Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 August 10

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 9 August	11 August >

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. $Salvio$ 09:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eightydays[edit]

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

This company article reads like native advertising. The sources are a mixture of unreliable (Forbes Contributor), promotional adapted press releases and minor coverage, so it does not pass WP:CORPDEPTH in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:59, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Atlantic306 (talk) 23:59, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is a nice mention in National Geographic but it doesn't add up to WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is no advertising here — just a description of the service. Sources may be imperfect. If anyone wants the article can be improved, I think. --Sorrow3 (talk) 14:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorrow3 is the creator of the article, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I do not see any signs of notability. Wikisaurus (talk) 00:10, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. $Salvio$ 09:54, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dog and Bitch Island[edit]

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

From what I can tell, this island no longer exists. It does not appear on recent satellite imagery ~~or on the GNIS site~~(GNIS link was broken). I think it's entirely possible that this "small, marshy island" has been swept away by hurricane(s), as some recent edits claim. AviationFreak💬 23:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. AviationFreak💬 23:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. AviationFreak💬 23:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. AviationFreak💬 23:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment Contrary to the state of Maryland listing, there were two islands, and that's what GNIS says too. A 1963 aerial shows both, and then they gradually shrink, so that somewhere around 2007 they disappear entirely, though the topos mindlessly continue to apply the label even through they show nothing there. There is a newly created island from dredging spoil a bit NE of the old location, and there was talk in 2013 from the Corps that they were going to put some of the spoil on the old Dog and Bitch islands, but apparently it didn't happen. I personally don't think every little spot of land needs an article, but I don't know that the info I've found is enough to justify notability. Mangoe (talk) 02:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. WP:GEOLAND says that named natural features are often notable if there are enough verified sources. I found a Geological Survey Bulletin [1] that speaks about some geological features and an article about adding sand to restore the island [2]. Normally I don't think two sources are enough but I'm confident we can find more if we keep looking. Z1720 (talk) 02:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: That Geological Survey Bulletin appears to be from the 60s. To clarify, I'm suggesting deletion on the basis that this island(s) no longer exist, not that they never had existed or were not notable. The article from 2015 is an interesting read, but edits from 2018 & 19 suggest the islands to be gone. Obviously Wikipedia edits are not the best places to find information about the existence of geographic features, so I'll probably call the MD Archives tomorrow and ask about the current existence of the island(s) to see if their website is still up to date. AviationFreak💬 03:22, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not temporary. Wikipedia does not delete because the subject ceases to exist. Historical geography is important too. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Gene93k; per WP:NTEMP, an article doesn't lose notability because the island no longer exists. The sources I posted were to address the notability of the article. I think we have enough sources to show it is notable, per WP:GEOLAND. Z1720 (talk) 17:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and change language, if the Island no longer exists.CaffeinAddict (talk) 04:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comment above and update as necessary. The subject meets WP:GEOLAND as a historical island. If it has been destroyed, there's the Category:Former islands of the United States for cases like this. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the sources show it meets WP:GEOLAND, there is also a reference in the book called The Outrageous Atlas: A Guide to North America's Strangest Places there are also 2 almost identical articles from The Ocean City Dispatch from 2015 and 2014. Most sources say there are 2 islands. --Dom from Paris (talk) 14:45, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GEOLAND. Just because it may not exist doesn't make it nonnotable. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, per improvements to the article and the subsequent evolution of consensus. BD2412 T 16:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thoothukudi (film)[edit]

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

There are no reliable sources for this film. Sify does not count. TamilMirchi (talk) 23:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

hi @TamilMirchi: can I know why Sify does not count? any way there are more references added to the article. I don't see any need to delete this article -- Balaji ^{(Let's talk)} 03:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 23:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 23:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 23:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Balajijagadesh: There has to be two reliable reviews for a page to exist. There is only one if Sify counts.TamilMirchi (talk) 22:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFO. Less Unless (talk) 09:51, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - added several sources which show that the film is notable. Both lead actors and the director made a career out of the film's success, while a sequel was also in the works. Neutral Fan (talk) 01:09, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Most of the sources are not about the film. Mentioning the film once does not count. TamilMirchi (talk) 01:50, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned, the film is noted on those sources only because it is notable. If the film wasn't notable, the names won't feature. Neutral Fan (talk) 01:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Kindly speedy keep this article. I, the creator of this AFD, agree with NeutralFan. TamilMirchi (talk) 02:30, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article cannot be speedy closed because there is a delete vote apart from your nomination Atlantic306 (talk) 21:52, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the article has been improved with the addition of references to coverage in multiple reliable sources so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is no longer necessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:52, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As above, more references added. Whiteguru (talk) 08:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ 09:55, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aadu Puli Attam (2006 film)[edit]

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

Unsourced, unknown film. I couldn't find any sources. TamilMirchi (talk) 23:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 23:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 23:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 23:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - due to concerns around WP:NFILM and WP:GNG Spiderone 14:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: References are poor and does not meet WP:GNG Whiteguru (talk) 08:14, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. T. Canens (talk) 05:45, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Sparta earthquake[edit]

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

Minor earthquake of no lasting importance. Zero casualties. Zero damage. Completely unnotable. Veggies (talk) 21:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Veggies (talk) 21:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In spite of the absence of casualties and damage, this is still the largest earthquake to hit North Carolina in over a century, and the largest in the East Count in nearly a decade. I'd say this is pretty notable. Love of Corey (talk) 21:55, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I meant East Coast, my bad. Love of Corey (talk) 00:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that a minor quake may have set a record within an arbitrary political boundary does not give it any lasting impact. -- Veggies (talk) 02:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does. Count the number of earthquakes that you remember from the East Coast with your hands. Love of Corey (talk) 08:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. My memory (as if that was rational criteria) is not how we determine notability on Wikipedia. -- Veggies (talk)

My memory is that the uniqueness of the event is a determining factor on notability at Wikipedia. Love of Corey (talk) 22:28, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:59, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. This very clearly meets the WP:GNG as evidenced by the following articles:1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

GNG is not the only standard at play here. This minor incident does not meet the criteria for events to justify a stand-alone article. Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else. This tiny tremor is not conceivably the catalyst for anything. -- Veggies (talk) 02:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This was not a tiny tremor. A magnitude 3 or lower is a tiny tremor. This impacted the majority of the southeast. Webecoolalasdair (talk) 01:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All of these sources are easily accessible and visible in a quick Google News search of the article's title. AviationFreak💬 22:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disputing that the event was covered in the news. I'm disputing that this minor incident is notable. Remember that Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article. -- Veggies (talk) 02:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Keep - 100,000+ people felt it, it was the strongest since 1916, and it's exceedingly rare. Although the damage is relatively mild (as of writing), it is still very notable. Also, earthquake articles shouldn't be deleted. They should be redirected to the List of earthquakes in 2020, in the case that it becomes more notable as time goes on. GyozaDumpling (talk) 22:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with a redirect to list instead. It certainly doesn't merit a stand-alone article. -- Veggies (talk) 02:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I am the original creator of the page and a geologist. Earthquakes are rare in this part of the country, and therefore, when moderate sized events occur (such as a Mw 5.0 or greater) they should have their own article. It was widely felt, there is readily available public data to cite information from (especially from USGS), and numerous national news outlets reported it. This article complements, nicely, the 2011 Mineral earthquake in Virginia. I feel it should be kept. Bluesnote (talk) 00:59, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps they should, but every topic has to abide by Wikipedia's guidelines on notability. I don't know of any notability guidelines that make any earthquakes 5.0+ notable. We'd probably have an earthquake article every day. -- Veggies (talk) 02:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No one is saying that this earthquake is notable just because it's a M 5+. It's notable because it's exceedingly rare, sets a historical record, and was felt by hundreds of thousands of people. Although the magnitude plays a part in it's notability, it is obviously not the sole factor. Also, this section is for gaining consensus, not for you to argue every little comment justifying this article's preservation. GyozaDumpling (talk) 04:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum—according to USGS's PAGER as of this writing, approximately 35000 people had felt moderate or stronger shaking—intensities where the earthquake can cause structural damage. I will not argue against the rarity of the event as a factor of notability—however, in my opinion, the effects and aftermath of this event is not considered significant enough to support the notability clause. Tinh1000000 (talk) 04:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of earthquakes in 2020 — Until this event gains more scientific notability (like the 2011 Virginia earthquake) or prompts renewed, sustained discussion about mitigating future events within the Piedmont region, I agree that it is not notable enough to be a standalone article. Tinh1000000 (talk) 03:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification—by scientific notability, I am referring to scholarly articles published on the subject of this specific event. Tinh1000000 (talk) 04:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per above. CaffeinAddict (talk) 04:17, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 06:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough as the state's strongest earthquake in more than a century. Johndavies837 (talk) 23:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Exceptionally Strong Keep As a geology student with a dedicated passion towards earthquakes, I have personally studied extensively the effects of earthquakes in the eastern United States for years. As soon as I found out about the earthquake, I knew it would garner significant national media attention, which it has. Numerous national media sources (ABC, CBS, etc.) reported on this earthquake, and some still are. Scientific information is now beginning to be published about this earthquake, as it will for some time after. The earthquake caused significant damage in the town of Sparta and the surrounding region, and is the cause of millions of dollars of damage in the area. Many of you will say that it is not notable because of the lack of casualties, and as I read above, initial lack of damage. However please keep in mind that even as of today, the full scope of the disaster is still being determined, and the damage seen now is much more than what was seen a mere hours after the earthquake occurred.

I also noticed somebody said that if magnitude 5 earthquakes must be notable, then a magnitude 5 earthquake article would appear every day on Wikipedia. While that would be true, the fact is that the majority of magnitude 5s are not notable. I would go so far as to say some magnitude 7s are not even notable. It all depends on the locale, the type of damage caused, the rarity of the event, the magnitude, the effects on the impacted population, was the earthquake underwater or above, how deep was the earthquake, how remote was the earthquake, how populated the impacted region was, the type of geologic structures involved, the notoriety of the region to have earthquakes (California has a high notoriety, thus a magnitude 5 is not as notable there, granted unless it occurs in close proximity to a large population center, as one in North Carolina, which has a low notoriety.), response from the scientific community, among other reasons that I fail to think of right now. To say the least, it is very nuanced.

Now to go the notability of this specific earthquake, I would agree that at first glance, one may believe that this event was not notable, due to the lack of initial damage reports, and that can be seen near the top of the article. However, this type of event plays out over time, and only after the span of a few days, can one begin to really understand what has happened with all the facts and evidence laid before them. This earthquake did cause significant damage in the area, was located in a very populated region and felt by hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people. It was a shallow earthquake. It was a rare event, as events of this size occur on the east coast every few decades (the fact that it occurred a mere 9 years after the Virginia earthquake is uncommon indeed), and is one of the largest, at magnitude 5.1, to occur in the region, much less east of the Mississippi River. The earthquake was along one of the Blue Ridge Anticlinorium thrust faults, depicted through motion tensor diagrams. This is a significant geologic structure, responsible for raising the Blue Ridge 250 million years ago, and the faults in question are exceptionally large ones. As a result of this, it may garner significant scientific attention due to the possibility of fault reactivation. The population of the region, especially within 100 miles of the event, and a significant number outside that radius will remember this event for a long time. It has historical significance, being the largest earthquake to strike the state since 1916 an earthquake also in western North Carolina. This alone may cause debate as to whether the earthquake hazard maps need to be revised to match with historic seismicity in the region, as most of the larger NC earthquakes have occurred in the western part of the state. Time will tell if this occurs, but it is a possibility. The same thing was done in Oklahoma during the 2010s with the devastating earthquake swarm there, and the same was done in Virginia after the 2011 earthquake. Regardless, more information will come out for this earthquake over time, and will make the event more notable than it is now. One must have patience for earthquakes, as they take time to process.

