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although the references in the article aren't sufficient to establish notability, she had some sort of role at the World Economic Forum. As far as I know, that's like a super exclusive event, presumably only for notable people. But I've been unable to figure out how relevant it might be in establishing notability. Can someone more enlightened than me give some sort of analysis on this? Hmanburg (talk) 03:38, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- World Economic Forum is not a super exclusive event, it has plenty of sub-events which are conference style and have hundreds of attendees if not thousands (for example, you can read about tickets FAQ to one such related event here: [49], this news articles says there are 3,000 attendees and maybe ten times as many people who attend side events, official or otherwise...), and anyway, attending an exclusive event is generally not sufficient to become notable (see WP:NOTINHERITED and the already cited ANYBIO above). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:00, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Piotrus Thanks for the clarification! Had just put out a random thought I had so that it could be discussed and not left out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmanburg (talk • contribs) 14:17, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - She did more than just attending. In the 2012 she was chosen as a Young Global Leader. Although, hundreds of people have been given this distinction over the years, there are less from Africa: "Of the 192 YGLs announced in the class of 2012, there are 22 young leaders from Africa from fields ranging from business and civil society to media and politics." Also, she was a speaker in one of the discussion panels in 2017. Even though I think this participation at the World Economic Forum is good evidence of notability, I don't think it is enough to establish it. I'm still doing some research before casting my iVote. Alan Islas (talk) 14:46, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete World Economic Forum and Young Global Leader are just the upper-class equivalent of top 20 whatevers, a vehicle for publicity, not importance or anything that corresponds to any realworld or wp standard of notability .In the absence of other factors, I tend to think even including them in an article an example of promotionalism . When it's the most that can be said, it's a demonstration of both promotionalism and non-notability. DGG ( talk ) 03:05, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even if we disregard everything related to the World Economic Forum, I believe the sufficient notability of this subject can still be argued. Concerning the basic criteria of significant coverage in WP:BASIC, there are now 23 sources in the article. Conceding that most of them (or even all) do not provide very in depth coverage, the policy allows for this situation: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability".

On the additional criteria in WP:ANYBIO, I believe that applicability of point 1 could be debated, depending if the awards are "minor" or not. Perhaps grounds for point 2 ("a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field") are stronger, with the specific field being the renewable energy industry in Africa. Not sure about the historical record though, maybe too soon to tell. But in anycase, the additional criteria is not mandatory, but can help to a degree. (This is to ensure parsing by the AfD stats bot. My iVote is Keep ) Alan Islas (talk) 21:16, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A a s i m 17:57, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per [50] (video interview by the BBC), [51] (brief mention in Atlanta Black Star), [52] (brief profile in an engineering trade journal). I place particular weight on the interview by the BBC. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:12, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @AleatoryPonderings: BBC is reliable, but video clips are rarely useded as references (I am not sure what is the policy on video and sound materials?), but WP:INTERVIEW in general suggests interviews are rarely good sources, as they are usually the subject talking about him/herself and so not an independent analysis. Logically, interview is just a fast and dirty type of autobiography... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was wary about placing weight on an interview. But, in this case, it's from one of the world's largest and most respected news organizations. Concerns we'd ordinarily have about a publicist getting free advertising from a periodical through an interview do not appear relevant when we're talking about the BBC. I see no particular reason why a video from a respected news organization should not be used as a source, although I agree that it's not fantastic. In sum, I read the fact that she was interviewed by the BBC as an indication that a reliable, third party media organization thought she and her work were sufficiently important to devote a substantial segment to. But, again, I agree that it's not a great source—hence why my keep is still weak. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 07:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per AleatoryPonderings - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 12:56, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in Pennsylvania#District 17. The arguments for notability as a politician are weak. The arguments for keeping as an author are stronger, but there's still rough consensus that he's not quite over the threshold of notability independent from his book. The "redirect" closure recognizes this. Editors are free to change the redirect target to the book if there's consensus for that. Sandstein 10:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Parnell (Pennsylvania politician)[edit]

