Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 September 19

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 18 September	20 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. It has been a long time since the previous AfDs, so I won't be WP:SALTing this time, but further recreations could justify doing that. RL0919 (talk) 01:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hashmi Syed[edit]

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

This seems to have been previously discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hashmi (Nekokara) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hashmi (Nekokara) (2nd nomination). It may thus be eligible for speedy deletion (WP:G4), but I can not verify this myself. The article lacks references and an indication of notability since 2009. The topic does not seem to have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:48, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:48, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:31, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is almost the result of someone reading WP:NOT backwards. It is a trivial generality without any evidence of notability. Rockphed (talk) 19:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. WP:SALT may apply here as well.4meter4 (talk) 18:34, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be a synthesis of general material about the Banu Hashim and some original research about some villages in Pakistan. Mccapra (talk) 05:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Entirely unsourced and no evidence why an article should exist on this. This article should not be allowed to be created without a reliable source. Also ping User:Kashmiri and User:Uanfala if they have anything to add here.--DBig Xrayᗙ 11:10, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sludge (Transformers)[edit]

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

This article still fails to establish notability since the last AfD. No sources were provided back then either. TTN (talk) 23:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TTN: Instead of making many small AfDs, which are clogging up the deletion sorting for fictional elements and are often closed similarly, you should create bulk AfDs covering groups of related articles. See also Zxcvbnm's comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Middenheim. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:49, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, multiple AfD's exists for a reason._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I tried it twice years ago with two sets of Transformers articles, one characters and one toy lines. Pretty sure both ended no consensus due to a lack of discussion. You can see my answer to LaundryPizza03 on my talk page, but the negatives outweigh the positives. TTN (talk) 11:03, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 18:36, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteper nom Fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:33, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:00, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Contemporary Printmaking[edit]

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

No references found on a WP:BEFORE check. The article also reads like an advertisement and has no sourcing. Created by the obvious promotional account of User:Contemprints AmericanAir88^(talk) 23:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable and unsourced (practically the only sources are Wikipedia and their own web site). The SPA creator has not edited for over 10 years. The fact this article exists is due to sloppy patrolling and the fact that NPP along with COI controls were in their infancy in those days. Fails GNG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete under criteria WP:A7 and perhaps WP:G11, clearly promotional, no claim to notability (other than "only printmaking facility of its kind between NYC and Boston," whatever that means). creffett (talk) 00:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:58, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:58, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:58, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The promotional tone can be fixed by editing. There is independent coverage of the subject, https://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/26/nyregion/connecticut/26artct.html for example. Vexations (talk) 11:29, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. Passes WP:GNG. The organization has non-trivial coverage in several publications, including this Google Book (here) and The New York Times (here). The organization was also the subject of an article in Printmaking Today, Volume 17, Farrand Press, 2008, page 23.4meter4 (talk) 18:45, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4: The first book reference is a directory of art institutes. AmericanAir88^(talk) 21:46, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I should have noticed that. On the fence now.4meter4 (talk) 21:55, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4: I also noticed that the NYT article is an "art review". A article/plane cannot be described through one article which is a review. Thank you however, for understanding that book reference. It could be a Indiscriminate source. AmericanAir88^(talk) 22:04, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 (talk) 01:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guillaume Monast[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NHOCKEY. Only played 14 games in the AHL and at least 200 is needed to pass #2. He also has no preeminent honours in the ECHL or QMJHL to pass #3. Tay87 (talk) 21:42, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 21:42, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 21:42, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 21:42, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 21:42, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unambiguously fails NHOCKEY and GNG.HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 22:10, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough source to establish notability. Barca (talk) 20:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NHOCKEY.4meter4 (talk) 18:47, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 (talk) 01:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Cullen (Computing Forever)[edit]

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

No indication of notability per WP:GNG or WP:BIO. The sources provided do not discuss him significantly, and I cannot find such sources through a Google search for "Dave Cullen" "computing forever" (fewer than 100 results, just mentions on web sites and blogs). ... discospinster _talk 19:48, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 19:48, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 19:48, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 19:48, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. After a trawl of news sources, the only coverage that I can find are this piece in university news site TheBurkean and this piece in gaming news site Polygon.com. In both cases the subject is not the primary topic of the piece (and rather is referred to as one of several similar types of YouTubers). Hence, neither source meets the expectations of WP:SIGCOV. And, in honesty, even if the subject was the primary topic of both those articles, two articles in two online/speciality news sites would not meet the expectation of coverage in independent and reliable sources. In short: delete (as neither WP:GNG nor WP:FILMMAKER nor any other applicable notability criteria is met). Guliolopez (talk) 08:29, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per Guliolopez's reasoning. ww2censor (talk) 11:25, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom and Guliolopez. Seems like an exercise in linkspam. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Guliolopez.4meter4 (talk) 20:36, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom and per Guliolopez. Spleodrach (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SWAGGER Magazine[edit]

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

Article about a magazine, not reliably sourced as clearing WP:NMEDIA's standards for the notability of magazines. Three of the six footnotes here are primary sources which are not support for notability at all (its own press release about itself, its self-published profile in a business directory and a directory entry in a government trademarks database), two more are unreliable source blogs, and the only one that's technically a reliable source is just a glancing mention of its existence in an article whose core subject is an unswag politician trying to co-opt the #swagger hashtag on social media, and even that article primarily addresses his actions in relation to the general culture of hip hop swag rather than singling out this magazine in particular. None of this is notability-making coverage about the magazine, and magazines are not exempted from having to have notability-making coverage just because they exist. Bearcat (talk) 18:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article fails WP:GNG. An extensive search for independent sources on this subject have yielded nothing.4meter4 (talk) 20:47, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom and fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:24, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:32, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ishq Khuda[edit]

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

No references in google about this film only imdb and wordpress پاک آرمی زندہ باد (talk) 16:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 September 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:00, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:14, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:14, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen one reference which i just added it i don't find any other reliable secondary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by پاک آرمی زندہ باد (talk • contribs) 18:09, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has coverage in multiple reliable sources already in the article such as a review in the newspaper Dawn, and it has also won/been nominated for a number of awards so it is a major point in the careers of the director and other crew including actors, so passes WP:NFILM, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 19:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Atlantic306.4meter4 (talk) 20:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly notable with lots of reliable sources. - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:03, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Vita-More[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 (biographies) requirement. I'd expect much more from an article that existed since 2006, but this looks like an average paid promo (through it is not, considering the age and creator, just shares the usual low quality red flags, including the subject editing it herself at some point: Natasha Vita-More (talk · contribs), as well as edits by a likely undisclosed paid editor Bmrg567 (talk · contribs) a few years ago. PS. No objections to drafitying this or moving this to userspace of the linked Wikipedian, who does occasionally edit the project. It would make a nice userpage, even if it fails, IMHO, the notability criteria for a regular article. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~ Probable keep. There do seem to be a lot of news hits and book hits, so I suspect fixable. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:44, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to probable keep; the more I look, the more I find. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:08, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Hyperbolick: Anything you found you'd like to bring here for consideration? Since the article has not been expanded with a single source since the nom started.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:15, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Piotrus: Substantial piece from last year in Le Temps. Hyperbolick (talk) 01:58, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Hyperbolick: Thanks, it looks good. Can you throw one more piece of similar quality at me? I will withdraw if two good sources are shown (two satisfies the GNG requirement of multiple, IMHO :>). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:40, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Hmmm. Profiled in Transhumanism: Engineering the Human Condition, by Roberto Manzocco, Springer, 2009, p. 65-66. Hyperbolick (talk) 04:13, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:13, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:13, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 16:41, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Natasha Vita-More is well-known in Transhumanism circles, so there will always be more and better sources to add. Occasionally notable people, from rock stars to members of Congress, do get caught editing their own articles, or hiring others to do so. This does not affect their notability one way or the other. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 15:57, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- We do need, you know, sources... WP:ITSIMPORTANT is not a very helpful argument. Which soruces say she is well-known, etc.? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:15, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw. Hyperbolick presented two sources which seem sufficient to confirm the subject passes NBIO, thanks! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:28, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Redirects may be added at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:33, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Middenheim[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional location, fails GNG and any guideline or policy relating to the handling of fictional topics. TTN (talk) 16:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 16:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Empire (Warhammer). Hyperbolick (talk) 20:04, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Oh boy, this is a tough nut to crack. Obviously this is a delete as non notable, but there are a lot of layers to the unencyclopedicness on display in this category. I think it merits more of a bulk nomination than just peacemeal like this, to be honest, or it will take forever and just involve many pointless merges._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Empire (Warhammer).4meter4 (talk) 20:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable sources exist that demonstrate any real world notability. The contents of the article is entirely in-universe plot information. I don't recommend a redirect, as the proposed target ALSO has zero reliable sources indicating notability and is entirely in-universe plot information. Rorshacma (talk) 01:18, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 I Might Be Wrong: Live Recordings. (non-admin closure) ~~ OxonAlex - talk 09:44, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I Might Be Wrong[edit]