I came to Wikipedia because I noticed the lack of notable earthquake articles in Wikipedia. There are so many significant historical seismic events in the United States that do not have so much as a single article. Most of them are in the east, or at least not in California. Fortunately, efforts to fill in these gaps are picking back up. I will be taking part in these efforts. I am troubled by the amount of discord because an earthquake as notable as this is even more notable than the majority of articles on earthquakes in the United States. Just because a house didn't collapse or a person didn't die does notmake an earthquake unnotable. There may have been half a dozen earthquakes east of the Rocky Mountains that exceed North Carolina's in notability. If that is the case, then either Wikipedia's notability rules should be modified to fit scientific notability rules, or Wikipedia should take down at least 80% of United States earthquake articles. This earthquake is nearly as notable as the 2018 Anchorage earthquake, and should be treated as such.

On that note, notable earthquakes can be:

Magnitude 3.5 or less: not notable in any form
Magnitude 3.5 to 4.5: Not notable unless in extreme circumstances
Magnitude 4.5 to 6: Somewhat notable; check situation
Magnitude 6 to 7.5: Usually notable; check situation
Magnitude 7.5+: Notable unless in extreme circumstances

Here I stand, and let this be an example to the entire earthquake community. There must be more transparency on earthquake notability. If Wikipedia rules to delete this article, then grounds to delete the majority of other events now exist as well. If they do so, then Wikipedia will lose a lot of valuable information. I came here due to the lack of articles on notable earthquakes. I now wonder that the lack of this is not due to neglect, but possibly by Wikipedia's stringent rules on notability. If they do delete this, I will not stand by it, and my work as an editor here, and my purpose to fill in the gaps that I saw will be for naught. But I am not Wikipedia. I only want to make Wikipedia a better place. Thank you.Webecoolalasdair (talk) 01:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong, strong keep. Significant impacts to the community it occurred in as well as, as several news outlets and scientists have been stating, this earthquake serves as very valuable insight into a rare type of quake, and is as such very important to the scientific community. Made national headlines as well. This isn't just some random insignificant blip on the radar that should be deleted and left to be forgotten to everyone else but the inner circles of the scientific community, Wikipedia is many's first stop for information and facts on things such as this, especially considering its significance. Hurricanes and tropical storms that have less of an impact than this quake does get articles, so it makes no sense why this quake shouldn't get one. From what I can tell, the campaign to get this article deleted seems to be only led, or at least, spearheaded by just one person, judging by what I'm seeing on this talk page...everyone else seems to be strongly in favor of keeping it by a landslide. Lfax-nimbus (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC-4)

Strong Keep This earthquake is quite notable due to its location and its impacts on the communities affected by it.TH1980 (talk) 23:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or replace with a redirect to the list of earthquakes in 2020 - The relevant guideline for earthquake articles is WP:EVENT. The section particularly relevant to this event is the one on lasting effects, WP:EFFECT, which states "A minor earthquake or storm with little or no impact on human populations is probably not notable". This earthquake will have little lasting impact on the the local population. As to other articles see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Mikenorton (talk) 09:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It will have a lasting effect on the town's history. This earthquake damaged dozens of homes and has lead to the demolition of quite a number due to unsafe hazards. The news is all over this. I do support a link to the list of earthquakes in 2020 however, but not deletion. This is too significant an event. Earthquake Maestro (talk) 16:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of earthquakes in 2020. I watch Earthquakes daily, and while this is a unique intraplate event in a region that has not had an earthquake event for a century, it is not a significant earthquake. Talk significant when you get to 7.0 or more. --Whiteguru (talk) 08:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of earthquakes in 2020: Based on WP:SUSTAINED: "Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability." Since there was no damage/death its very unlikely this will have any sustained coverage. I find Veggies arguments persuasive. The sources give a presumption of notability, but not a guarantee. The keep votes all seem to carry some level of WP:ILIKEIT and are light on reason why this is actually worthy of note.. // Timothy :: talk 05:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Iron Man's armor#In other media. T. Canens (talk) 05:54, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Man's armor in other media[edit]

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

This article is a collection of largely uncited, trivial information about different variations of a notable character's costume. The costume itself is sufficiently covered in Iron Man#Armor. The sources that are present in this article are mainly comic book issues and films, and not to critical discussion about the article topic.

While there might be a small amount of information here that can be moved to the main article, the vast majority of it fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep, since there is substantial sourceable content distinct to the versions of the subject represented in film, where the armor is at times virtually a character itself. BD2412 T 21:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Iron Man's armor as the title here is too vague, assuming that the reader knows what media is meant. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: Merge what exactly? A full merge of such a long convoluted article? And why to Iron Man's armor, why not to Iron Man in other media? Also, what if Iron Man's armor is deleted in the other afd? - hako9 (talk) 00:28, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure exactly as the overall topic is huge and consists of many articles – see {{Iron Man}}. The main thing to decide here is that deletion is not appropriate per WP:ATD and WP:IGNORINGATD. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the main article. There is no reason to seperate out into multiple articles. Especially considering there are lots and lots of people who really only know Ironman from the films.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I had created this separate article because of the amount of content between what is in this article and the main armor article, so merging it back will once again create a WP:SIZE issue. Alternatively, split the MCU/film info to Iron Man's armor (Marvel Cinematic Universe), since most of this article is about that anyways, and then you could probably merge what's left back to the main armor article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Iron Man's Armor - I don't see why the pertinent information about Iron Man's armour can't be covered in the main Iron Man page without going into excruciating detail, but if it must exist, then it needs to cover his armour in all forms of media not just the comics. Most of his armours outside of the comics are direct adaptations of armours from the comics anyway. Dark knight 2149 05:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above, no reason this needs to be split off. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment would anyone who is !voting merge be opposed to splitting off the "Film/Live action" section which is basically the MCU info as I suggested above? @Andrew Davidson, Johnpacklambert, Darkknight2149, and Piotrus: - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:39, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP There is no possible way to merge all of that into any other article. This is a valid spinout article for size reasons. Reliable sources do talk about Iron Man's armor, this a notable enough topic on its own. Dream Focus 16:44, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Do we need to list all of his armours in every form of media? Even the ones that are a straight adaptation of armours from the comics? That feels more like a job for Marvel Database. In my opinion, a prose article for Iron Man's Armor that's an overview of the entire topic would suffice. Dark knight 2149 22:20, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - It's doubtful that the armor itself is really separate enough from the character to warrant its own article, but a trivial list of every incarnation definitely has no place on this site without an abundance of real world information backing it. If the parent article remains, summary style descriptions should be used to describe the most important versions in a singular two to four paragraph section, backed with some kind of real world context. TTN (talk) 00:48, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Iron Man's armor#In other media. BOZ (talk) 05:37, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Iron Man's armor#In other media. As stated by TTN, the select few actually notable examples backed by reliable sources can be included in the parent article, but a massive list of every appearance that is either poorly sourced or not sourced at all is nothing but Trivia, at best. Rorshacma (talk) 17:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. $Salvio$ 09:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Man's armor[edit]

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

This article is a collection of largely uncited, trivial information about different variations of a notable character's costume. The costume itself is sufficiently covered in Iron Man#Armor. The sources that are present in this article are mainly comic book issues, and not to critical discussion about the article topic.

While there might be a small amount of information here that can be moved to the main article, the vast majority of it fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE/NOTPLOT. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject is basically a cultural touchstone. It can certainly be improved. BD2412 T 21:55, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Iron Man is a big topic and so it's natural that the details of his numerous suits would be split off like this per WP:SPLIT. There's plenty of secondary coverage of Iron Man in works such as Inventing Iron Man; Iron Manual; Iron Man and Philosophy; The Ages of Iron Man. These naturally cover his suits and so the topic passes WP:LISTN. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:38, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is notable, article is just in poor condition.★Trekker (talk) 18:58, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments since there are WP:RS to retain, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 05:39, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. The Science of Marvel: From Infinity Stones to Iron Man's Armor, the Real Science Behind the MCU Revealed! (Adams Media, 2019) has a chapter on Iron Man's armor, and even namechecks the armor in the book's title. It is also discussed in The Ages of Iron Man: Essays on the Armored Avenger in Changing Times (McFarland, 2015). — Toughpigs (talk) 18:55, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ 10:01, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Leo Marcos[edit]

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

Marcos appears to be a somewhat popular YouTuber (but not notable enough as a YouTuber) who then got in trouble with the law over an obscure Optometry Law violation, the details of which violation do not yet appear to have been revealed by authorities. There's really not a lot to build a biography on here. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:04, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:04, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think I’m going to frame this nomination. Mccapra (talk) 21:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mccapra: Meaning...?
Marcos helped people during the enhanced community quarantine in the Philippines. Despite i am critical to him because of his controversy, i voted to keep it. Rdp060707 (talk) 06:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Rdp060707: Doubtless Marcos has done some good things, and may be a nice guy, but WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid argument to retain this article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why you will not retain it? Rdp060707 (talk) 12:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Rdp060707: The decision to delete has not yet been made. I nominated it for deletion because I do not believe Marcos meets the criteria for inclusion for biographies at Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of all the world's trivia, but rather an encyclopedia of things that are deemed worthy to be known by the whole world for posterity. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the coverage is not deep enough to show true notability. Too much of it is focused on his arrest, and that does not meet our definition for notable crimes. This largely stays at a level of news coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:27, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A controversial YouTuber who claims to be a nephew of the late Pres. Marcos, which was later on dismissed by Imelda as false. That said, WP:INHERIT does not apply. Search results return mostly news about his arrest for violating a couple of laws, an indication of WP:BLP1E. Barely found anything about him aside from those. He may have done some good deeds during the pandemic, but that doesn't escape him from his controversies. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 09:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think he fits notability as a Youtuber so that leaves WP:CRIME. Anyways, would it make him notable enough if he has two pending human trafficking charges? One for trafficking Filipina sex slaves to Cyprus and another for a raid on a men's club which involves several female minors?--Lenticel ^(talk) 04:00, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E, Wikipedia:WikiProject YouTube/Notability, and WP:SIGCOV. He's notable for one event - being arrested for illegally handing out eyeglasses (for not having the license to give out prescriptions). As a YouTuber, he's not even close to notability. Outside of the trumped-up arrest, there's no significant coverage. Marcos is a common Filipino name, and even if he were related to the former president, notability is not inherited that way. Bearian (talk) 20:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. $Salvio$ 10:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Monique Alvarez[edit]

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

The sourcing here does not lead to a pass of GNG. It tends towards things like college reporting on her, not the type of fully indepdent and indepth sourcing that passes GNG. There is also a lack of anything that would add up to multiple significant roles in notable productions. A search for additional sources found absolutely nothing. John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:49, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- For what it is worth every edit by the creator of this article was done to this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The indepth description of her high school activities, totally without any sourcing, that were in earlier versions of this article make me suspect the creator of the article may have had a personal connection to Ms. Alvarez. It is hard to say exactly how personal the connection was.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2011-02 ↻ restored, 2011-02 ✗ G6

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. $Salvio$ 10:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shannah Trailor[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NAUTHOR. BLPPROD-eligible when created, and was contested. The page had one footnote at the time I found it, which was a Worldcat link, but that on its own doesn't help notability, since Worldcat catalogues any book in any library (really, any media item in any library). I'm not seeing reviews/interviews/etc., but my WP:HEY standard is pretty low, so please inform if any are found. Chubbles (talk) 20:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete merely having your work published and getting it in a library somewhere is not in and of itself a sign of notability. We require reviewes or other forms of 3rd party, secondary sourcing on a writer that is substantial, and that is all lacking here. The fact that the article has existed with such little sourcing for 10 years, would be a bad sign for Wikipedia, but hey earlier this year I nominated for deletion an article that had existed for 16 years, so 10 years is not that badJohn Pack Lambert (talk) 20:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak redirect to The Black Star Project as I found a reference indicating that she worked there at some point ("2005 Will Be The Year of Academic Excellence for Black Children", Tennessee Tribune, August 18, 2005). Does not appear to meet NAUTHOR or GNG. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:16, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not a notable author. Whiteguru (talk) 08:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Darrin Drader[edit]

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

I went through this and removed all the unsourced or poorly sourced information, and was left with only a two sentences, all of which are sourced to the vague "RPG Database", which isn't itself a reliable source.