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

PROD declined. Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. He spoke at the 2020 Republican National Convention last night, but that's not a notability criteria. He's an underdog in the November general election. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I DISAGREE. We should at least wait until after the election to decide whether or not to delete this page. After all, if he gets elected then he will be notable enough that we'd just have to recreate this page if it's deleted. - Seanr451 (talk) 01:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how this works. If he's elected, then he gets a page. He doesn't get one as a candidate. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would normally say delete per WP:NPOL and WP:POLOUTCOMES, except it seems plausible that this person meets WP:AUTHOR, no? There looks to be substantial coverage of his book, Outlaw Platoon, like here in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and here in Kirkus Reviews. Marquardtika (talk) 17:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Marquardtika, Outlaw Platoon has its own article. Why would the author need one? John R. Bruning doesn't have an article. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he "needs one" per se, just that I see a plausible notability argument being made under WP:AUTHOR rather than WP:POLITICIAN. Some merging could take place, too. Maybe there should be a Sean Parnell article but no Outlaw Platoon article, for instance. I'm not totally convinced but think this is a more complex case than the usual WP:POLOUTCOMES, where I almost always vote to merge into the relevant election article. Marquardtika (talk) 17:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fair point. I personally see AUTHOR#3 as overly vague and problematic. In a case like this, I don't see why the book and the author should both have articles if the notability is only based on this one book. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OMG I’m sorry but I don’t know how to do this... I’ll read all the primers when I get back to my desktop and can also log an account. The fact the ADMIN writes “underdog” shows bias right there, and the fact he requested deletion just hours after the RNC speech is suspicious, sorry. I saw the speech, a day later heard something on-air so decided to google sean parnell, and couldn’t find a wiki page. The fact that he was a scheduled 5min speaker, when AOC only got a minute, he wasn’t some fly-by video testimonial, and his speech was indeed about inclusiveness, something this ADMIN deleted in his biased showing of non-inclusiveness. I respect the ADMIN’s Grand Wizard wiki mod-status but please stick to sticks & balls... (again MY APOlOGIES for newbie errors) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C52:7400:66CA:4588:D34A:1923:3AA1 (talk) 17:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The OMG comment above is from me. Question,,, as part of my update that Sean is a relevant topic given his speech at the RNC Convention, I also tried to include a link to the PBS video and the aforementioned one-sentence description of the speech. Question to the Admin making changes, If a link and "approved" description of OutLaw Platoon can be included, why can't a link and description of his speech? Lastly, the webform said article "edits" were not required to have a summary of changes, so I didn't on three subsequent small edits correcting name and some character deletions which for some reason the Admin didn't seem to appreciate (about to read primers now but adhd is already kicking in at the prospect,,, :( LucaGrauman (talk) 18:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. In recent years, I am an infrequent Wikipedia editor. I created this page, not because I'm especially interested in the topic, but because I saw this person giving a speech at the 2020 RNC and wondered to myself, "who the hell is this guy?" I turned to Wikipedia, as I usually do, but when I searched for the gentleman's name, I found an article for an identically-named Alaskan politician, and spent more than several seconds, somewhat confused, wondering, "who the hell is this other guy?" Once I realized that there is a second living American politician with an identical name, I set out to fix this issue for the next reader. If readers can more easily access relevant verified knowledge, Wikipedia has been improved. HiDrNick! 01:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obviously without prejudice against recreation after election day if he wins. It is not Wikipedia's job to maintain articles about as yet unelected candidates in future elections: the rule is not that all of the candidates get articles now and then after election day we delete the ones who lost, it is that we wait until the election is over before we start articles about any of the new winners. Wikipedia is not an advertising platform for aspiring future notables to publicize themselves or their campaigns — and simply having spoken at the convention is not in and of itself a notability criterion either. Anybody who watched the speech and wanted to find out who this guy is will find his campaign materials and campaign coverage on the web as it is, so there's no need for us to suspend our rules in order to curate that content for them. We don't do "temporary notability pending the outcome of a future event that may or may not erase it" — we wait until his passage of a permanent notability criterion has already been secured before he's allowed to have an article, and for politicians that means holding a notable political office and not just running for one. Bearcat (talk) 03:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete People do not become notable for becoming party nominees for election. They become notable for being elected to office.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Probably more notable as an author/military veteran than political candidate. Not a huge fan of Fox but here is a profile. Here is a US Army profile. Interview with the Daily Signal. Here is some Pittsburgh coverage. This isn't even including the book reviews. All in all, I think there is enough coverage for a page, and we don't even have to consider him as a candidate. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:58, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Enos733 (talk) 21:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's a consensus forming that the subject does not meet WP:NPOL, but is he notable as an author?