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

I Might Be Wrong is a song by Radiohead, release on the album Amnesiac (album). I don't believe we should have an article for it because I don't believe it satisfies WP:NSINGLE.

… And believe me, I’d know. I think I’ve written more about Radiohead on Wikipedia than any other editor, probably by a long distance, having written most of their album articles (most of them GA or FA).

I just cannot find enough coverage in reliable sources to justify having an article for this song. It was released as a single, but it was radio-only, and even finding a source for that single release (for the Amnesiac article) was tough. There are seemingly no reviews for the single. It doesn’t seem to have had a lasting influence on anything. It is, as far as Radiohead songs go, one of the less notable ones (and arguably from one of their less notable albums).

The current sources into the article amount to some mentions of the song in interviews with the band, album reviews, and essays. None of these are detailed as far as I can see. All this stuff can be covered in the album article where it’s worth mentioning at all. The article also contains a whole lot of unsourced material, plus a few claims cited to fansites.

The article should redirect to I Might Be Wrong: Live Recordings. Popcornduff (talk) 16:19, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 16:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing significant has been written about this song. The cited sources either mention it in passing or they don't mention it at all. Finally, the article was created by a Swedish IP of banned user Danieleb82, who has been involved here since the Buttletsaregone sockpuppet in February. So get rid of this article! Binksternet (talk) 02:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, a little while after creating this AfD I realised the IP defending it was a sock puppet. Wish I hadn't created the AfD now. I was trying to be a gentleman about it. Popcornduff (talk) 09:31, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to I Might Be Wrong: Live Recordings per the nominator's suggestion as the song lacks enough significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. I would not be opposed to a deletion, although this could be a helpful search term for some. Aoba47 (talk) 04:55, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per clearly no standalone coverage of the song.--N Ø 13:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:50, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above.4meter4 (talk) 21:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 (talk) 01:43, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wet Set[edit]

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

None of the sources demonstrate the notability of this fetish magazine.

[1] is a listing on a self-published website about censorship, which provides an indiscriminate list of "Every books and magazine that has been banned by the Australian Censor since 2006. The eventual aim is to cover items pre-2006."
NSFW is the magazine's own website.
[2] is a promotional site for an indie band, and doesn't mention Wet Set.

I looked for other sources and found only this passing mention by Vice. The article was kept at AfD in 2007 because the magazine and website had been nominated for (but did not win) 2004 Australian Adult Industry Awards. [3]. The AAIA are based on self-nomination: "To nominate yourself or another party, simply fill out the form below. Remember that these details will be entered onto our web page and is a great way of selling yourself." Cheers, gnu 57 16:19, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 16:19, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 16:19, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 16:19, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 16:19, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this piss-poor article, per nominator. The account behind it appears to have had a particular interest in this fetish; a glance at their contribs turns up other articles and redirects that may need editing or flushing. (I also now wish I hadn't logged on during lunch.) -Crossroads- (talk) 16:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. You're in for a difficult job if you want to find any notability for this pissy little mag. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:24, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No nontrivial independent sourcing. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, i was going to say a definite "delete" like the above editors but am curious about the history of this article, looking at its history we see that it was created on 26 June 2007, and yet, there was an afd (link on the talkpage) where the article was nominated on 15 july 2007, and "kept" on 20 July 2007 (see here), so was it subsequently deleted against consensus and than recreated? just wondering, and whether the original article had any sources that may point to notability? Coolabahapple (talk) 05:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Um? July comes after June. Am I missing something? Where was the deletion? duffbeerforme (talk) 13:08, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

apologies, have struck comment, as circuitry obviously misfiring... Coolabahapple (talk)

Delete. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 18:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 (talk) 01:46, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Johan Paulik[edit]

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

Essentially unsourced porn performer BLP. Only claim of notability is an industry award, which no longer counts. PROD removed without explanation or article improvement by IP with no other edit history. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:06, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:57, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:57, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I am glad Mr. Wolfowitz helps to clean up Wikipedia of similar articles of poor quality and dubious notability.--Darwinek (talk) 22:20, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a truly poor quality article. I join Darwinek is thanking Mr. Wolfowitz for his tireless work in inproving Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:14, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:03, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:04, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 18:53, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftified. (non-admin closure) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:09, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Summer Place (album)[edit]

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

No source provided and I can't find any reliable source. Andrew Base (talk) 15:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Andrew Base (talk) 15:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:59, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fellowship of Faith for the Muslims[edit]

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

I'm unable to find any secondary sources that even mention this organisation, much less discuss it at any depth, so neither WP:GNG nor WP:ORGDEPTH is met. bonadea contributions talk 14:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 14:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 14:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- If this para-church organisation has really operated since 1915, I would expect to it have some significance, though I have never heard of it. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:08, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:19, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google books has several works that mention the organization tangentially going back decades, but none of them show significant coverage. The only publications of note I can find are either from the organization itself, or are through a closely related organization. There just isn't any independent sources of note on this topic to pass WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 19:03, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 (talk) 01:49, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Klaukkala infant murders[edit]

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

Per WP:EVENTCRIT. Relatively unremarkable event. I cannot find any evidence that the event is referred to as the "Klaukkala Infant Murders" anywhere outwith WP, and news coverage is not substantial enough to establish notability. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 13:14, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that this case had any significant impact on the history or laws of Finland. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, according to Wikipedia's own article on infanticide, the "frequency has been estimated to be 1 in approximately 3000 to 5000 children of all ages and 2.1 per 100,000 newborns per year". Abductive (reasoning) 23:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No lasting effect, other than the mother landing in jail for life. Sad but not notable. We are an encyclopedia, not as newspaper or magazine. Bearian (talk) 19:29, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WikiDan61. Also, a higher court reduced the sentence to 4 years for "surma", which is even below a manslaughter. (@Bearian: an average "life sentence" in Finland is about 15 years.) -kyykaarme (talk) 21:03, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Barca (talk) 20:42, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom.4meter4 (talk) 19:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:22, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Usha Parkhi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC.Now there are thousands of Hindutsani vocalists not sure why the subject is notable. Lacks third-party sources. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:29, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:29, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am undecided about the notability. The subject does seem to have coverage in the book titled "Leading Ladies of India" snippet.^[1] which leads me to think that more coverage may exist in the local Marathi language. --DBig Xrayᗙ 10:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Lalwani, Saroj; Shrivastava, Ramji (2004). Leading Ladies of India. Janparishad.