Searching for him produces only one possible bit of information and it's an entry in a police blotter and that may not even be him. Jorm (talk) 19:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously Delete as nominator.--Jorm (talk) 20:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to enough sourcing to demonstrate notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I’m mystified by the police blotter. Can you share a link? Mccapra (talk) 21:32, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't feel comfortable. I'm not sure if it's actually this person, and it's not an actual article or indication of conviction; just an arrest. I think it would be p. low class to focus on it.--Jorm (talk) 21:44, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per the fact that the single mention I found describes him as a "former writer". AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:47, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater@ 22:04, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 06:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because there is not sufficient sources, both reliable and independent. CambridgeGraduate (talk) 19:27, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:10, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Young (pornographic actress)[edit]

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

Biography of a porn actress without any good sources. The porn award win would not have satisfied the now deprecated PORNBIO SNG, and it makes no well-sourced claim of passing WP:ENT. An independent search for sources yielded trivial mentions and an entry on a list of 25 hottest porn stars (ISBN 87-7357-961-0 found in 3 libraries). Not sufficient to pass WP:BASIC. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 20:04, 10 August 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Delete a non-notable pornographic performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:09, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per thorough research done by the nominator. It's a shame though that a specific guideline was removed instead of getting improved. General guidelines are always too vague and leave a lot of room for different interpretations of the guideline. - hako9 (talk) 20:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable porn actress. Even though she has an article on several other Wikipedias, I don't see notability here. Sources are scant. Some of the other Wikipedias also tagged Ms. Young's article for notability. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:44, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater@ 12:18, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. BD2412 T 05:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Mashally[edit]

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

I struggle to find ways that he is notable before his death. I see many Google News hits that are boiler plate articles about his death, but I don't see anything that makes him truly notable. only (talk) 11:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sad but true. Deb (talk) 07:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG.— Hammad (Talk!) 05:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Only: before his death news.— Hammad (Talk!) 05:31, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 19:12, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He’s so famous in Egypt that there are 20 pages of Google news searches about him, almost all of them from the last month - the sheer volume of coverage of his death has pushed almost everything else out of the search rankings. What I have found is a number of news stories about him from 2019 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and [3]. Google translate works perfectly well for 1-5 so I won’t take up space with them here. One of them is in Al-Jazira, showing that he was known outside of Egypt. 6 won’t work with Google translate but it is an editorial all about the doctor in a Saudi newspaper, describing his fifty years of selfless work. So there is certainly in depth coverage of the subject in multiple reliable independent sources well before his death. A clear WP:GNG pass. Mccapra (talk) 04:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per a source review, the subject meets WP:BASIC and point #2 of WP:ANYBIO, and ample coverage about the subject exists that preceeds the coverage about his death, so this is not a BLP1E situation. AGF regarding the reliability of the Arabic news sources provided herein, as Arabic language media is not an area of expertise for me. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:01, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I can agree with North America, looks like Meets WP:BASIC. Existance Leesaaisath 11:14, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Jiaqing Emperor. $Salvio$ 10:07, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial Concubine Chun[edit]

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

Merge and Redirect to Jiaqing Emperor. WP:NOTEVERYTHING and article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. My WP:BEFORE turned up nothing. Similar article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concubine En was recently redirected. // Timothy :: talk 04:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 04:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 04:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge to Concubines of the Jiaqing Emperor. I expect there will be some more information about at least some of these women. The material as it stands isn’t enough to support a series of stand-alone articles but there is enough for a single article with a couple of paras in each of them.Mccapra (talk) 08:45, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Manchu. Still too poor to stand alone for now MissiYasında&& (talk) 18:54, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge/redirect targets are different
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 19:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jiaqing Emperor as was determined by the AfD discussion on the article about Concubine En, cited by the nominator. We want all the articles on concubines that are being redirected going to the same target. Manchu is much too broad a topic to be a good target for this. Mccapra (talk) 05:13, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ 10:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nalamdhana[edit]

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

Unsourced, unknown film. I couldn't find any notable reviews/sources. TamilMirchi (talk) 18:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 18:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 18:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 18:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - due to concerns around WP:NFILM and WP:GNG Spiderone 14:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ictognathus[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Palaeontology#Ictognathus, no reference to the genus in reliable sources, article was originally cited to a TripAtlas mirror of the Wikipedia article for Carnivoramorpha. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, this hoax appears to have originated on the Dutch Wikipedia with this revision of the Miacidae article by Erik R on the 22 March 2005, this was then copied and transferred to other wikis. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -as noted, this is a fake genus and should be removed.--Kev min § 18:31, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The version of the article from the revision doesn't even have a single source added to it. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 18:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:31, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as per discussion above and for being a blatant hoax   Kadzi   (talk) 22:15, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete An apparent mammal with a reference to a book on invertebrate paleontology seems to be a joke. PainProf (talk) 03:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in the discussion the references appear to be mistranscriptions of the conodont genus Elictognathus. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 06:27, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater@ 09:22, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom/per above. I seriously can't believe that a hoax like this managed to stay here since 2008... How did it not get anyone's attention? Should've been speedied at start. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:48, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:12, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Burke (musician)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Almost certain autobiography (who else would have known that aged 11 he found a Sony Walkman on the way home from school...?) and no evidence of notability. AllMusic just displays a track listing with his name as writer, but no evidence that the band or their songs were notable. The New Music Weekly and Music Existence sources are identical, and the latter states that it is a press release. The Issue Wire source is another press release – the website actually states that it is a self-marketing tool. The Exiled Robin is a reproduction of one tweet on a football blog, totally irrelevant to his career. And The News Front is yet another press release, but this time for his former business, which has nothing to do with his current music productions. So all the sources provided are press releases probably written by the artist himself, or his management. Richard3120 (talk) 16:45, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 16:46, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 16:46, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Devokewater@ 17:11, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's no sources that show any reliability and at least part of it was likely written by someone close to the subject. BlacknoseDace(say something. I'm lonely!)^{[I'm not a reference!]} 17:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article seems to be based heavily on original research not supported by secondary sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Update: an IP attempted to add two further sources – an interview with the subject on a non-notable personal YouTube channel (the interview has had all of 67 views in three years), and an interview on his local community radio station. Richard3120 (talk) 18:36, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In total agreement with the nominator's in-depth analysis and with the previous voters. The article is almost certainly an autobiography written as an attempted promotion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:56, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 06:28, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with nominator's arguments and the points raised above by other users. Dunarc (talk) 20:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ 10:14, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Melnyk[edit]

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

No claim to any notability. Fails WP:BIO. Mitte27 (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable computer programmer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as above, non-notable computer programmer Whiteguru (talk) 08:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 07:43, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ancestral background of presidents of the United States[edit]