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 07:09, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and/or Redirect to either the RNC or the election in which they are running. Muboshgu is absolutely right in their response to SeanR451. If Parnell wins election in November, we can recreate the page, but to have the article right now not only provides WP:UNDUE, but also doesn't meet WP:NPOL. As for whether he meets WP:NAUTHOR, I don't see that at this current time.Bkissin (talk) 17:48, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Explain how the article violates UNDUE - there's no rule stating that candidates cannot have articles. A redirect to the RNC would not make sense, and while a redirect to Outlaw Platoon would be better than deletion, he has written several other books. He meets NAUTHOR as well as GNG. I don't understand the enthusiasm for deleting candidates articles. Perhaps a move to Sean Parnell (author) since he is not technically a politician? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:40, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Candidates get articles only in one of two specific scenarios: either (a) it can be properly demonstrated that they already passed another inclusion guideline independently of their candidacy, so that their preexisting notability renders the fact that they haven't gotten over NPOL yet as irrelevant, or (b) it can be properly demonstrated that their candidacy is much more special than most other people's candidacies, in some way that would pass the ten year test for enduring significance. The mere fact that a candidate has some campaign coverage is not in and of itself enough to exempt a candidate from having to pass NPOL, because every candidate always has some campaign coverage — which means that every candidate would always get that exemption and nobody would ever actually have to be measured against NPOL at all anymore. But even WP:NAUTHOR is not automatically passed just because his book exists — notability as a writer requires things like noteworthy literary awards, and/or considerably more critical attention being paid to the books than either his BLP or the book's article (which is sourced two-thirds to primary sources and podcasts rather than reliably sourced evidence of notability as a book) is actually showing. Bearcat (talk) 16:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An important piece of Bearcat's argument is nod only made up, but has recently been rejected by the community. There's a recent RFC on modifying NPOL to incorporate the "independently of their candidacy" standard, and that proposal has gone down in flames, meeting broad opposition while gathering no more than token support. When such a proposal has been clearly rejected by the community, it's very hard to see why a good faith user would present it as though it were part of a policy or guideline. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 19:19, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- - - While I suppose you are entitled to your opinion, you are not entitled to say your interpretation of the guidelines is the only correct interpretation. In particular, the 10 year test is highly subjective, to be almost worthless. I can say people will care in 10 years, and you can say the opposite, and neither of us can be absolutely right. And I never claimed that NAUTHOR was passed simply because the book exists, that is you putting words in my mouth. The book has been reviewed in several notable newspapers/periodicals that it deserves an article. And Parnell has been profiled in several reliable sources owing to his military/writing career to deserve a page. In short, he is not a typical small-time candidate, like a lawyer or city councilman, whose only claim to fame is being a candidate for office. And I don't support keeping this article because I agree with his candidacy, since I oppose the majority of Parnell's political positions, but rather on the sourcing that exists on the man. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:48, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to Outlaw Platoon The question in my mind is whether the subject meets WP:Author. Outlaw Platoon is a memoir, which is increasingly citied in academic works (from a review in "The Army Lawyer" to being used as an exemplar of military narrative in the Scandinavian Journal of Military Studies). Certainly all of this points toward the book being notable. While in certain cases it is possible to separate the book from the author, the memoir format of the subject's work and the fact that the subject is the author of three additional works published by William Morrow and Company makes the subject notable for being an author (see this review). --Enos733 (talk) 19:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets both WP:AUTHOR and the GNG. We certainly have a vocal contingent of editors who believe that Wikipedia's coverage of politics should be less extensive and comprehensive than its coverage of wrestlers, lingerie models, and professional Super Smash Bros. players, but the vociferousness of those proponents should obscure the fact that it is a remarkably stupid idea in the context of building an encyclopedia. And the argument that notability of a candidate must be establised "independently of their candidacy" is just plain fraudulent: it's never been part of any actual policy or guideline, and a recent proposal to add it to NPOL has gone down in flames, with nearly unanimous opposition. The !votes embracing this principle are groundless and should be discounted by the closer. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 23:44, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to election page/sub-section. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. KidAd talk 20:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, unelected person. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 22:08, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Commment Just noting that this page should not be deleted as the redirect to Outlaw Platoon is clear and obvious should he not be found notable as an author. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:02, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to restoring if he gets elected. Stifle (talk) 09:31, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect here. --Woko Sapien (talk) 15:06, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - after John E. James being kept, a politician needing to be elected for inclusion on Wikipedia isn't much a requirement, and in some ways Parnell has been given more weight over James with his placement at the RNC. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 16:49, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 09:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zimbo Ka Beta[edit]