:Did go though this but it is a mere single mention in the book Shri Rateesh and Ms. Barnona Basu and Shri Venkatarama Sarma, training in Hindustani classical music from Mrs. Shefali Burman, Dr. Usha Parkhi and Dr. Narayanrao Mangroolkar and training in Carnatic classical from Mrs. Rajeshwari.This is the line where the subject is mentioned.Actaully could not find even a single indepth reference about the subject note the article was created in 2008.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:MUSICBIO; has not been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works (a single mention in a book is not enough), no awards or charting releases from a major record label, etc. - does not meet WP:TEACHER as a singing teacher - no evidence of notability - Epinoia (talk) 18:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 13:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Several reference book have an entry on this person; see Asian Women, Volume 2, Reference India: M-R, Reference India, Volume 3. There is one article on the person in non-English source : Magazine entitle: Sangeet (Vol. 55). Found passing mention in two another journal. See, Bhavan's Journal and Journal of the Indian Musicological Society. --Gazal world (talk) 14:52, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article lacks significant coverage and none of the refrences are indepth or address about the subject in detail they merely mention her or have a entry on her.Note the article was created 2008 and is virtually totally unreferenced.could not find a single indepth article on her clearly fails WP:SIGCOV for a BLP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:32, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely merely mention the subject's name just once in the book Bhavan's Journal in page 73 once and Journal of the Indian Musicological Society in page 78 once as was the case with This book already mentioned above in page 67 once
Again there are entry in the three books Asian Women, Volume 2, Reference India: M-R, Reference India, Volume 3.
There is brief mention about the subject in the book but again nothing significant Sangeet
Hence Fails WP:NMUSIC ,WP:SIGCOV and WP:TEACHER and could not find a single indepth reference about the subject note the article was created in 2008.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:17, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. While it's clear the subject is mentioned tangentially in reliable sources, Usha Parkhi is not the primary subject nor discussed in any significant way in any of the sources mentioned. In order to meet the requirements at WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC, the references have to show significant coverage. The sources just aren't at that level. Unfortunately there just aren't that many publications that cover artists in this genre, and it's unlikely that better sources will be found.4meter4 (talk) 20:42, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The nom pretty much sums up what I wanted to say. The subject fails WP:BASIC. Entries and passing mentions do not count as WP:SIGCOV, there is no in-depth coverage of Usha Parkhi. My searches didn't find much besides everything mentioned already. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:43, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:22, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick C. Kulow[edit]

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

Biography that is more or less an obituary. The subject's significance lies mainly in his victory over the U.S. Food and Drug Administration concerning the ability to sell essential fatty acids. While this is important I'm not sure that it is sufficient to warrant a stand-alone article. There is nothing else distinctive about him and while I can see numerous passing mentions of him I don't see anything substantial. Mccapra (talk) 11:32, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:32, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:32, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:32, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:32, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:32, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no meaningful coverage past obituaries. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 12:57, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the current state of the article is rather skimpy, the very high likelihood is that there is substantial coverage of this individual and his business activities in offline news and other print sources. A textbook example of a case where WP:BEFORE should be rigorously applied. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:13, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I looked for reliable independent sources but did not find them. If you do, please add them. Mccapra (talk) 21:04, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, or maybe Keep - my first inclination was Keep as he seems to be a significant figure in the health food industry, introducing many products that later became industry standards and for making the FDA change its stance on food additives and dietary supplements - but I couldn't find any coverage other than obituaries - however some of those obituaries do cover his career, such as this one, reprinted from Natural Foods Merchandiser - if the obits can be taken as confirmation of his notability, then Keep, otherwise I suppose it is Delete due to lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources - I am leaning towards Keep, but lack of sources indicates a Delete - Epinoia (talk) 02:07, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not all obits in the newspaper are unpaid for staff written obits. It’s difficult to judge the quality of the source within the article without a url link. No other sources I’be found are significant as they are all tangential to Mr. Kurlow. Fails WP:SIGCOV in either case. Even if this obit is one good source, Wikipedia requires multiple sources to verify notability. The subject does not pass WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 11:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lots of passing mentions and entries in book, but only [4] (mentioned by Epinoia) comes up as a WP:SIGCOV. Therefore, Fredreick doesn't meet WP:BASIC which requires "multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". The Big Bad Wolfowitz's argument falls flat per WP:NRV and WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES, as we need to have evidence that the subject received significant coverage. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:48, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Redirects at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:33, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Magnetic Kid[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 11:32, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:32, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:32, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - minor fictional character - not included in "The Superhero Book: The Ultimate Encyclopedia of Comic-Book Icons and Hollywood Heroes" - possible Redirect to Legion of Super-Heroes, but the Kid is not mentioned in that article so there is nothing to target - fictional characters must meet WP:GNG and this one does not as there is no significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources - Epinoia (talk) 01:34, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A character so minor that he doesn't even garner a mention in the bloated List of Legion of Super-Heroes members. There are no reliable sources discussing him at all, and more of the article is spent describing things he doesn't appear in than information on his actual appearances. Rorshacma (talk) 01:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect to List of Legion of Super-Heroes members. Whilst not appearing in one specific source is by no means a failure of WP:GNG, the fact that there's nothing else out there is!. The redirect already contains the essential info. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 10:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 03:19, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I'm not sure why no one has closed this yet, we have a pretty clear consensus in favor of deletion. ST47 (talk) 19:10, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Swift Retort (film)[edit]

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

This article is asserting notability for a 23 minute short film. While the subject of the film is notable (the 2019 Jammu and Kashmir airstrikes), the film itself is not. It is published only on social media platforms and has minor coverage. Some of the sources are self-published by the producer of the film. Basically trivial and at best should be briefly mentioned in the main article. QuiteUnusual (talk) 11:10, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article in 'TheNews' shows that the film is official ^[1] The Article in 'TheNews' Magazine ^[2] The Article in 'The News' Newspaper London Edition about the film ^[3] The Article in 'Global Village Space' News website ^[4] The Article in 'Brand Synario' ^[5] The Article in 'SomethingHaute' Magazine ^[6] The Article in 'Khaleej Mag'^[7] The Article in 'Gulf News' ^[8] The Article And Film showing in 'INC PAK' Independent News Coverage Of Pakistan ^[9]

There are many article of film in urdu language as well , i think the film is notable and have enough references to show. if someone denied it then i have to show them the films from pakistan who's having same amount of references and same websites and they are published here.

Thanks - Preceding unsigned comment added by پاک آرمی زندہ باد (talk • contribs) 11:13, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.thenews.com.pk/magazine/instep-today/524374-operation-swift-retort-the-animated-response-to-india-from-pak-animator
^ https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/523984-operation-swift-retort-the-animated-response-to-india-from-pakistan
^ http://e.thenews.com.pk/london/9-9-2019/page9.asp
^ https://www.globalvillagespace.com/operation-swift-retort-pakistans-befitting-reply-to-indian-aggression/
^ https://www.brandsynario.com/shamoon-abbasi-to-play-indian-pilot-in-the-comedy-film-abhinandan-come-on/
^ https://www.somethinghaute.com/pakistani-director-makes-animated-short-film-on-indian-pilot-abhinandan-capture/
^ http://khaleejmag.com/news/operation-swift-retort-respond-to-indian-aggression-by-pakistan/
^ https://gulfnews.com/entertainment/pakistani-cinema/pakistan-makes-short-film-on-abhinandan-capture-1.66011154
^ https://www.incpak.com/national/operation-swift-retort-memoria/

Taking these in order:

1 90% of the article is a direct quote from the film maker. No analysis or comment from the author of the article indicates this is not a serious journalistic reference.