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

Taking to AFD since a PROD was contested. To be honest, the only non-trivial detail when assessing ethnic lineages of Presidents as a whole is how Barack Obama so far is the only one to have African ancestry. Nothing about the others' heritage is a defining trait aside from how everyone else purely had European aka Caucasian heritage. How many were of specific European ethnicities like Dutch, English, Irish, or Welsh is superfluous detail. We're better off saving heritage details on each President for their individual articles. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a collection of Presidential trivia unlike, say, a Wikia or other website dedicated to US Presidents. It also isn't something dedicated to people's ancestries. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and improve, and possibly expand. Some years ago, I wrote Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States, encompassing numerous points about the much-examined characteristics of those who have been appointed to that body. Although there has been substantially less ethnic or religious diversity among the presidents, there are other points of their backgrounds that reflect demographic variables that have been studied and written about. BD2412 T 22:07, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm British and so consider it offensive to describe the different nations of the British Isles as trivial. The fact that Donald Trump has Scottish ancestry or that John Kennedy had Irish heritage is not trivial, for example. There are numerous works detailing the ancestry of particular presidents and some general works such as Ancestors of American Presidents; Our Presidents; American Presidential Families; The Irish and the American Presidency; &c. The topic therefore passes WP:LISTN. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have misunderstood my point (though I apologize for any offenses and none were intended): I wasn't saying the Isles themselves are trivial, just that specifics on which European nation(s) the fully white Presidents have had ancestors from isn't really a defining trait for them (i.e. not key characteristics about them that stand out), especially compared to their actions in office. Obama is a different case because of his black father and white mother, and he's known for being the first person of African descent to take office, breaking the streak of only white men being elected. That was widely celebrated as a racial milestone. I can't say the same for Trump being ethnically Scottish or how JFK had Irish lineage. It's not like they were the first presidents to have ancestors from those nations. Both are men with purely Caucasian heritage just like the others. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all of the above. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 06:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Casucasian" is a false term steeped in racism. What next will people start saying "Elder Gong is the first Mongoloid apostle" or "Barrack Obama was the first Negroid president". Caucasian is part of the flase tri-patite theory of race. Beyond that, Van Buren being Dutch very clearly was seen as a major change from his predecessors having English ancestry. Kennedy being of ture Irish origin, and not English or such was also seen as a major development. I would argue though that the specific ancestry of George W. Bush heads towards the trivial. Different European ancestries matter, and they mattered a whole lot as late as the 1950s. Not everyone of all European ancestry was considered the same. Thus the built in attempts to exclude immigrants not from North-west Europe in the immigration law that existed until 1965. Thus the immigration law that existed at the time that every president was born. The fact we have never elected a president with southern or Eastern European ancetry, none with Slavic, Spanish, Italian, Greek, Turkish, Arabic or Armenian ancestry is worth noting. On the other hand back in 1928 the US elected a Vice President who was a registered member of a Native American tribe. In the 1990s I went to a high school with many Albanaian, Serbian and Chaldean students who inisted they were not white, and many Italians who were at best ambivalent about weather they were truly white. The Poles accepted their whiteness, but they were pretty much all at least 4th generation Americans, more of our Italians had grandparents who were immigrants, and if the Albanians and Serbians and Macedonians were born in the US their parents were almost all immigrants. In the case of the Chaldeans, they seperated themselves between those who could now speak English and those who still struggled, and in both groups they were mainly Iraq born. Our Lebanese were mainly US born, but still would not embrace the designation of white. Ethnic variation does matter. Even Andrew Jackson with his Ulster Scotts background was a clear ethnic brake from the first 6 presidents who were all of only English ancestry. Eisenhower being of German origin was not that big a thing really, and since Hoover also had such orgin not a big break.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- For those who do not know, the Elder Gong I refer to is Gerrit W. Gong. Prior to becoming an apostle of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints he was a foriegn policy analysts and wrote a book on the process by which states received full status in the international community. Some think he over emphasized the acceptance of non-western states. Considering how popular hate plays against Uganda are, this might be a true assessment of a weakness on the part of Professor Gong's writing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Johnpacklambert, Caucasian in the scientific sense is of course nonsense; however, modern usage of the term is not meant to recreate the pseudoscientific grouping, even if originally associated with it. Our article on the subject says "In the United States, the root term Caucasian has also often been used as a synonym for white or of European, Middle Eastern, or North African ancestry." Zoozaz1 (talk) 03:25, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is clearly a good article. However I think we should go to actually describing the ancestries. The current set up over emphasizes very small far back ancestry. It also falsely portrays Ulster Scotts ancestry as Irish ancestry which is wrong. It also does not allow us to consider how far back the ancestors immigrated, which is a very important consideration.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my ignorance on the term "Caucasian"; I previously thought it was just a synonym for having ancestors from Europe. Going into specifics, I fail to see how Andrew Jackson not having English ancestry unlike previous Presidents is even half as important for him as things like his military endeavors or being involved with Native American genocide. Similarly, I doubt people know Martin Van Buren for his Dutch lineage nearly as much as they do for how he served as Jackson's VP or even his time as a New York Senator. How exactly is JFK having Irish heritage "a major development"? The Peace Corps, Bay of Pigs invasion, and Cuban Missile Crisis are bigger parts of his reputation. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a confusing argument. You seem to be saying that a president's ancestry doesn't matter because it's not what they're most famous for. JFK being Irish-Catholic was, of course, extremely important, but obviously not as notable as the Cuban Missile Crisis or his assassination. pburka (talk) 18:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More specifically, I'm saying that Presidents' actions and even having 100% European heritage in general is much more defining for them than what specific nations their ancestors came from. In other words, the precise countries of their ethnic origins aren't key traits that really stand out for them. As far as I can tell, anybody outside of Wikipedians like us or genealogists who do make notes of certain ancestors tend to just give it a minor mention if anything (unless maybe it's a piece on the men talking about their own families). Obama is an exception because he is the first to be of African descent (half black and half white to be exact) and that was publicly celebrated for breaking the monotony of purely white men getting elected. Did JFK break any streaks of which European territories elected men came from? The answer is no when other men with Irish ancestry had previously been elected. I don't see how having family from that country is a very important for the guy. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As JPL pointed out, the other presidents with Irish heritage were all Protestants. JFK was the first Irish-Catholic and the first Catholic president. It really was a big deal. pburka (talk) 19:24, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Religious affiliation is a separate matter from what place(s) one's ancestors came from. JPL's comment actually had nothing to do with being Catholic vs Protestant. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to read a bit more about Irish history if you think "religious affiliation is a separate matter from what place(s) one's ancestors came from." And if you really think JFK's Irish heritage wasn't important, you could refer to The Irish Brotherhood or The Kennedys: America's Emerald Kings. pburka (talk) 19:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My point (in case it hadn't already been clear) was that being noted for one's religion isn't the same as being noted for where their ancestors came from. While I'm well aware that many people with Irish heritage are Catholic or Protestant, it's not like they're inherently connected. This means one can have ancestors from there without even being religious and they can practice Catholicism/Protestantism without having any family from Ireland. As for JFK, I doubt his religion or ethnic origins are among the first things that come to people's minds when they think of him, even if there are writings discussing such characteristics. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 20:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "it's not like they're inherently connected"? Do you imagine that some Irish people adopted Catholicism, and other adopted Protestantism, but that they all have the same ancestry? I urge you to read about Ulster Scots people, Anglo-Irish people and Irish Catholics. pburka (talk) 20:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do. It would be an oversimplification to assume that having a certain ethnicity automatically equates to observing one religion or another. Turning the focus back to this article, though, I still wouldn't call ethnic origins a key trait for JFK or other fully white Presidents the way I would for Obama. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:24, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is because you are mired in presentism. Martin van Buren was raised in a community where Dutch was the primary language spoken. There is a whole set of ideas and images associated with Ulster Scotts that associate them with dueling, etc. Many of the ideas later used to marginalize African-Americans were first used to marginalize the true Irish (as opposed to Scotts living in Ulster or English people who had lived for generations in Ireland). In the ethnic splits in Ireland it was not about actually following your religion or attending a Church, these were clearly ethnic breaks. Your arguments come off as racist, and you ignore that Wikipedia does not categorize people by race, only by ethnicity. I would argue that Americans understand ethnic groups we just use inprecise terms. This is why the Albanians, Italians, Greeks, Romanians, Ukrainians and especially Chladeans and Arabs at my school rejected the label of white, well some of the Italians. It is because they were using "white" as a term that should be really rendered as "ethnically (not ancestrally) Anglo American". It does not matter where you ancestors came from, and merely speaking English at home is not enough. It is accepting the social and cultural basicis of American culture. Because of racial rules, no not phenotyypically white American can function as such, however it is an ethnic group, so that my friend who is a not so long ago immigrant from Sweden does not count as such, nor do most immigrants from Germany. Children of such immigrants in the current day and age can count as such today probably, but clearly would not have 100 years ago. As I said look at the pre-1965 immigrantion policies. They excluded every immigrants from the "Asia Pacific Triangle" but had no limit what soever to black immigrants from the Caribbean and Latin America. There were no quotas on immigraiton from such places, and this matters. There were ludicrously low limits on immigrants from countries like Italy and Greece. The true Caucasians come from countries like Georgia, Abkhazia, Chchnya and Dagestan. No president of the US has been remotely Caucasian, but I am pretty sure Stalin was. I have heard people speak of who is "white" and exclude Russians from it. This is because they are using white to mean that "ethnically (not ancestrally) Anglo-American". However before the 1950s Catholics were default excluded from the term, and most people would still argue Jews are a distinct ethnic group. Keep in mind religious terms are often used to designate groups by ethnicity not religion. The Jews are a key case of this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how my arguments come off as racist (that definitely wasn't what I aimed for), but my most recent comment was simply pointing out that the nation(s) one's ancestors originated from doesn't necessarily indicate whether that individual will observe a certain religion. Not everybody is religious regardless of their heritage. I also was saying that ancestries aren't among the top things that most US Presidents are known for. Regarding categorization, I don't see any benefit of categorizing them by German lineage, Scottish ancestry, Welsh family, French heritage, etc. Such statistics on how many had ancestors from certain places sounds like something better fitted for a genealogy site. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:42, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Being Irish-Catholic has nothing to do with whether or not JFK was a practicing Catholic: George Lennon was ethnically Irish-Catholic despite practicing Buddhism. The point is that Irish-Catholic is a distinct ethnicity from Anglo-Irish or Ulster Scot, and JFK was the first president of that ethnicity. That JFK was Irish, and specifically Irish-Catholic is very important, as evidenced by significant coverage in many reliable sources. Is it what he's most famous for? No: he's most famous for dying. But it's still important. pburka (talk) 14:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your first sentence doesn't make sense when Catholicism is a religion and not an ethnicity. Regardless of what Lennon practiced, I'd call him ethnically Irish. None of the practicing or former Catholics I've ever met would use that characteristic of themselves to describe their heritage, especially when no longer observant of the faith. They instead would go off of where their ancestors came from, regardless of whether that means Ireland or other places. As for JFK, however much discussion his lineage gets, being Catholic doesn't mean his Irish ancestry was separate from other presidents unless one means having full vs partial roots from that nation or perhaps coming from a different geographical location within the territory. In case there was any ambiguity, I'm referring to the Republic of Ireland aka "Southern Ireland" so to speak when I say "Irish" in this case, which is a separate entity from Northern Ireland (which I believe is what "Scotch-Irish" pertains to though could be wrong). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:27, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this informative article per above keepers. Regarding the complaint that all presidents but Obama are primarily of European ancestry, so what? Don't judge them by the color of their skin. See them by the different ethnic groups they are... groups that went to war with one another over religion and land, including the present-day United States. Europe had any number of countries at the time of these presidents' births and at the time of their ancestors' immigrations. Regarding "specifics on which European nation(s) the fully white Presidents have had ancestors from isn't really a defining trait for them", I'd very much disagree. JFK being Irish Catholic in a country with millions of such citizens following decades of prejudice against said group(s) AND Van Buren being a president of Dutch descent (English wasn't even his first language!) at a time when there was serious, high-profile upheaval in that community = most relevant to the study of the presidents. This perceived lack of diversity suggests not that but threads of commonality that should be examined. The nominator may have heard the "we're one big melting pot" line one too many times in elementary school. Keep it in the encyclopedia. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 16:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This information is a regular part of every Presidential biography. Its inclusion in these works indicates notability. Also per Wikipedia:Summary style this article could be a good top-level view for/of a series of articles on Presidential ancestry. // Timothy :: talk 05:52, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not a well developed article but given the number of sources cited which talk about presidential ancestry it does look like an encyclopedic topic. The nominator has mentioned a few times that ancestry isn't a defining characteristic. This is a term used for categories, which are required to be defining characteristics, but there's nothing wrong with having a list that uses a non-defining characteristic. Hut 8.5 06:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is exactly the sort of research project that elementary age students will be asked to do in the next two months. They will be looking for this article. Bearian (talk) 21:00, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this is certainly a notable topic, and an area of huge interest not just for Americans. --RaviC (talk) 07:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ 10:15, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Envirostructure[edit]

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

A (to me) barely comprehensible article on a neologism created by an SPA, which would be promotion if I could figure out what it was promoting. There is a company in Timmins, Ontario called Envirostructure and a blog called Envirostructure, but none of these are either the subject of the article or notable in their own right. Tagged for notability since 2015. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, neologistic management-speak. XOR'easter (talk) 08:01, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: agree: non-notable. Whiteguru (talk) 08:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Furman Stewart Baldwin[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. All biographical information is unsourced and there is no discussion of him in any reliable sources. In fact, a search for him comes up with Amazon/ebay links to buy the kissing photograph mentioned in the article, but no other sources. Entire article is unsourced, likely written by a family member. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 15:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note - there was a failed PROD in 2009 - otherwise this would have been candidate for proposed deletion. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 15:15, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 15:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - An online search brought up nothing in the way of sigcov in reliable sources. I found only social media, a couple blogs, and eBay sites selling posters. Fails notability criteria for GNG, BASIC, and NARTIST. Article creator may be a family member as mentioned in the nom. Netherzone (talk) 15:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the one source is not even close to enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as no sources can be found. -- Hoary (talk) 03:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Less Unless (talk) 10:00, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I will salt. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:19, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Charles Zakaria[edit]

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

There are several problems with this autobiography. The first is that it is an autobiography, which is strongly discouraged. The second is that it is promotional, which is one of the reasons why autobiographies are discouraged. The third is that it currently has no footnotes. That could be corrected, and it would still be a promotional autobiography. The fourth is that a Google search shows that the subject exists and uses social media and is an effective self-promoter, but that there is no third-party coverage.