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

Previously WP:PRODded and PROD withdrawn. An article about a Bollywood film, sourced only to (non-WP:RS) IMdb since creation in 2015. A WP:BEFORE search failed to find even so much as the plot, which the article lacks. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 06:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not meet WP:NFILM, particularly for films > 30 years old. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 15:32, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 09:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cami Dalton[edit]

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR. The two reviews are by defunct and apparently unreliable sources, and the award for which she (he?) was nominated is from Reviewers International, for which I can find no trace. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:06, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly not enough coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Romantic Times closed in 2018, but for decades they were one of the premier publications covering the romance novel genre and hosted a large industry-wide convention every year. Being nominated for a Romantic Times award was a big deal. Road to Romance was likewise a well-known and respected publication focused on romance novels. Karanacs (talk) 16:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Karanacs's well reasoned and well researched argument. Archives of Reviewers International (which also seems to be defunct) can be found here. pburka (talk) 13:23, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:24, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs previously broadcast by 2nd Avenue[edit]

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

A programming list of syndicated non orignial programming. Fails WP:LISTN, WP:NTELEVISION. Meets WP:NOTTVGUIDE // Timothy :: talk 04:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Raymie (t • c) 04:51, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely unsourced, mostly non-original programming. Ajf773 (talk) 08:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention it has been unsourced for at least 8 years. Delete. Foxnpichu (talk) 10:33, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, a Redirect to 2nd Avenue (TV channel) could be another option. Foxnpichu (talk) 10:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be a directory of who was a local distributor of various content.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Adam Maxwell. Redirect as WP:ATD. If the author is not notable, we can discuss that at a separate AfD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:24, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dial 'M' for Monkey (short story collection)[edit]

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

Article about a book that does not appear to meet WP:NBOOK. MapleSoy (talk) 04:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MapleSoy (talk) 04:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nomination, references do not meet WP:NBOOK. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There does not appear to be any actual reviews or substantial coverage from reliable sources at all on this book. I was going to suggest a redirect to the author's article, but upon looking into that, I don't believe the author is notable either. Rorshacma (talk) 16:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Adam Maxwell. I've also been unable to find significant coverage of the book, but I don't think the author is so plainly non-notable that a redirect wouldn't be useful (see the profile in the Evening Chronicle cited in this article, and the profile in the Northern Echo cited in the biography), especially if a sentence or two on the book can be added to the author's article. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:30, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 09:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