2 written by the same author as the article above. This is not independent of the first source and is trivial.

3 is more substantive but I note the highly POV commentary (e.g., "The spokesperson of the Pakistani Armed forces, Major General Asif Ghafoor, exposed the Indian propaganda.") which suggests this is not a neutral or reliable source.

4. Article is about something else and has just a passing reference to the YouTube video that is the subject of this AFD

5 Passing reference noting only the low quality of the video

6. Interview with the video producer, no journalistic input.

7 Self publishing platform, not a reliable source. Note as well very close paraphrasing between the article and this "source".

And so on QuiteUnusual (talk) 12:30, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

1) The article is fair notable because 'the news' is a reliable source if you refused this as non notable then you have to remove other films pages as well because they have added the news reference

2) The first article is different from it , any pakistani journalist can confirm. (The News) , (In step) are both different

3) Global Village Space is a media house run by dunya news and 92 news channel where are 1st Largest HD Tv channel of pakistan

4) Please read carefully in that article "The name of this film is showing along with the filmmaker name" let me keep it simple for your An animated short by the name Operation Swift Retort has also released on YouTube.

Conceived and produced by DJ Kamal Mustafa, the animation attempts to present the Balakot operation, and the successful capture of Abhinandan. It is based on the events that took place on the night of February 26 and the following day.

5) You only read about low quality of the film but didn't read the fully text Sir ? that somethinghaute has mentioned about the film , it has nothing to do with wikipedia that if the film is in low quality or high quality , the main thing is the website is talking about this film

6)The journalist has interviewed the film maker and the news of the film "operation swift retort" is being published in the news paper london edition.

7) Khaleej Mag is not run by me if i accept your claim then there are many source such as Gulf News , Nai Baat etc.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by پاک آرمی زندہ باد (talk • contribs) 12:50, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please check the references yourself and other pakistani films references too as this one has same amount of references and websites which have others for example this film Buraaq, The_Evil_Marriage

I'm here to make wikipedia better , my aim is to write articles on pakistani topics. all suggestion and feedback are welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by پاک آرمی زندہ باد (talk • contribs) 13:20, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: پاک آرمی زندہ باد (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. --DBig Xrayᗙ 17:45, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSHITEXISTS for a discussion on how other similar articles existing is rarely a convincing argument for retaining another article. I did read the sources, in full, and my opinion is that they do not create notability for a 23 minute YouTube film. Just because something is mentioned in a notable publication does not make the thing itself notable. Similarly, while the incident itself is notable, an animated film published on social media about the event is not automatically also notable. I'll leave it now for the rest of the community to determine. Thanks. QuiteUnusual (talk) 13:27, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- That link was discourteous and below you, note it should not be an official link as it was deleted at RfD, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:04, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per QuiteUnusual's good analysis of the sources, and the lack of any significant secondary coverage in reliable sources. The article is written in an inappropriate tone as well; that could be fixed, but the lack of notability cannot. --bonadea contributions talk 15:11, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok So what do you suggest to keep this article ? how many notable websites needed ? Thenews is reliable source gulfnews is also reliable but you have ignored all ? i think i have to nominate for deleting other films as well because the references i mentioned are added in other films as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by پاک آرمی زندہ باد (talk • contribs) 15:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are not looking for "notable websites" per se. What you are looking for is evidence that the film is notable. This requires significant discussion of the film (not the incident that the film is about) in a reliable source. A passing reference is not sufficient. I suggest you don't waste your time trying to get other articles deleted, you'd be better off working on improving this article, although I don't believe this is possible personally, QuiteUnusual (talk) 15:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much QuiteUnusual for response i'm still learning that how you decide that "film is notable" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by پاک آرمی زندہ باد (talk • contribs) 15:32, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Indeed a non-notable film that purports to depict the Pakistani national viewpoint, with no independent WP:THIRDPARTY coverage. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response Kautilya3 , but this is an official film of pakistan air force , how you can say it's not notable ? i may share government website references later on as well. There are 4 to 5 more news websites will cover this such as Dawn , Purazm.gov.pk and film magazines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by پاک آرمی زندہ باد (talk • contribs) 12:20, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is similar to the discussion about the difference between the incident being notable and the film being notable. Being an official film of a notable organisation doesn't make the film notable because it doesn't inherit notability in this way. For example, the US federal government has made thousands of public service announcements on all sorts of subjects, but while the US government is notable, as is the broad subject of PSAs, the individual films are rarely (perhaps never) individually notable. QuiteUnusual (talk) 12:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're not from pakistan sir let me give you an example , you're confused between international and pakistani films topic. this is the film of pakistan army https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Glorious_Resolve , the glorious resolve is an operational code word same as operation swift retort. now tell me the difference between this and the operation swift retort. the thing is operation swift retort is an official film which is being showing on television , newspapers , news blogs and government places. if the film is official and have enough references then it means it is notable.

There is a second example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehd-e-Wafa this is a military drama which will be shown in youtube from tomorrow so does it mean it is not notable ?

notability of the film is dependable on the references and sources if the sources and references are in news then it is fine. pakistani wikipedians will understand this and may come and give their opinion.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by پاک آرمی زندہ باد (talk • contribs) 12:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are no separate criteria for Pakistani films, or for films of any other nationality. All films are treated the same way. Films are primarily of entertainment value. Whether they claim to depict true events or not has to be determined by independent assessments, which are lacking in this case. But it is clear that it is depicting the Pakistani national position, which is understandably endorsed by the Pakistani media. In such a situation, we look for independent WP:THIRDPARTY assessments, which are again lacking in this case. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:55, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the arguments and analysis of the sources. The Glorious Resolve is a poor exemple because I do not believe that if it was nominated today it would survive an AFD there was one single syndicated story that was picked up and reproduced by a few sources. The comparison with Ehd-e-Wafa is also not relevant because there are numerous independent RS and this is a 24 part television drama series that was made in collaboration with the army. That said it looks like there is quite a lot of Churnalism in there though. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:07, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks domdeparis