This title has already been deleted as G12 copyvio once and draftified once, but has been moved back into article space. It is time to delete it and salt it, so that future re-creations with name gaming can be deleted as G4. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:09, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:09, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:09, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:09, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of subject. Celestina007 16:36, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom and possibly salt. FWIW, the accounts involved in creating this do not seem to heed any advice either. Eagleash (talk) 19:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jeancharleszakaria. This is an autobiography of and by a sockpuppeteer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs) 11 August 2020 22:36 (UTC)
Delete: Lack of independant significant coverage. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:26, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Another sockpuppet of the creator tried to make another draft at User:Bhage06/sandbox, that account has since been blocked and the draft redirected to Jean Charles Zakaria. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 20:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and, since there is attempted re-creation (or a queue for it), plus sockpuppetry, salt it. The nominator expresses the rationale perfectly. Fiddle Faddle 20:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: For all the reasons given above, plus I'd think about going further than just salting and adding any variations of "Jean Charles Zakaria", "Jean Zakaria", and "JC Zakaria" to the title blacklist. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 21:31, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Source mods. T. Canens (talk) 05:51, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SourceForts[edit]

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

Notability? This is just a random video game mod which the article claims was created by a twelve-year-old from Scotland. Somehow, this article has survived since 2005. This should either be deleted or redirected to List of Source mods. TheAwesome Hwyh 15:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. TheAwesome Hwyh 15:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that this article was nominated for deletion once in 2006, which closed with the result "no consensus". TheAwesome Hwyh 15:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Source mods. It got a little attention at the time when HL2 was first released and a range of mods first appeared, but there's been no lasting coverage and nothing at all that's indepth. -- ferret (talk) 15:37, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Source mods as failing GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:39, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This discussion is being closed early per WP:SNOW. Mz7 (talk) 05:26, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hariram Suthakaran[edit]

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

I don't think this qualifies for a speedy (not promo enough for G11, does assert significance so not A7). However, on examining sourcing on Suthakaran he does not pass GNG or NAUTHOR. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 13:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete; IMO this is a G11 (I've seen less promotional material getting speedied, this is a blatant advertisement). Java Hurricane 14:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Have tidied up the article, however their is nothing to suggest notability. May be a case of Wikipedia:Too soon --Devokewater@ 14:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a superly over promotional article on a 22-year-old writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails WP:AUTHOR and no reliable sources cited to corroborate its content. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 12:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 07:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weavers' cottage (Kleinschwarzenbach, Zum Weberhaus 10)[edit]

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

Originally Deleted under WP:G11, consensus at deletion review was to overturn the G11 and list here. This listing is a purely administrative action; I am neutral. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't know my way around the German records, but this seems to be a listed building. In any case, there are obvious alternatives to deletion such as merger to Kleinschwarzenbach and so we're wasting time talking about deletion. AfD is not cleanup and see also WP:IGNORINGATD. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:04, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to "Weberhaus Kleinschwarzenbach". I don't have any German either but a bit of searching suggests that the parenthetical phrase is an address (I assume because the article in dewiki had to be disambiguated from other Weberhausen). I think either WP:NBUILD (per @Andrew Davidson's note that it's a listed building) or WP:ITSACASTLE applies here. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:44, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per the arguments of @Kusma and Hut 8.5 below. I defer to Kusma on the German sourcing. Seems like a Bavarian listed building isn't so notable after all. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a listed building, per WP:NBUILD. I edited the article to remove the promotional language and personal reflections, as per the deletion review discussion. — Toughpigs (talk) 15:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Currently no grounds whatsoever are given for deletion, so this is inevitable. The original speedy seems from the review to have been on grounds of promotionalism, which seems silly. It would be nice to have a listed building reference, but one would imagine it is. Johnbod (talk) 15:41, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The article cites its list number as D-4-75-136-35. Usually there's a centralized directory of these things, but I can't seem to find one. (Also unclear if it's internationally, nationally, or Bavaria-listed). AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:44, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:45, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please don´t delete this article ! We are a german group of 5 people, who want to save a typical kind of thatched houses, which only exists in franconian forest in upper franconia. frankenkini (talk) 19:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the above doesn't actually include any evidence the subject is notable. Although I'm not familiar with the German system, being a listed building doesn't necessarily mean anything at all. In the UK listed buildings are really quite common, according to listed building there are about half a million of them of them in England and Wales, comprising about 2% of all buildings. WP:NBUILD also doesn't say that listed buildings are notable as claimed, instead it says that buildings need to pass the general notability guideline to be notable. Hut 8.5 18:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, UK listing at the lowest level (Grade II) is not regarded as making a building notable, but rightly or wrongly the American national and state listing schemes, plus the Dutch Rijksmonument one ( 61,822 of those), have been so treated. Johnbod (talk) 18:37, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It may or it may not, depending on the building. In general it's probably best to group individual houses together instead of having a separate article on every single Grade II-listed building in a street or village, but according to WP:GEOFEAT national heritage listing (at any level) does give a presumption of notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:01, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I am not convinced that this is a notable building by itself, and couldn't find any particularly good sources. I guess it would make more sense to cover it together with the neighbouring houses listed in the List of listed buildings in Helmbrechts in, say, the Kleinschwarzenbach article. —Kusma (t·c) 20:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Kusma: Thanks for finding this document! Am I right in reading this as a list of buildings designated as historic by Bavaria (and not, say, of buildings in Bavaria designated as historic by some other authority)? If so, would that designation be similar to those for other federal units listed here? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  AleatoryPonderings, the protection of monuments is a state matter in Germany, and yes, the list I linked to are all the sites in the town of Helmbrechts that are protected under the Bavarian law for the protection of monuments. I could find no categorisation (other than building/ensemble/archeological site), especially not one by quality or level of protection. There are 150k+ protected monuments in Bavaria alone. Apparently up to 1600 of these could be protected internationally via the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. I personally don't think that Bavarian listed buildings should be considered inherently notable. —Kusma (t·c) 21:22, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, weakly, based on: paywalled article about the Kleinschwarzenbach weaver's house being filmed for a documentary [4] (here's a press release about the same thing [5]), and combining these two articles [6] [7] from the same publisher, each of which have some information (but not a lot) about this particular weaver's cottage. There's also a little blurb in what appears to be local coverage [8]. The about us page for the cottage doesn't contribute to notability but can be used as an WP:ABOUTSELF source [9]. There's just barely enough here to write a policy-compliant article. ^Lev!v^ich 21:48, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't get the point that a relevant article in German wiki suddenly isn't relevant in another language. -PeterBraun74 (talk) 06:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As has been mentioned before, the mere existence of an article in another language does not automatically guarantee that an article will not be deleted here; see Wikipedia:Translating German Wikipedia for comparison, the part at the bottom labeled content issues. Lectonar (talk) 10:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a heritage building per WP:GEOFEAT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:56, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 13:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2014–15 Gateshead F.C. season[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSEASONS as the club was playing non-league football that season REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:15, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:15, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSEASONS. Almost all previous AfDs on National League seasons have ended in delete. See recent examples like this or this (and all the other previous AfDs referenced in that one). Number 5 7 09:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous consensus on these types of article Spiderone 09:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:28, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per arguments above, fails NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 16:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A lot of work has been done on the article, but again, this is English non-league and shouldn't of been started. Govvy (talk) 11:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 13:22, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2014–15 Bristol Rovers F.C. season[edit]

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

The club was playing in the Conference Premier which was the 5th tier of English club football thereby failing WP:NSEASONS. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSEASONS. Almost all previous AfDs on National League seasons have ended in delete. See recent examples like this or this (and all the other previous AfDs referenced in that one). Number 5 7 09:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous consensus on these types of article Spiderone 09:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:28, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per arguments above, fails NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 16:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although well sourced, the article suffers heavily from primary sources, fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. Govvy (talk) 11:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Farpoint Convention. $Salvio$ 10:21, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ClipperCon[edit]

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

Non notable convention. WP:BEFORE shows no evidence of notability. Deprodded with no additional sources added to improve article. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 12:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 12:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 12:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 12:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 12:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Small hotel convention in the late 80s. I see nothing establishing notability. The only links in article are apparently to the websites for the hotels? Some of the appearances are notable but we don't need an article for every time George Takei checks into a hotel. I would not be too surprised if there are -some- print sources -somewhere- but I do not have access to them and they have not been proffered. Even with possible mentions in print sources, I think this fails NEVENT. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 15:22, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing is not there to show notability for this event.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - small SF convention that never took off. I would not oppose an merge to Farpoint Convention, its successor. Bearian (talk) 21:04, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Farpoint Convention since it already has a mention and would serve as a valid Alternative to Deletion. Unless Bearian knows more than what's currently in the article, I don't think there is anything to be merged since there are no sources. -2pou (talk) 21:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted Materialscientist (talk) 12:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Samson Vidambu Nadolo[edit]

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

I see nothing special, this feels WP:PROMOTIONAL, fails WP:GNG in my opinion. Govvy (talk) 11:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 12:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 12:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. T. Canens (talk) 06:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping malls in Egypt[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:LISTN or WP:GNG; I don't think it is useful either, and is presumably incomplete. This has been in CAT:NN for over 11 years; hopefully we can now get it resolved one way or the other. Boleyn (talk) 10:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:36, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:36, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:36, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have lists of shopping malls for other countries so why wouldn't we include Egypt too? This nomination is not useful because no thought has gone into it. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:46, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Andrew Davidson, thought has gone into it. I think on the whole lists should be evaluated individually - does this one meet WP:LISTN or WP:GNG? I can't see that it does. List articles are really difficult to judge (hence them sitting in CAT:NN for so long) but hopefully this one would give me a clearer idea of the issues and the consensus before I looked at any other lists of shopping malls in x. Something like shopping malls may also be considered important, notable and well-written about in some countries - and not at all in others, so it is worth considering them individually imo. I don't mind anyone putting forward a different case though, that's one of the good things about AfD. Boleyn (talk) 12:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Three notable entries does not make a list. We might as well just create a new article called List of shopping malls in Africa and merge all shopping malls from every African country into one list. Ajf773 (talk) 20:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ajf773 is from the tiny country of NZ but notice how he wants to trash the entire continent of Africa rather than starting with List of shopping centres in New Zealand. See Wikipedia:Systemic bias. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:34, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

user:Andrew Davidson, you're being very aggressive today. I assume Ajf was starting with the article in front of them, rather than being biased. I'm pretty sure they don't want to 'trash the entire continent of Africa'. Boleyn (talk) 20:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm being defensive; protecting our content from disruption. The nominator does not appear to have engaged with the topic or said one word about the situation in Egypt. Per WP:BEFORE, "if the main concern is notability the minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search". Has the nominator made these searches? Why have they not found sources like Changing Consumer Cultures of Modern Egypt or Emerging Egypt which indicate that the topic passes WP:LISTN. The nominator needs to explain why they are being so aggressive towards a good faith topic without doing due diligence. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your intention may be to come across as defensive, and that is needed on Wikipedia - I always appreciate people putting forward different opinions - preferably without attacking others - and it is always helpful to have people put forward a keep argument. I tend to trust in the consensus the AfD comes to and don't mind if it differs from my assessment. Of course there are books which mention that shopping malls exist in Egypt, and that it is a very recent development. I'm not getting the same results as you from the first link you posted - it's not showing fully for me except about malls in Dubai - but the second one confirms existence of 26 (at the time of writing) shopping malls in Greater Cairo. Does that mean it meets WP:LISTN, or do the other sources which confirm there are malls in Egypt? I don't agree, but I respect your opinion and appreciate you looking at the article and adding your own opinion here. Boleyn (talk) 21:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The book Changing Consumer Cultures of Modern Egypt is a substantial academic work and you don't get to read it for free. Its title and description indicate that it is mainly about Egypt and Cairo in particular. References to other places such as Dubai are for purposes of comparison. The work covers shopping malls and elsewhere we read that "Chapter Six provides an extended look at one key institution of consumer culture, the shopping mall. Abaza explores in particular the role of the shopping mall in reshaping urban space. When “traditional” quarters of the city are redefined as slums, this categorization allows them to be “cleared” to make way for gigantic, ultramodern mega-malls. Malls are ranked by the classes of customers they cater to, and mechanisms are sometimes in place to ensure the wrong people do not enter the “best” malls." So, from this evidence, it is apparent that the topic passes WP:LISTN. How did I find this? By taking the trouble to look. But doing this is the responsibilty of the nominator and so failure to do so is negligent and disruptive. I gather that Boleyn is trying to work through a backlog of over 60,000 articles which have been tagged by other editors who couldn't be bothered to look for sources either. If they continue to nominate so many articles for deletion without doing due diligence then it won't go well.