O Garaxe Hermético[edit]

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

This private school with no evidence of coverage or being accredited or such seems to fail WP:NORG. Previously prodded by User:PKT in 2012, deprodded by the creator, hasn't been improved since. Other languages are a bit longer but not much and the coverage is either missing or, from what I can Google Translate, very sparse too. Can this be rescued? Also, the biography of the school creator, Kiko da Silva looks very bad but it, at least, has better interwikis (if anyone here speaks Spanish etc. and would care to comment on whether that bio should stay or if it needs its own AfD, that would be appreciated too). But as for this school, at best, I think we could redirect it to his bio? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we need third party sourcing to justify an article. Especially one that claims something is a first of anything.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:42, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yixi Chen[edit]

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

It is conceivable that his company is notable, but clear that he individually not. 30 under 30 is a pr award, and does not indicate even importance. DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (its a she, not he); Fails WP:GNG; Forbes -under-30 listing is not sufficient for notability. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:38, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - likely paid-for spam. I've blocked the creator for this. MER-C 14:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete paid spam. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No effective references. scope_creep^Talk 22:42, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. --SalmanZ (talk) 14:35, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. That's a hell of a thorough nom statement, and zero opposition to it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drishtipat[edit]

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

One of over a million charities in the US.[53] Human rights in Bangladesh is a worthy cause, but that doesn't make the charity notable.

Of the cited sources, only Star Weekend Magazine is significant coverage in an independent, reliable, secondary source. The Christian Science Monitor contains only one sentence about Drishtipat, which profiled itself (note the use of "our" and "we") and responded to facile interview questions in Culture Connect, the magazine that is the main subject of the CSM article. The Daily Star doesn't mention Drishtipat. The remaining four sources are written by Drishtipat or its executive director, Asif Saleh. (Coincidentally, the Wikipedia article was written by an Asifsaleh.)

Searches of the usual Google types, EBSCO, Gale, JSTOR, and ProQuest, found brief mentions, but only one other piece of significant coverage in an independent, reliable source: India West published an article on 8 February 2002 about a fundraiser in the San Francisco Bay Area, attended by about 200 people, that raised $9,000.

Drishtipat's tax exempt status was revoked in 2014 for failure to file tax forms for three consecutive years.[54] Its 2010 filing showed revenue of about $54,000. By contrast, notable human rights charities Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International respectively reported revenue of $42 million and $37 million that year. It seems Drishtipat never got big enough to attract significant attention by the world at large.

Promotional article containing much unsourced content about a well-meaning but non-notable organization. -- Worldbruce (talk) 00:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 00:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 00:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 00:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom's extensive and well reasoned rationale. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:52, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:21, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Threespheres[edit]

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

1) Fails WP:NOTABILITY, 2) the history section is just a quote (the link to which is dead), 3) a before search turned up zero sources, 4) the official page link under external links is dead. Kingdom(Hearts)Come (talk) 00:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Kingdom(Hearts)Come (talk) 00:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kingdom(Hearts)Come (talk) 00:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Nada. Nothin. Big fat zero. That's how many casual mentions I found, except I did find the dead link at [55] which is an interview with the band The Desert Fathers, which operated this label. I certainly found no in-depth, independent, reliable coverage anywhere. The label has had no roster of notable artists, no indication they've had any regional or genre impact on the arts. Therefore not "one of the more important indie labels" according to NMUSIC #5. Fails NCORP, if you think that applies to record labels, and fails GNG. Oh, and by the way, the article is 90% a copyvio of said archived link, it is a verbatim quote from that article. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the sourcing is even remotely close to being reliable and 3rd party. This is a huge problem we have with record label articles. With my current limit of 1 article nomination per day, I could spend the rest of the year nominating articles on record labels sourced only to the webpage of the record label and or social media cruft, and would not even scatch the surface.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:55, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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