Appreciate your response regarding this please note down the references and site of 'ehd-e-wafa' those site will cover this film very soon then it will be notable am i right ? i'm still confused weather the site i have mentioned is not notable or the film , because film notability comes with references , if the references will come in BBC Urdu , voice of america , dawn news , ary news and major news channel of pakistan then it will be known as notable. right ?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by پاک آرمی زندہ باد (talk • contribs) 16:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 18:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 18:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 18:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it fails all the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (films). Non notable film from a non notable director published on Youtube. Whatever trivial coverage it has received is due to the event of airstrike but the Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED --DBig Xrayᗙ 12:02, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir The person who put the deletion tag is saying that film is not notable and you saying film is getting coverage because of event this are two different things. this film is official and made with the permission from authorities as says and confirmed by pakistani media so kindly get your facts right first before jumping into conclusion. The film is sent for government award and may get award in Jan or March 23 (on pakistan resolution day). If the page get deleted never mind if i see any more references in 'guardian' , bbc or government blog of pakistan , i will add the references. پاک آرمی زندہ باد (talk) 15:27, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Both the nominator and myself, agree that the film is non notable. I have reviewed the sources and I have concluded that whatever sources are available are there due to the notable event and not just the movie. see WP:NOTINHERITED to understand this point. If the film gets notable awards and passes WP:NFILM then you can revisit it later on. but "the film may get an award in future" is not a valid reason to keep junk articles. --DBig Xrayᗙ 17:45, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi , Sure thanks پاک آرمی زندہ باد (talk) 18:23, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome پاک آرمی زندہ باد. --DBig Xrayᗙ 18:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I think I'm swimming upstream here, but let me give my analysis of the 12 (really more like 8) sources cited in this version of the article (current as I type this). I think the sources can be broken down into a few broad categories:
- Sources 1, 4, and 8 are all, essentially, the same article. It was published in The News International, which is the largest English language newspaper in Pakistan. 1 and 8 are exactly the same article, however 1 is the online version and 8 is a pdf of the paper version. 4 has two additional paragraphs that 1 and 8 lack, but is by the same writer in the same publication and reads like an earlier draft. For future reference I will refer to this article as the TNI article.
- Sources 3, 5, and 10 appear to be something like a press release. They are all word for word the same, and they were written by the movie's producer. They do nothing to confer notability, although they can be used to cite basic facts and/or quotes if the quotes are relevant. The article should probably only cite one of them, otherwise it looks like reference stacking. I will not deal with these further in this analysis.
- Sources 6 and 12 are not about this movie. Source 12 is about a memorial to the underlying events that the movie is based on. It doesn't discuss the movie in any depth, but does embed a link to the movie at the end. Source 6 is a 10 paragraph article about 2 other movies that are being made about the underlying event. At the end it devotes 2 short paragraphs to discussing this movie, and embeds the video. The discussion in source 6 is basically limited to noting that this movie exists. These do very little to support an article about this movie as the they do not go into enough depth for us to be able to build an article from them, however I do think they at least hint that this may be more notable than it appears. However, they alone are not enough.
- Source 2 is user generated content that carries the following disclaimer, "The articles shared under 'Your Voice' section are sent to us by contributors and we neither confirm nor deny the authenticity of any facts stated below." This completely rules it out as a RS. As a non RS I will not consider it further.
- That leaves us with sources 7, 9, and 11 in addition to the TNI article. 7 is an article in a fashion and entertainment magazine called Something Haute. I don't know much about the source, but we seem to have used it extensively in articles about Pakistan. It is a short and critical review of the film, pointing out the poor quality animation. That said, negative reviews are still reviews and work to establish notability. 9 is an article in something called Kaleej Mag. I haven't been able to learn much about this source, it seems to be a magazine founded in Lahore in 2009. It shares a name with a newspaper from the UAE which is much better known, and it's sometimes hard to tell if which publication is being referred to elsewhere. I have no idea if this magazine meets RS or not. It is a longer article, with many screenshots from the film. It is not word for word the press release I dealt with earlier, but its structure and content is similar and I think it may have been based off that. I'm not inclined to assign much weight to this source because I'm not familiar enough with the publication and it reminds me of the press release. 11 is from Gulf News. It's short, only 3 paragraphs, but does provide some information not provided by other sources.

This film definitely does not meet the criteria at WP:NFILMS, but it doesn't have to. I think the TNI article, source 7, and source 11, combined with the passing mentions in sources 6 and 12, indicate it passes WP:GNG. I also think it's highly likely that there would be additional non-English (perhaps Urdu) sources. If someone can find a few of those it would help build the case for notability. That said, there is significant coverage in reliable sources (3 of them) that are independent of the subject; leading me to come down with a weak keep. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 02:54, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Than you ONUnicorn Sir for the breif response as you said the article might be in urdu "yes they are and they will be published in different urdu newspaper and blogs" such as independent urdu , jang , dawn news urdu , ary and samaa tv. the thing is timely needed the articles and films comes/published slowly slowly. also the PDF one is actually a newspaper of the news london edition. i will try to add urdu sources if i found by searching in urdu language. I understand that article is weak or having weak references but i saw 4 to 5 articles recently here in wikipedia who's having pages here since 2015 and they have only 5 references (2 from gulf news , the news) , (1 from somethinghaute) , (1 from dawn) and one from (the express tribune). i'm having three references of that news in my article , rests remaining two will come.

May God bless you sirپاک آرمی زندہ باد (talk) 06:54, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ONUnicorn, thanks for the detailed reply. Since you have already rebutted most of the sources above, I will not talk about them. Among the sources 7, 9, and 11 that you have used to !vote a weak keep. Both 7 and 9 (Something haute) and (Khaleej Mag) are tableau/blog type sites, who may have even accepted money from the film PR agency to publish the coverage. These 2 sites should not be considered a reliable source and I have doubts about its independence. Regarding 11, gulf times indeed is a reliable source but it is only covering the notable incident and only gives a trivial one para and 2 line coverage to the movie. We cannot keep the article based on these 3 sources. --DBig Xrayᗙ 09:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DBigXray Kindly don't defame something haute or any other blogs or website until you don't know about them if something haute had accepted money to write the film review they would have given a review in positive but some thing haute says the animation is weak , they posted about film after gulf news tweeted about this film. i can post here 10+ articles of wikipedia films where people are using something haute references too. Gulf News is wrote about the film clearly that a film on abhinandan capture made by DJ Kamal Mustafa it is enough for the reference. there are other articles in urdu newspapers / news websites as well i will add later once i get time i'm ill at the moment i'm writing this it in very hard condition. Galaxy lollywood , oye yeah , brand synario , the news international and something haute are enough references to show because they are big masala magazines / news websites / film magazine of pakistan and if you are opposing this then you need to delete 10+ or more then 50 articles because those films are having same references as "operation swift retort" has.Memon KutianaWala (talk) 10:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC) UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 11:12, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails all the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (films). Non notable film and non notable director published on Youtube. --SalmanZ (talk) 21:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute Keep: The article is clearly full of citations. Googinber1234 (talk) 16:48, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I agree with QuiteUnusual's analysis of the sources. Reyk _YO! 16:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per QU's thorough source assessment. -- Begoon 17:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Per ONUnicorn's analysis of the sourcing I don't think it meets the GNG (though not by much). Rockphed (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus was the subject passes WP:NGEO. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 19:59, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sajik Tampak[edit]

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

As per WP:G12

Copypaste from a blacklisted url indikosh.com/vill/285614/sajik-tampak
Copyvios report [5] --Wakowako (talk) 10:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Wakowako (talk) 10:41, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No need to Delete edited copying section.