If feelings are hurt then this is an undesirable consequence of this process. Please consider the feelings of the editor who started this page. He decribes himself on his user page, "Hi, my name is Ahmed(born February 15, 1983). I live in Cairo, Egypt. A graduate of Ain Shams University, with a major in Computer Engineering. I read about almost everything, politics, history, military, computers and sports. I travelled to other countries as well. However, I am mainly interested in contributing in Egyptian related topics. I'm still new to Wikipedia, and I hope to be a good contributor to this ambitious project." This person seems to be a good faith editor but his work is being attacked. See WP:BITE which explains that "nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility". WP:IMPERFECT explains that "Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome." These are our policies.

Andrew🐉(talk) 23:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls in Zambia. And the fact that there are only seven other African nations with similar articles (Angola has an article with zero entries) is all the better to merge them together. Also start using a bit more good faith in your AfD responses. Ajf773 (talk) 23:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zambia apparently had no qualifying articles (no category exists either). I do think merging of these lists is probably the best outcome here. postdlf (talk) 20:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. That being said, Andrew needs to do some serious work on his persistent hostility and lack of good faith, never mind the frankly bizarre suggestions that the mere nomination of an article for deletion violates WP:BITE, or that Wikipedia's civility policies are suspended as long as one claims to be "defending" it. Ravenswing 14:40, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator still hasn't explained why we should pick on this particular country. Ravenswing hails from Massachusetts, right? Consider List of shopping malls in Massachusetts. Notice that that has no sources. Notice that none of the equivalent lists for the other US states have no sources either. So why are we making a special example of Egypt when we seem to have similar lists for every other part of the world. Per nom doesn't cut it when the nomination is so flawed. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping malls in Massachusetts redirects to List of shopping malls in the United States, and even then all the links in the list are bluelinked, so no issues with that. The point of these lists is for navigation, not to be used as a directory of every single mall known. Ajf773 (talk) 21:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you probably should have looked at the List of shopping malls in Massachusetts article first. Oops. That being said, you haven't advanced a reason why lists pertaining to Egypt should be exempt from scrutiny. Ravenswing 02:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ravenswing, I guarantee that if delete voters were making veiled insinuations that the other side were motivated by racism, they'd be facing a pitchfork mob at ANI. It just goes to show that you can say and do what you like provided you preface everything with the word "keep". Reyk _YO! 14:43, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment see wp:whatabout and wp:otherstuffexists. We are assessing this article, there are of course hundreds of thousands are other poor ones, or ones of doubtful notability. Boleyn (talk) 15:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OSE supports my position, not Boleyn's because it states that "These "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid ... these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." There doesn't seem to be any significant structural difference between these many lists of shopping malls and so it makes no sense to treat them differently. The nomination here is arbitrary and inconsistent because it is not based upon consideration of the general topic; it's just a drive-by attempt to deal with a clean-up tag, right? Trying to clean up topics in such a random, date-based way is not efficient because you get no consistency or economies of scale. The correct way to address such topics is as a group and then it can be done consistently by adopting a common approach. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

... whereupon you'd just argue that a bundled nomination didn't give people the chance to evaluate the articles on their own merits. Sorry, no reason to play that game, when your AfD votes run almost 50:1 for Keep/Merge over Delete. Ravenswing 02:54, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. LISTN is not relevant here (and ironically if it were, satisfying it could lead to a conclusion no one wants). This is because 1) we use both lists and categories to index articles by what they are (and we do indeed have articles on shopping malls in Egypt), and 2) grouping things by the country where they are is the most obvious and uncontroversial way to do that. So we don't need a special showing that "shopping malls in Egypt" is a notable topic to justify it as an appropriate basis for listing or categorizing shopping malls in Egypt. Ajf773 comes closest above to what is then the only valid question here: whether there are enough notable entries to merit a standalone index of articles per WP:LISTPURP complementary to Category:Shopping malls in Egypt per WP:CLN. There are five bluelinks on the list (and in the category), which some may consider borderline. Without sources for the redlinks, we cannot see whether any more merit articles. If five is not enough, the solution would not be to delete this, however, but instead to merge/redirect to a list of broader scope per WP:ATD. Outright deletion is not supported by policy or relevant guidelines here. postdlf (talk) 20:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The 'List of shopping malls in Africa' template on the bottom of the article shows only six country articles (plus one, Angola, that has no actual content), and when you check them, they're mostly unlinked or redlinked bare listings. That said, together they do link to 50+ actual articles in total. My proposal is to merge all those into a single Africa page, similar to the US equivalent article referenced above, also removing the un-/redlinked chaff in the process. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see Africa as equivalent to North America rather than the USA which I see as equivalent to Egypt (as a country) and I see this then topic as notable. If there were provincial pages these could be merged but country seems like a more reasonable top level rule. Continental lists seem... quite silly, I don't think any reasonable source would describe them as such - from Capetown to Cairo is an awfully long way (would this be applied evenly to other continents Asia? Or Europe? Or Oceania (should everything in New Zealand be listed with Australian stuff). PainProf (talk) 05:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point about countries vs. continents, but I also think numbers play a role here, in that there are probably more shopping malls in the USA than in the entire Africa put together; kind of like how there could be one list for Canadian inductees to the Hockey Hall of Fame, and another, much smaller one, for the ROW. :) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:26, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Category:Lists of shopping malls shows a lot of nations have these. Five blue links in the article, so its a valid list article, aiding in navigation. Dream Focus 14:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete- as it's just a bare list of names, and very few are bluelinked, it's hard to see a navigational purpose for this. I don't see that it has any real purpose actually. I suppose we could create a List of shopping malls in Africa and redirect this article there. That would be more useful. Whether you want to call that a merge or a redirect is something of a moot point. Reyk _YO! 14:38, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nom says it's not useful and incomplete, and complains that it's very old. These are all meaningless arguments, and I encourage Boleyn to stick to policy and guideline based rationales. As Andrew🐉 points out, we have well developed lists like this for other countries. Unless one believes that shopping malls in Egypt are fundamentally less notable than malls elsewhere, or that all such lists should be deleted, then the only argument remaining is that this page needs cleanup. If you do want to delete them all, aim for the heart and start with something like List of shopping malls in Minnesota. pburka (talk) 22:39, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CLN. AfD is not for cleanup. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:21, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite copious argumentation above, there is still a glaring lack of compliance with WP:LISTN. Despite passing mentions and vague handwaves, there is no evidence that there is any significant coverage of the list as a group and NOTCLEANUP and ATD can't bridge that gap. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:31, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of NGC objects. $Salvio$ 10:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NGC 529[edit]

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

I'd like to renominate this article for deletion. That might be a taboo thing to do normally, but in this case NASTRO has changed (in response to the original AfD in fact) to specifically exclude NGC objects as being of "historical importance." On the merits of GNG alone, this fails to be considered notable. The first result on google scholar is a mistranscription (it's actually NGC 5291), and everything else is a trivial reference. Sam-2727 (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Sam-2727 (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer Consensus seems to be redirecting NGC objects to list of NGC objects, so if consensus is to delete, the article should be redirected to list of NGC objects. Sam-2727 (talk) 02:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NGC 529 has 90 references on simbad http://simbad.u-strasbg.fr/simbad/sim-id-refs?Ident=%401546576&Name=NGC%20%20%20529 and is part of the NGC 383 and NGC 507 groups which are part of the Perseus-Pisces Supercluster. Sources:http://simbad.u-strasbg.fr/simbad/sim-ref?bibcode=1994AJ....108...33S, http://simbad.u-strasbg.fr/simbad/sim-ref?bibcode=1993A%26AS..100...47G, http://simbad.u-strasbg.fr/simbad/sim-ref?bibcode=1993AJ....105.1251W 173.44.244.196 (talk) 18:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Flori4nK ^{t • c} 16:51, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to list of NGC objects. I have not looked at all of the 90 papers in which SIMBAD believes that this object appears, but their titles and numbers of discussed objects all suggest that they are considering groups or populations of galaxies in the round. A spot-check of some of the more likely candidates confirmed this. In none of the papers is NGC 529 mentioned by name in the title or abstract. In the absence of a counter-example, discussion of this galaxy appears to be entirely routine mentions in larger surveys or analysis of groups of galaxies, and hence it fails WP:NASTRO. Wham2001 (talk) 06:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete / redirect. I've been unable to find any reliable source with substantial commentary on this specific galaxy. I didn't check every single paper associated with it by SIMBAD, but from the titles they all seem to be entries in large catalogues or surveys. ADS finds no papers at all that mention it in the abstract. Like the nominator, I found most Google Scholar hits to be really about NGC 5291. Fails both NASTRO and GNG. Modest Genius ^talk 12:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ 10:28, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

San Diego County Philatelic Library[edit]

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

A non notable local organisation, WP:BEFORE shows no evidence of notability. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sourcing is not at the level we need to show an organization is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:10, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ 10:30, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

American Nicaraguan School[edit]

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

None notable private school. It seems to have been badly referenced to only two primary sources since at least 2015 and was written like an advert by a COI editor. Also, I wasn't able to find anything about it in a WP:BEFORE that would pass WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Adamant1 (talk) 04:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:35, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nicaragua-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:35, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:51, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article lacks th breadth of sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:37, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 11:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Bosshard (photojournalist)[edit]

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

This article doesn't even really assert notability, though its German WP version, the authority control and Google are more helpful. From them I am not seeing enough to meet WP:JOURNALIST or WP:GNG. This has been in CAT:NN for over 11 years, hopefully we can now resolve it one way or the other. Boleyn (talk) 07:06, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:29, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:29, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is a notable person. The article has been expanded using the German version. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Flori4nK ^{t • c} 16:52, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:59, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article in dewiki is largely unsourced, but has this book (or conference proceeding, I'm not sure) in the further reading section:
- Peter Pfrunder, Verena Münzer und Annemarie Hürlimann: Fernsicht. Walter Bosshard – ein Pionier des modernen Photojournalismus. Benteli 1997. ISBN 3-7165-1082-3.