Awangba Mangang (talk) 11:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:30, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this is a valid geographical place. The reference can be added from the Census of India data. Any copied portion of the text can be removed.--DreamLinker (talk) 08:12, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete editor/creator should be investigated as he/she continuously violating copyright infringement see (talk) which is not acceptable.--SaatwikG (talk) 06:01, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a village of 1500 clearly meets WP:GEOLAND as a populated place. Deletion for copyvio is only appropriate if there is noting left to salvage after removal of infringing text. The village is still notable. MB 04:02, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NGEO as a populated recognised place (btw just entering it in gnews brings back numerous results. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:32, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a recognised settlement per WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:24, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ambush drake[edit]

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

Poorly sourced stub article about a little-known Dungeons & Dragons monster. Fails WP:GNG, not mentioned in any independent sources. Not a very active user (talk) 10:29, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 10:29, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 10:29, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 10:29, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no real world notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons 3.5 edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 11:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the proposed target for the merge is also being considered for deletion. Not a very active user (talk) 08:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:09, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. The name is so vague it can describe any number of gaming monsters, so a merge is ill advised._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:48, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Very minor, non-notable D&D creature. No non-primary sources exist demonstrating any sort of real-world notability. The proposed target article for a Redirect/Merge is something that I'm not sure why is even on Wikipedia - its basically a table of contents of a bunch of 3.5 Edition books - so I can't endorse any sort of redirect there. Rorshacma (talk) 15:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --qedk (t 桜 c) 16:14, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOTDIR of D & D. No reliable sources in detail, this borders on original research. Bearian (talk) 19:31, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:02, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Allip[edit]

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

Stub article about little-known Dungoens & Dragons monster. Fails WP:GNG, not mentioned in any independent sources. Not a very active user (talk) 10:20, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 10:20, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 10:20, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 10:20, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Dungeons & Dragons 3rd edition monsters#TSR 11552 – Monster Manual (2000) for all the reasons listed at WP:ATD. In all cases where you're dealing with something like this, i.e. that doesn't have independent sources but is a plausible search term, please use redirection rather than AfD.—S Marshall T/C 11:41, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons 3rd edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 11:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the proposed target for the merge, List of Dungeons & Dragons 3rd edition monsters, is also currently in AfD. Not a very active user (talk) 08:11, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:11, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Minor D&D creature with no non-primary sources demonstrating any sort of real world notability. I can not endorse a Redirect/Merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons 3rd edition monsters as suggested as a WP:ATD, since that target article is not something that I think should be in the encyclopedia either - its nothing but a badly sourced list of table of contents of various 3rd Edition books. Rorshacma (talk) 15:39, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Rorshacma. Non-notable, and the proposed target is unencyclopedic._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:57, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rorschacma and WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. Fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 22:38, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:30, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Collaborators (V franchise)[edit]

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

Unreferenced list of fictional biographies that does not assert the subject's significance=fancruft=fails WP:NFICTION. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:39, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:39, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unreferenced fancruft, though I also suggest bundling all the other "V" character articles with this AfD since it's pointless to delete this one without the others. Right now only the article on the Visitors is notable, though in serious need of references. I can see a more general "List of V (franchise) characters" that could be made, but these are fancruft._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:30, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point, I'd do it but I don't know what script makes bundled noms easy. There are possibly some non-notable Visitors, still, right now almost all fiction content related to this franchise we have is a fancruft mess... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:16, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - You can use the script to nominate one for deletion and bundle the others by manually putting the template on their pages and editing the deletion nomination._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:20, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Zxcvbnm: Can I trouble you for the link to said script? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:52, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not-notable topic. TTN (talk) 12:09, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 14:04, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The consensus is that the subject fails notability guidelines. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:51, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kithsiri Athulathmudali[edit]

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

Simply being an ambassador for a country does not confer automatic notability - see WP:DIPLOMAT. As per WP:ANYBIO the individual requires significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. The first reference is merely a mention in passing which includes his name in a list of appointees. The secondary reference, is more substantial, but is mainly an interview with the individual, which is a primary source. The third reference again is nothing other than confirmation of his appointment as the ambassador to Qatar. Dan arndt (talk) 09:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 09:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 09:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 09:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Qatar-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 09:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable diplomat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:18, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An official of highest rank representing sovereign state of Sri Lanka in Qatar. Article will be further improved in due course. DilJco (talk) 02:37, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there is clear community consensus, as shown by numerous past AfDs, that there is no inherent notability of ambassadors, irrespective of what country they are representing.Dan arndt (talk) 20:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - just having a job, even as an ambasador, is not notable - delete per WP:BASIC, no significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources - Epinoia (talk) 01:09, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:BASIC and WP:NOTINHERITED being Lalith Athulathmudali 's son does not make him notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:01, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aerial servant[edit]

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

Stub article about little-known fictional creature with no independent sources or indication of notability. Not a very active user (talk) 09:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 09:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 09:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 09:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Belongs on D&D wikia, not here - no assertion of real world significance, fails WP:NFICTION. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 11:56, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:11, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Even a merge would be ill advised as the name is so vague. "Aerial servant" can describe thousands of video game monsters._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (and restore redirect). Lifebaka created this page back in 2008 as a redirect to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters, and I think that was the right call. The article is functionally redundant with the subject's entry in that index since the "references" in the article are largely the same internal wikilinks that appear in-line. —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 16:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No real world notability, and no non-primary sources discussing the creature in any meaningful way. The proposed merge target suffers the same issues as the various other D&D monster lists currently at AFD, so I can't recommend any sort of merge or redirect to it. Rorshacma (talk) 16:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ministry of Education (Azerbaijan)#Publications. Sandstein 11:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijan Journal of Educational Studies[edit]

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

Article previously deleted after PROD: "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. " PROD reason still stands, re-created version still has no indication of notability. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 17:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 17:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ministry of Education (Azerbaijan) would be preferable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Except for 2 things: there's not much reliably sourced content that can be merged and, more importantly, I cannot imagine that this journal is more than a tiny part of the activity of this ministry, so including a section (presumably with the infobox) in this article seems rather undue to me. --Randykitty (talk) 16:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It could be included in a larger 'publications' section. Either way, my merge !vote remains. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:10, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is the the eldest journal of the Ministry of Education (Azerbaijan). I think this should not be delete.--Qızılbaş (talk) 07:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just existing for a long time is a reason to think that there might be sources, but in the absence of such sources, existence alone is not enough. --Randykitty (talk) 08:43, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One of the difficulties is that it's very unlikely that any of us here are fluent in Azerbaijani, where most sources would exist. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:09, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:23, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:18, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:41, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, i have been bold and added a "Publications" section to Ministry of Education (Azerbaijan), i note that the ministry has another 3 publications that are listed here and could be added. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:17, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, an article on this journal has been on the Azerbaijani Wikipedia since July 2017 with no apparent issues (here), it has more information (unfortunately unsourced), so the englishwp article could be expanded, with appropriate sourcing? Coolabahapple (talk) 02:37, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, also, i see that, although having been an editor with the Azerbaijani Wikipedia for a number of year, the article creator (hi Qızılbaş:)) is relatively new on the englishwp and that this is their 1st article, and rather than being welcoming ie. no welcome message (not even a welcome kitten!!:)), even though, from the comments above, the englishwp is apparently lacking in Azerbaijani fluent editors, their 1st article gets sent straight to afd. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:01, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That the creator is a newcomer is really a non-argument for or against deletion. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:28, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for not posting a "welcome" template on the creator's talk page. Don't know how that happened, as I always post such templates to new contributors (IP or named). In addition, normally Twinkle does this if a talk page is still empty. As better late than never, I've just corrected this oversight. Apart from that, I agree with Headbomb that this has no bearing on whether the article should be kept or not. --Randykitty (talk) 08:00, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou Headbomb, and Randykitty for the responses, i know that it is irrelevant to notableness, just thought i would bring a bit of happy fuzziness into the dry world that can be afd ....