I think being the subject of a book or conference is enough to pass either GNG or WP:NARTIST. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:27, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ 10:33, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Becoming Jiff[edit]

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

A non-notable web series with no evidence of satisfying either WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. GSS ^💬 17:14, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 17:14, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 17:23, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand, this is a Web TV series produced by Dean Silvers that's almost three years old. The creator even acknowledged it was on the ballot for the 2019 Emmy Awards. It was distributed by Samuel Goldwyn Films and had an exclusive deal with Prime Video. How is that notable? No one had an issue with this for almost three years, but then when someone posted an article about the creator then they questioned this article. Answer honestly, do you think this page would ever have been nominated for deletion if someone didn't submit a wiki page for the creator?

Watch it, see the opening and closing credits: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07HYKKTRW

Look at the post on the talk page: I disagree with the proposed deletion, the editor did not read the proper “notability” guidelines when proposing deletion. This article is NOT about “Film Notability” which he or she uses as an example, this is a Web Televisions series NOT A FILM. If he or she had read the article this would appear obvious -- therefore his reasoning for deletion does not apply to this article.

In general the notability page clearly states: “Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity…” But the television show was produced by famous Sundance Winning producer Dean Silvers. It was distributed the famous studio Samuel Goldwyn Films (known for films such as: The Secret Life of Walter Mitty (2013 film) and The Squid and the Whale) and released on one of the most famous web platforms Prime Video. Based off the “Notability” page it seems as though the editor thinks this is an article about an independent film that played at a film festival that isn’t on imdb. None of which is true. The Notability page he sources also says “Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.” Below are articles on the film and lead actor. A TV review from BuzzFeed, a major new publication and a review by a Rottentomatoes.com certified film critic. https://www.clichemag.com/celebrity-news/becoming-jiffs-tyler-silvers-on-comedy-family-and-navigating-mistaken-identity/ https://www.buzzfeed.com/jenniferabidor/heres-a-bunch-of-things-you-can-watch-on-amazon-prime-video https://thefilmstage.com/new-to-streaming-let-the-sunshine-in-private-life-phantom-thread-and-more/ http://www.samuelgoldwynfilms.com/becoming-jiff/ https://www.screendaily.com/news/samuel-goldwyn-films-snaps-up-short-form-comedy-series-becoming-jiff-from-silvers-brothers/5132771.article Reddit AMA on the film: https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/9p1gu0/were_the_silvers_brothers_the_creators_of_the/ Official Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=415speAw_1I&feature=emb_title Prime Video: https://www.amazon.com/Becoming-Jiff/dp/B07HYHNVC9 Apple TV: https://tv.apple.com/us/show/becoming-jiff/umc.cmc.6t7xnn4ew24erqaql0tpqggkx https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8595186/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fsilvers (talk • contribs) 18:50, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2018-12 ✍️ create

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Salvio

09:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fsilvers, who likely has a conflict of interest with the Silvers family, does not present very convincing sourcing above. The show has about a paragraph in various listicles on what's new to streaming (the Film Stage and BuzzFeed), each of which have only one paragraph telling us that the show is incredibly great. ScreenDaily is a brief news piece about samuel goldwyn films' involvement, and is probably the most promising source. A Cliche mag interview is not independent and more about the brothers than the show. While Fsilvers is correct that this isn't a film, the guideline that applies is WP:NTV and WP:GNG, and for either we expect more in-depth coverage than an interview, two one-paragraph 'reviews' (though even calling them 'reviews' is a stretch), and one brief news article to establish notability. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is textbook WP:VANISPAM, where the work's creator hasn't fulfilled any sense of critical coverage here (the Buzzfeed piece is very awkward in the middle of proven library content), and anyone easily pay APV to upload their work, or pay the nomination fee to the Television Academy to appear on the ballot despite most of the voters' reaction being 'Jiff who? Never saw this on (network or streaming service)'. One review (a clear sock IMDb review) doesn't cover critical coverage either. Nate • (chatter) 20:48, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Zoey 101 episodes. $Salvio$ 10:35, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zoey 101: Spring Break-Up[edit]

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

Like the articles on three other TV movies from the 2000s children’s series Zoey 101. I think these should be redirected to their summaries of the list of episodes for this series to go by this Wikipedia talk from 2017. Pahiy (talk) 22:34, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 22:34, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 22:34, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Zoey 101 episodes for now. I found a review in The Boston Globe and its possible there are others (particularly in spanish). Regardless, the article as it stands is nothing more than a plot summary (and Wikipedia articles shouldn't be summary only descriptions of works). Should more reviews be found, the article can be recreated with more content. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:48, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Zoey 101 episodes. $Salvio$ 10:35, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zoey 101: The Curse of PCA[edit]

AfDs related to this article:

Articles for deletion/Zoey 101: Spring Break-Up

Articles for deletion/Zoey 101: The Curse of PCA

Articles for deletion/Zoey 101: Goodbye Zoey?

Articles for deletion/Zoey 101: Chasing Zoey

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

Like the articles on three other TV movies from the 2000s children’s series Zoey 101. I think these should be redirected to their summaries of the list of episodes for this series to go by this Wikipedia talk from 2017. Pahiy (talk) 22:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 22:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 22:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* Redirect to List of Zoey 101 episodes. I found no reviews to suggest independent notability. Further, the article as it stands is nothing more than a plot summary (and Wikipedia articles shouldn't be summary only descriptions of works). Should more reviews be found, the article can be recreated with more content. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Eddie891, same with the other made-for-TV movies. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Zoey 101 episodes. $Salvio$ 10:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zoey 101: Chasing Zoey[edit]

AfDs related to this article:

Articles for deletion/Zoey 101: Spring Break-Up

Articles for deletion/Zoey 101: The Curse of PCA

Articles for deletion/Zoey 101: Goodbye Zoey?

Articles for deletion/Zoey 101: Chasing Zoey

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

Like the articles on three other TV movies from the 2000s children’s series Zoey 101. I think these should be redirected to their summaries of the list of episodes for this series to go by this Wikipedia talk from 2017. Pahiy (talk) 22:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 22:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 22:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Zoey 101 episodes. I found no reviews to suggest notability. Further, the article as it stands is nothing more than a plot summary and listing of cast (and Wikipedia articles shouldn't be summary only descriptions of works). Should more reviews be found, the article can be recreated with more content. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:55, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Zoey 101 episodes. $Salvio$ 10:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zoey 101: Goodbye Zoey?[edit]

AfDs related to this article:

Articles for deletion/Zoey 101: Spring Break-Up

Articles for deletion/Zoey 101: The Curse of PCA

Articles for deletion/Zoey 101: Goodbye Zoey?

Articles for deletion/Zoey 101: Chasing Zoey

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

While I was looking at the article for the iCarly series finale, I ended up taking a deep dive and saw this article about this episode of Zoey 101 that premiered two weeks after the news about Jamie Lynn Spears’ teen pregnancy broke. It may have gotten attention with the ratings, but there does not appear to be anything else that would source this apart from fan wikis on Fandom. I’m thinking, should this article were to avoid deletion, a redirect to the episode's summary in the list of Zoey 101 episodes to go by this Wikipedia talk from 2017. Pahiy (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak redirect to List of Zoey 101 episodes. Sourcing consists of a rottentomatoes entry with no critic reviews, a ranker entry, a BuddyTV article which is meh, a tv.com entry that has no analysis, broadcasting cable article that I cannot access, a tv guide that's only plot summary, and a bunch of articles about Spears' pregnancy that aren't about the episode. The MediaLife and BuddyTV sources are the best, but buddytv doesn't strike me as particularly reliable and MediaLife is mostly about the finale's viewership, content that can easily be covered in the main article and in fact is already briefly mentioned. Admittedly this article isn't as clear cut to me as the others, but there still isn't enough for a stand alone article. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ 10:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tarun s Bisht[edit]

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

A WP:BEFORE search brought up no in-depth coverage of the filmmaker. The sources provided in the article are all IMDB style profiles which lack reliable significant coverage . The subject may not pas WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. Bingobro (Chat) 09:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bingobro (Chat) 09:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete possibly even speedy under A7, author submitted Draft:Tarun S Bisht which was hard-rejected due to lack of notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: A Google search of him only brings up references that mention him in passing with no in-dept coverage. It may be a case of WP:TOOSOON and redirect to Blackboard vs Whiteboard would be appropriate.Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 17:15, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What is the point of having the AfC system if people just create the articles anyway when they are rejected in that process?John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete criteria A7. Definitely fails WP:GNG. Eternal Shadow Talk 17:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ 10:41, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jnanadeepa: Pune Journal of Religious Studies[edit]

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by SPA, after several external links were added. None of those links contributes to notability under either NJournals or GNG. PROD reason stands, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 07:56, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any significant outside coverage that would justify inclusion - seems like a clear case to me. — Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Likely spam. —Unforgettableid (talk) 18:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added CODEN, LCCN and OCLC. Please note that it is an Indian journal, which may not get that much notability in the network. With a circulation of 850 and 450 articles published in the last 24 years, if this interdisciplinary journal is notable, then please delete it. Please check DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.3950746 Please check journal site: punejournalin. Still if you find it not worth keeping, do delete it. Best wishes. -Sabin Abraham — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabinabraham (talk • contribs) 17:15, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Sabinabraham, I clicked on the DOI link, but nothing happened. Are you sure it's a correct link? —Unforgettableid (talk) 17:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please check this link: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3950746 Down (towards the end) you will find attached a xls file containing the list of articles. The DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.3950746 You may also check also: https://zenodo.org/record/3950746#.XzLMC6_iu01 Best wishes -Sabin Abraham I have contacted the office of the journal. They are willing to send a ecopy of the latest issue if you write to them: [email protected] The topic is "Humanaising Social Life" 11 articles.No of pages 208. In the advisorial board of the journal 8 Vice-Chancellors^[1] from different Indian universities and at least six foreign scholars! Best wishes -Sabin

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabinabraham (talk • contribs) 16:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think that you misunderstand how we do things here. It is not up to us to evaluate the contents of the journal and to decide whether it is meritorious or not. WP reports what others have said. That is how we interpret "notability" here: that others have noted the journal. As it is pretty rare that there are independent reliable sources discussing a particular journal in depth (as opposed to discussing articles that were published in that journal), we also look at whether the journal is included in relevant, selective databases. (See WP:NJournals. In the present case, the journal is not even in the specialized ATLA database, so unless something else comes us, it looks like the journal is not notable at this point. --Randykitty (talk) 07:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Editors are allowed to argue against existing guidelines when it is clear to them applying the guidelines goes against WP:COMMONSENSE. However, AfD is not the place to argue the guidelines themselves, and a very compelling argument must be made that a guideline should be bypassed. (That goes for both keep and delete !votes, by the way). However, consensus is that this topic does not meet NFOOTY, (or GNG) and therefore does not warrant encyclopedic attention. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robbert Barendse[edit]

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NFOOTBALL, WP:BASIC // Timothy :: talk 05:09, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 05:09, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 05:09, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He meets WP:NFOOTBALL by making three appearances for a senior national team (bonaire) in the concacaf nations league, which is a regional confederation. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 05:19, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:59, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - his 3 appearances were classed as 'Non FIFA' according to this, so he actually fails WP:NFOOTBALL. More importantly he fails WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 17:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – meets WP:NFOOTY. Under the first part of NFOOTY, it states "Players who have played in...a competitive senior international match at confederation level regardless of whether or not the teams are members of FIFA..."; his appearances for Bonaire in the CONCACAF Nations League meet this requirement. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 18:46, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if he passes our football notability requirements they are absurdly broad and allow way too many people who lack sourcing to pass under truly too low notability criteria, and they should not be slavishly followed in this case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets NFOOTY with CONCACAF appearances - User:GiantSnowman might want to look at this again. User:Johnpacklambert, you are supposed to judge notability by the guidelines, not simply vote delete because you don't like the guidelines - that would be WP:POINTy, and surely any editor who keeps doing that should be topic-banned from the area of AFDs. There are other forums here to discuss changing the guidelines, if you have suggestions on how to improve them. Nfitz (talk) 20:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The football guidelines are junk guidelines that make people who cannot in any way pass GNG notable for no reason at all. They are too broad and need to be scrapped because they are wrong. Anyway you are misinterpreting the guidelines. They in no way require that we keep every single article that falls within them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are required to respect guidelines, whether you think them to be junk or not. Your lack of competence in the area of AFDs has been well documented in your topic ban. If you think this is the rare exception where an international player shouldn't have an article, you need to explain in detail why this is the case ... not just say "I don't like the rules". Nfitz (talk) 23:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails NFOOTBALL and GNG. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and Reply: One thing I will change is not using WP:NFOOTBALL interchangably with WP:NSPORT.