Coolabahapple (talk) 15:35, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ministry of Education (Azerbaijan) as long as the info can be verified as existing on its website. I am presuming notability of Ministry of Education (Azerbaijan) so verification of the existence of journal information is all that is needed. There might even be some information available on WorldCat or an Azerbaijan library. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 11:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Ministry of Education (Azerbaijan)#Publications where there is already a one-sentence mention. Deleting outright a long-standing, official publication looks a sub-optimum idea. Searching on the native title "Azərbaycan Məktəbi" yields sufficient results to meet WP:V. However, I note that even the Azerbaijan Wikipedia entry here doesn't have the necessary sources to stand up notability. 2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (talk) 21:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, have left a kitten on the article creator's talkpage with a mention that they can join in with this discussion, as a relatively new editor on the English WP they may not be aware of this. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:11, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:35, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IQualify UK[edit]

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

They claim they are accredited on their page, through I cannot verify this otherwise (the linked ref goes to a search page that returns 0 hits when I enter this company's name). No coverage in media, fails WP:NCOMPANY and WP:GNG. WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES. Created by a WP:SPA Kinkinighosh (talk · contribs), this got speedy deleted once or twice and declined at AfC at least once, based on his talk page, but the 3rd or 4th substub revision seems to have finally passed... well, I think it may be time to put it out of its misery and salt for a good measure. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:03, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:20, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:20, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:20, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. No independent coverage of it. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 14:13, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NSCHOOL and WP:GNG - has not had significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources - Epinoia (talk) 01:03, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was moved to draftspace. (non-admin closure) ~~ OxonAlex - talk 09:47, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cassandra Starr[edit]

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

A stub with no good references (independent, reliable, significant, etc.). A Google search reveals no reliable coverage to indicate notability. William2001^(talk) 04:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. William2001^(talk) 04:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. William2001^(talk) 04:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft perhaps. Role in a major upcoming film. News might be made. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:47, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:40, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:22, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Draft for now - It seems WP:TOOSOON, as she has not had any significant coverage so far. She does have the potential to garner more, though, as she has roles in upcoming major films, though she does not appear to be a major character in either. Returning it to draft for now, with the potential to expand and return to article space in the future if more coverage becomes available, seems like the best choice. Rorshacma (talk) 15:43, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Quuux (talk) 05:04, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ludovic Lebart[edit]

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

Article reads as a CV and a search shows no notable 3rd party coverage. Quuux (talk) 05:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:20, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The GS citation profile looks strong, with counts of 2085, 1337, 595, 551, 392, 350, 320, 169, 132, 129, 121, ... (skimming the first three pages and listing in descending order). Reviews of Multivariate Descriptive Statistical Analysis: [6][7][8][9]. Review of Analyse statistique des données textuelles: [10]. Review of Statistique exploratoire multidimensionelle: [11]. XOR'easter (talk) 15:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I was leaning in this direction, so I might as well make it official. XOR'easter (talk) 18:20, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 16:48, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Along with the pass of WP:PROF#C1 already demonstrated, he passes WP:AUTHOR for the multiple reviews of his books, some of which I have added to the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 (talk) 05:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yomil y el Dany[edit]

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

Supported by one single cite. Claim to notability is appearing on billboard's finalist for 2017 Latin music awards. Fails Nartist and WP:NMUSIC. Article consists of an unsourced claim to having developed a new music genre, one which does not have a Wikipedia page. Hydromania (talk) 04:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hydromania (talk) 04:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hydromania (talk) 04:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. Hydromania (talk) 04:32, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails all the usual notability standards. The supposed genre that they pioneered is a big nothing. No reliable sources devoting column inches to this group is the main problem. Binksternet (talk) 05:19, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this advertisement. Trillfendi (talk) 14:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the next Google hit is their Facebook, and there's absolutely nothing in terms of SIGCOV. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 14:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 06:25, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Juba Park[edit]

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

Appears to be a WP:MILL local park; nothing noteworthy. Searching turns up little (there is one article about a plaque there). Not enough independent coverage to meet GNG. MB 16:40, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. MB 16:40, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, given the fact that there seems to be a historical marker at the park and it is included in the list of notable historical sites in Winnipeg, Manitoba. The park seems to have existed since 1980s. There is recent news coverage mentioning various events held at the park (protests, memorials, art installations etc) [12], [13],[14],[15] as well as some news about some development in 2001. It seems to be plausible that there would be offline coverage. Usually parks used for events are not run of the mill ones, but the more significant ones.--DreamLinker (talk) 02:20, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NGEO doesn't specifically mention parks, but I suppose it would fall under WP:GEOFEAT, Artificial geographical features - the guideline says that artificial geographical features are presumed to be notable if they have been officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level - while the park has a Manitoba Heritage Council plaque recognizing the Winnipeg Aqueduct, the park itself does not have national heritage protected status - there doesn't seem to be significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources that deal with the park itself, more about events that took place in Winnipeg - perhaps the article could be Merged with Winnipeg, adding information about the memorial garden which is quite moving - Epinoia (talk) 01:10, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:25, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:25, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:13, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

edit conflict Keep I've added some sources. I think there is enough coverage to meet WP:GNG as well - this isn't ever going to be a featured article, but there's enough written on it for an article (even Readers' Digest Canada has a blurb [16]). SportingFlyer T·C 04:15, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Possible keep -- I would not favour merging to Winnipeg as that is already a large article. Instead a phrase (with link) should be added to Winnipeg#Cityscape. Parks are visitor attractions and can be significant enough to need their own article, but I am not qualified to judge in this case. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Parks can certainly be notable if they're reliably sourced well enough to clear WP:GNG, but are not automatically deemed "inherently" notable just because they exist — but two of the five footnotes here are primary source content from the city's own self-published website, which are not notability-supporting sources; one is just a brief profile on the self-published website of the Manitoba Historical Society, calling it a historic site but failing to verify that it has any formal legal designation as such; one glancingly mentions the park's existence in a case study on the architectural redevelopment of a large neighbourhood, but is not about the park; and the only one that is about the park in any non-trivial way is not enough to hand it an instant GNG pass all by itself if it's the only substantive reliable source in play. City parks need more than just being technically verifiable as existing. Bearcat (talk) 18:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The park has been discussed by the Winnipeg Free Press since the 80's which isn't currently in the article, a simple archive search brings up over 2,000 mentions, for instance [17]. It's not as if it's a minor park on a square block, it's a decently important park in a mid-sized city. Even if the article doesn't currently pass WP:GNG (which I think it does), the park certainly passes WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 07:29, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but even in newspapers there's still a difference between "notability-supporting articles about the park" and "articles which glancingly mention the park in the process of being fundamentally about something else". So we have to actually see some of those new sources added to the article, so that we can evaluate what difference they do or don't make, before they change anything. Bearcat (talk) 18:16, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:ARTN, an article's notability has nothing to do with the sources presented in the article, though. The local paper, which currently isn't a source in this article, has plenty of coverage of the park, nor does the article have to be specifically about the park as long as the coverage of the park in the article is significant. SportingFlyer T·C 20:31, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't demonstrated there is significant coverage, you just assume there is because a search brought up 2,000 mentions. The one you linked is behind a paywall, so I can't evaluated it. I did my own search in Newspapers.com, which must not include the Winnipeg Free Press, and I found just one hit in the Calgary Herald which only talked about the design of a boutique "in Stephen Juba Park". This is not significant, and not even correct as the hotel is not actually within the park but adjacent to it. But it demonstrates how hits alone to not correlate to sig coverage. MB 21:18, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've linked to an additional article which I believe is WP:SIGCOV from reading the OCR. The archives at the Free Press are freely searchable even if the articles are paywalled. See also [18] and [19]. Should clearly meet WP:GNG if historical articles are added. SportingFlyer T·C 22:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your links are to archives which require a subscription. All I can see is a image of the entire page and can't ready any of the actual text. As far as the archive search which you linked, it indeed shows over 2000 hits but that is if searching for the words "Stephen" "Juba" and "Park". If you use the advanced search on the exact phrase "Stephen Juba Park", there are 187 hits with a lot in classified ads. Again, I can't read the actual articles to see if any of these are more than passing mentions. MB 23:10, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Articles requiring a subscription can still qualify for WP:GNG. I've identified three potential ones above. Also, the text in the archives is OCR'd, which has an imperfect level of accuracy. SportingFlyer T·C 00:13, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But someone with accesss would have to evalate any potential sources. All you have are "potential" sources which could in fact say very little. That is not enough to establish notability. MB 00:55, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've added two of the sources I found to the article. You can read the text on the website using the OCR function at the bottom of the page. Clearly passes WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 06:55, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Found this [20]. Not sure if WP:PRIMARY or not. Currently I am undecided, because the coverage seems extremely local, and only the Winnipeg Free Press ones (for WP:GNG purposes, they all count just as a one source as "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.") so I am leaning to Delete. A lot of the coverage found is about the events in the park, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG. The park appears to be covered regularly in the Press, as it is host to major community events, concerts, artwork, historical monuments, plaques, festivals, etc. Here are more sources that could be used to source info about things in the park: [[21], [22], [23], [24], [25], The park is also used as a scene in this novel, [26].4meter4 (talk) 16:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We're looking for coverage about the park as a park, not coverage about things that glancingly mentions the existence of the park. Bearcat (talk) 17:43, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your assertion that it isn't coverage. Several of The articles are about the creation of amenities that are essentially part of the park, and therefore about the park. The monuments and historical plaques are just as much a part of the park as the grass and trees, and give people a reason to visit and be at the park. Likewise, the events (such as festivals) that occur at the park are part of the history and fulfillment of the purpose of the park. How can you write about a park without discussing the events that happen there, the reasons people vist there, and the things that there are to do there? You can't. I agree with DreamLinker that the newspaper regularly covers content about this park and the events in it, and that it's highly likely said newspapers have articles about the park's formation if people have access to those sources which are currently behind a pay wall.4meter4 (talk) 20:50, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Lists of Polish politicians. RL0919 (talk) 05:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of politicians in Poland[edit]

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

This page shouldn't be on Wikipedia. It's just popularity poll, highly outdated. Some politicians listed here are already dead others lost their power are forgotten.— Preceding unsigned comment added by OspreyPL (talk • contribs) 21:34, September 15, 2019 (UTC) (header repaired) Ajf773 (talk) 03:22, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced, outdated by over 10 y ears, and contains de facto a single table based on a survey in 2004 about which politicians to trust. Category for Polish politicians and article on politics in Poland should suffice. PS. This should also be redirected to the Lists of Polish politicians. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreferenced, outdated original research and most probably fails WP:NPOV. A redirect to Lists of Polish politicians as well would be a good idea. Ajf773 (talk) 03:16, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 03:22, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 03:32, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 03:32, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:37, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge We have a variety of lists for most countries – see category:Lists of politicians by nationality. Redirection to Lists of Polish politicians might be a sensible restructure but deletion is neither necessary nor appropriate as this can be done by ordinary editing per WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 08:54, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice against recreation of a redirect to Lists of Polish politicians if desired. As noted, this is not really an objective or comprehensive list of Polish politicians, but a subjective ranking of a few specific Polish politicians in order of their public popularity percentages in one specific public opinion poll 15 years ago — which means it's not current, not neutral and not encyclopedic. Wikipedia does not have any rule that "just redirect without deleting anything" is always preferable to "delete this and then create a new redirect" — we're allowed to do either thing depending on the context at hand, so the question of which one we choose hinges entirely on the question of whether there's any value in retaining this article's edit history behind the redirect or not. And the answer to that question is very clearly no, there isn't, so this should be deleted first and then redirected. We have no rule that requires us to preserve everything that anybody ever saw fit to add to Wikipedia, even if it violates our other rules: we try to selectively preserve valuable information, not to just indiscriminately preserve all information. Bearcat (talk) 13:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then redirect to Lists of Polish politicians. The title has value, the content does not. postdlf (talk) 19:14, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lists of Polish politicians. I don't see anything in the article that runs afoul of WP:DON'T PRESERVE that would make a "burn after reading" approach necessary here. There are no guidelines violations. Firstly, content from the result of an honest opinion poll isn't a violation of WP:NPOV just because it's an opinion poll: the opinions comprising the poll are subjective, but the result of the poll is an objective, factual conclusion about public opinion. Secondly, neither is the article unreferenced. The article identifies the source of the polling data, it's just not a very complete citation. The faults in the article are, firstly, a mismatch between the title of the and the subject, which is a list of politicians by public opinion of trustworthiness, secondly, that the information is dated, and thirdly, that the information may be more news than encyclopedia content. It's not out of the question that an encyclopedic article could be written on this subject, so a redirect is the best solution. --Bsherr (talk) 21:15, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per Piotrus and Postdlf.--Darwinek (talk) 21:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect There is no retention value in underlying article (which is results of a 2004 poll of the most trusted and distrusted politicians). --Enos733 (talk) 23:12, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to Lists of Polish politicians. Kind of amazing that this has been here for 15 years. — MarkH21 (talk) 10:50, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Schwitzgebel Torres[edit]

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

Apparently self-created by article subject in 2006. Tagged for notability since 2009. External links are all to pieces by him rather than about him, or passing mentions. Mccapra (talk) 02:11, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 02:11, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 02:11, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 02:11, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bolivia-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 02:11, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and confirm the nom's analysis of the links on this article. All but one of them are art criticisms written by the subject, and the final one is an internet with the subject written by a publication he works for. There is no reliable secondary source demonstrating the notability of this subject. -Markeer 02:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for publishing your autobiography.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:05, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:42, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vijay Kumar (Eruma Saani)[edit]

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

This one seems to be non notable and the article has only one independent source along with the social media links of the YouTuber. He has acted in only few films and only in the supportive roles. I assume the author may have close connection with the subject or may have been created for payments. Abishe (talk) 02:06, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 02:06, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - possibly WP:TOOSOON, but has not had significant roles in multiple notable films per WP:NACTOR - has not had significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources per WP:BASIC - Epinoia (talk) 00:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACTOR,WP:GNG and a case of WP:TOOSOON ,upcoming at best .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:47, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Lalwani, Saroj; Shrivastava, Ramji (2004). Leading Ladies of India. Janparishad.

[2] ttps://www.thenews.com.pk/magazine/instep-today/524374-operation-swift-retort-the-animated-response-to-india-from-pak-animator

[3] ttps://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/523984-operation-swift-retort-the-animated-response-to-india-from-pakistan

[4] ttp://e.thenews.com.pk/london/9-9-2019/page9.asp

[5] ttps://www.globalvillagespace.com/operation-swift-retort-pakistans-befitting-reply-to-indian-aggression/

[6] ttps://www.brandsynario.com/shamoon-abbasi-to-play-indian-pilot-in-the-comedy-film-abhinandan-come-on/

[7] ttps://www.somethinghaute.com/pakistani-director-makes-animated-short-film-on-indian-pilot-abhinandan-capture/

[8] ttp://khaleejmag.com/news/operation-swift-retort-respond-to-indian-aggression-by-pakistan/

[9] ttps://gulfnews.com/entertainment/pakistani-cinema/pakistan-makes-short-film-on-abhinandan-capture-1.66011154

[10] ttps://www.incpak.com/national/operation-swift-retort-memoria/

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]