I don't believe Wikipedia should be a repository of non-notable stubs because they are presumed to be notable. Wikipedia is not a biographical dictionary. It's an encyclopedia and these stubs provide no WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC CONTENT.

I think how notability should be applied in these cases is a good conversation to have. Maybe I am wrong, but maybe I'm correct.

To address issues:

WP:BEFORE has been done. It has turned up no WP:RS to establish notability. I don't see anyone that has added a RS to indicate my BEFORE was faulty (perhaps they did and I haven't seen it since I last looked). See below regarding NFOOTBALL and as I stated above I should not have been using NFOOTBALL and NSPORT interchangeably.
The core question here is if a person meets WP:NFOOTBALL, does that mean there notability is automatically established and cannot be questioned based on the lack of RS? or I am interpreting WP:N, WP:SNG, and WP:NSPORT and presumption correctly and it's valid to bring up the question of notability here.

WP:N states "A topic is presumed to merit an article..." Presumed is defined in the link as "a rebuttable presumption ... is an assumption made by a court that is taken to be true unless someone comes forward to contest it and prove otherwise". I am coming forward to contest the notability of these articles based on a lack of WP:RS showing notability.
From WP:N (WP:NRV) (a guideline that applies to all subjects) "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition". The evidence (WP:RS) must show the individual is notable. I don't believe that evidence exists and the presumption, in this case, is incorrect.
Just because WP:NFOOTBALL says someone can be "presumed notable" does not guarantee they are notable, nor does it say that editors cannot question this presumption of notability. A presumption is an assumption that is taken to be true unless someone comes forward to contest it. WP:NFOOTBALL is not a trump card that automatically overrules all other guidelines and makes article notability immune from scrutiny.
From WP:SNG "a presumption is neither a guarantee that sources can be found" and therefore it is not a guarantee the topic is notable, "nor a mandate for a separate page." A separate page is not mandatory for a topic just because of a presumption.

"If the article does meet the criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria". "it is likely" does not mean there always are sufficient sources. It is also possible that sufficient sources do not exist to establish notability. Therefore if someone comes forward to question the presumption of notability, it can be discussed and the article deleted if the presumption is found to be wrong due to the lack of WP:RS establishing notability.

Per WP:NSPORT "Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept." Even if an article meets WP:NFOOTBALL that does not mean it must be kept. If there are reasons, such as a lack of RS, then an article can be deleted.

I was thinking about writing an RFC to ask about clarifying that a presumption of notability can be questioned based on the lack of RS showing notability so that this is no longer a matter for debate. If the RFC is written (I'm not sure I want to be pummeled by the football team), this might be a good opening comment. I was also thinking about writing an RFC to ask about revising the exceedingly low standard set in WP:NFOOTBALL since I believe its standard is allowing too many non-notable articles to exist. Together these two RFCs might be a good starting point for removing a good number of non-notable articles. // Timothy :: talk 12:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article about amateur footballer who isn't the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Yes, Vice.com published an article he wrote that details his exploits in Bonaire, but this coverage is not independent of the subject (he wrote it). Article fails all of our notability guidelines. Jogurney (talk) 22:08, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Has a player with senior international caps ever been deleted before? Dougal18 (talk) 09:32, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Certainly they have, even for footballers who appeared in FIFA "A" internationals like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cosmos Munegabe. Barendse hasn't even played in a FIFA "A" international. Jogurney (talk) 14:28, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFOOTBALL. More importantly he fails WP:GNG - basically no RS on him. 07:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 07:46, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable appearances because Bonaire is not a fully FIFA member so fails FOOTBALL and NSPORT. doktorb _words^deeds 07:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Doktorb above Spiderone 10:01, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per original nomination, and the nominator's detailed explanation of why this subject does not meet the criteria for inclusion above. PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 12:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ 10:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Lev[edit]

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

His two film credits (and a TV episode) aren't going to satisfy WP:NACTOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:55, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:NACTOR. He had two very small roles as a child actor. His death was tragic but not notable. Bearian (talk) 21:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:35, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Point, New Westminster[edit]

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

An unremarkable condo in Metro Vancouver that does not seem to meet WP:NBUILD. I found a few articles in The Vancouver Sun that mention it, but all seemed to be routine real estate coverage. Notability tagged since 2012. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:21, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:21, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:31, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Just a routine condo building. No Point in keeping this article. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing notable about this. Mccapra (talk) 11:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Normal, run of the mill condo. Hog Farm _Bacon 13:36, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Cattle Decapitation#Discography. (non-admin closure) Dps04 (talk) 08:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

¡Decapitacion![edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A non-notable EP that is a whopping two and a half minutes long. All three songs were originally from a different album, which is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homovore. All three tracks are in Spanish. Due to the somewhat generic name, it's hard to find sources for this. I can't see a way in which this could possibly pass WP:NALBUM, all the relevant sources I've seen are junk. Taking this here, in case other editors can find decent non-English sources. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:38, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:38, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:38, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cattle Decapitation ("Discography" section), for the same reasons as stated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homovore. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:45, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cattle Decapitation: Same thoughts with similar AfD. Barely found anything about the EP. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Cattle Decapitation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ten Torments of the Damned[edit]

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

Non-notable album. [10] is just a track listing/release information, if it's even reliable. The lone source in the article is primary. Metal-archives and discogs are user-generated. It's possible there's print sources in existence, since this was released in the 1990s before the internet really took over, but since this is a self-released demo that's only 8 minutes long, that highly unlikely. I would boldly redirect this myself, but grindcore isn't a genre I'm familiar with, so others may have more expertise in this area. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cattle Decapitation ("Discography" section), for the same reasons as stated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homovore. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:44, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cattle Decapitation: Same thoughts with similar AfD. Barely found anything about the album aside from a Metal Archives review. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. No independent notability, but a plausible search term. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ 10:43, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

University18 Business School[edit]

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

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

Nearly identical promotional articles that don't meet WP:GNG. Provided sources are trivial mentions, not independent, don't mention the subject at all, or dead links. Nothing better came up when searching online. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 13:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) SL93 (talk) 01:34, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of the Hermits Friars of the Order of St. Augustine and His Real Institution Before the Great Lateran Council[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage for this book. It is from 1618, but being old doesn't make it automatically notable. The author doesn't have an article. Fails WP:BK. SL93 (talk) 02:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ok I’ve found my project for this week. I’d never heard of it and I’m not sure it is notable but a quick search shows there are sources and even if it ends up being deleted I can spend several happy days rooting around trying to find out about it. See you in the other side. Mccapra (talk) 11:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment can't find anything that suggests notability, however lets see if the article can be built up. I've searched; Origen de los frayles ermitaños de la Orden de San Augustin, y su verdadera institucion antes del gran Concilio Lateranense on Spanish wikipedia but can't find anything, however the author has a Spanish wikipage Juan Márquez --Devokewater@ 12:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am going to agree with the above comments and wait and see if the article can be built up into something. Else, yes, it definitely lacks notability Whiteguru (talk) 08:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is a very rare old book published only in Spanish (I wish I had a copy in my library) this book has not been translated into English. IMHO it is a notable book + should have a Spanish wikipage, it's author has both Spanish + English wikipages. --Devokewater@ 13:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have now completely rewritten the article and provided multiple sources, mostly scholarly. Please take another look @Devokewater: @Whiteguru: @SL93:. Thanks Mccapra (talk) 08:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment By the way if the decision is to keep it I will move it to a new title as the existing one is not correct. Mccapra (talk) 08:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good work. I have added one category; I have to admit the claim that St Francis was an Augustinian Friar had me laughing, as did the forced ordination of Augustine in Hippo. Some consideration might be given to placing the page in the category of Catholic hermit orders - although this is the record of a controversy, and open to discussion. So change my opinion to keep. Whiteguru (talk) 08:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wow, what can I say, this is amazing, how on earth has Mccapra (talk) managed to find out so much about this book. Well done. --Devokewater@ 09:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw: Awesome work was completed on the article. SL93 (talk) 15:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of insurance companies in Singapore[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet WP:SIGCOV. The premise of this list is that it replicates the list of insurance companies provided by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), but its entries are not consistent with the MAS webpage so the contents of this page are questionable. Furthermore, most of these entries are not at all notable, resulting a huge number of redlinks. Since the MAS is already maintaining a list and this article largely depends on keeping up-to-date with that one source (which isn't right now), an interested reader would be better off looking at the MAS webpage than here. -- AquaDTRS (talk) 01:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- AquaDTRS (talk) 01:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. -- AquaDTRS (talk) 01:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since we already have List of companies of Singapore#Notable firms, there is absolutely no need of this list which has listed very few notable companies. Accesscrawl (talk) 03:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable list. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable topic, doesn't meet WP:LISTN or WP:GNG. WP is not a directory. Boleyn (talk) 05:54, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cronulla-Sutherland Sharks v Parramatta Eels Round 13, 2020[edit]

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

Not a notable sporting match. Coverage says that it was raining heavily, but it was still a run-of-the-mill match. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete surprised it doesn't qualify for a speedy of some sort. SportingFlyer T·C 05:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a notable match. As two comparisons, the (only) NRL premiership match to be played in snow to date got one line in the season article (2000 NRL season), and the only individual NRL match (besides grand finals) with its own article is Battle of Brookvale which had significant notability. This does not rate in comparison. Deus et lex (talk) 09:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater@ 18:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - This isn't notable enough to have it's own article and I would argue that this simply shouldn't be even created. HawkAussie (talk) 06:51, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Puddles don't make a game notable. Doctorhawkes (talk) 08:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ 10:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

World Bikini Model International[edit]

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

An unremarkable pageant. Does not meet WP:NORG; significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:09, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:11, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the coverage is way below the level we would need to show an event is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater@ 18:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the contest is not remarkable, no reliable sources or significant coverage.---Richie Campbell (talk) 03:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ "Jnanadeepa: Pune Journal of Religious Studies - Officials". sites.google.com. Retrieved 2020-08-12.

[1] "Jnanadeepa: Pune Journal of Religious Studies - Officials". sites.google.com. Retrieved 2020-08-12.

[1]