Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 August 18

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 17 August	19 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 keep. Tone 06:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hazon[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Article has been tagged as "no citations" for the last 8 years. I didn't find any significant coverage by reliable sources. Normal Op (talk) 23:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 23:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. 23:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per nom. BD2412 T 05:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing !vote to keep per substantial expansion and improvement by Dom from Paris. BD2412 T 15:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In a before search I have found quite a lot of sources, for exemple. Jewish Telegraphic Agency Times of Israel this one from Haaretz Fox Detroit The Jerusalem Post [1] this one claims it is America's largest Jewish environmental organisation. A good few are RS notably The Jerusalem Post, Haaretz, Fox 2 Detroit, Marin Independent Journal Jewish Telegraphic Agency. I am leaning keep but I'd be interested to know the Nom's view on these. --Dom from Paris (talk) 15:59, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added the sources found which include 2 in-depth articles from WP:RS exclusively on the organisation plus some significative coverage in other articles in RS. The article needs improving but I think I have done enough to show notability there are a lot more sources that can be added if needs be. --Dom from Paris (talk) 16:25, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just noted that there were a lot of sources in an earlier version that was quite rightly IMO deemed to be too promotional by @MER-C: who reverted to a version that had no sources which had been tagged as such at the time (2012). So it is incorrect to say that it had been tagged for 8 years with "no citations". Before nominating it is useful to look through the history to see if there is nothing salvageable from earlier versions. --Dom from Paris (talk) 16:35, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked your additions. Good effort, but a company isn't notable because it sends a C&D notice to another organization, has bike ride fundraisers, or lays off people during COVID-19. A lot of the others were brief mentions. The only really good coverage was the marinij.com article. So far, that is not "significant coverage". When doing BEFORE, I DID notice some of these items such as bike rides, COVID layoffs, and the brief mentions, but I deemed my search leading to "not notable" and therefore wasn't worth my time to update the article. Normal Op (talk) 17:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the fact that they sent a C&D notice or that they have laid off people or organised bike rides is not in itself a claim to notability but the fact that local national and international outlets have picked it up and done full length pieces about it is. You are confusing the event itself and the coverage. The guideline says "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." not that what they cover has to be independently notable. This is not trivial coverage. I've added a few more articles that are in-depth cover in independent RS notably Daily Camera The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles etc, some coverage of the founder The Forward. Yes these are almost all exclusively Jewish publications but they are longstanding reliable sources some of which are local but some are national and international. I have added an article from WDIV-TV and the Times of Israel. Anyway I may have refbombed the article a little but I hope that gives anyone else coming to !vote some food for thought as you seem to have made your mind up already. A good tip when nominating is say what you found in a before search and explain why you don't think it points to notability. --Dom from Paris (talk) 18:22, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also another top tip for looking for sources before nominating is the organisation's own "In the Media" page. here yes they will be only positive but there are literally hundreds in there which may help to find what you couldn't in the before search. --Dom from Paris (talk) 18:43, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This page needs help to get it into good encyclopedic shape, but Hazon as an entity clearly merits inclusion in Wikipedia: <https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C21&q=hazon+jewish+environment+-nahum&btnG=> 216.164.60.237 (talk) 06:35, 20 August 2020 (UTC) (talk) — 216.164.60.237 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep, The article needs some more work but I think it can stay, Alex-h (talk) 08:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per WP:HEY. Nice save by Dom from Paris. Ravenswing 05:19, 26 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. WP:BIODELETE, part of our WP:DELETION policy, is relevant. In any case, there is consensus here that the subject is relatively unknown and their request for deletion should be honoured. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shirli Kopelman[edit]

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

Kopelman emailed me asking for her article to be deleted due to privacy concerns. I am bringing it to AfD due to her passing the notability criteria. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 23:30, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 23:30, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 11:55, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 09:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per subject's request. She appears to meet the basic bar for notability for an author, but isn't particularly famous. pburka (talk) 11:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as she clearly meets WP:NACADEMIC. As far as I know, there is no such thing as deleting per request of the subject of the article, let alone a request not made by the person themselves; someone more experienced could help here. It is safest if you ask her the passages she wants deleted, and delete them if (hopefully) they are unsourced or sourced on a weakly reliable material. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 15:01, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regarding subject requests to delete a page, see WP:BIODEL, WP:BLPDEL and WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at subject's request. No reason to keep. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Delete very clearly not so notable we should keep the article when the subject herself does not want an article here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:18, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no objections. -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:00, 25 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. Closed under WP:SKCRIT #2: "The nomination was unquestionably made for the purposes of vandalism or disruption and... no uninvolved editor has recommended deletion or redirection as an outcome of the discussion." Clear revenge nomination after accusing article creator of being on a "reckless deletion spree" for nominating Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wahdat (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:35, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bin Swelah[edit]

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

Fails to meet basic GNG. No enough coverage in RS as well in Arabic WP. Saqib (talk) 23:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:45, 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 speedy keep. Closed under WP:SKCRIT #2: "The nomination was unquestionably made for the purposes of vandalism or disruption and... no uninvolved editor has recommended deletion or redirection as an outcome of the discussion." Clear revenge nomination after accusing article creator of being on a "reckless deletion spree" for nominating Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wahdat (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:35, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Wrenn[edit]

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

References merely name-checking the subject. I don't really see any solid coverage in WP:N which discusses the subject in detail. Fails to meet basic GNG Imo. Saqib (talk) 23:23, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As the one that accepted through AfC, I'll explain my decision. I wholeheartedly agree with the nominator that all of the references about Facebook are merely name checks and not WP:SIGCOV. However, I did feel that the articles about his jobs at CNN from outlets such as Campaign (ref 1), PRWeek (ref 8 9), and Marketing Week (ref 10 11) were covering the subject directly to meet the significant requirement. Ref 9 10 also comes via TBI Vision (Television Business International, apparently), which claims editorial oversight. Those are multiple pieces from different sources that are dedicated to news of Mr. Warren's accomplishments. It's certainly not enough to create an in-depth piece about the man's life, but I have never had issues with having stub articles that meet WP:GNG. A stub in main space is more likely to mature with with the eyes of the community than one in draft space with only the creator's attention.
So that's why it was accepted. I appear to have stumbled into some kind of squabble between the page creator and the deletion nominator (seen at creator's Talk and SPI, so I don't really have an interest in casting a !vote in the interest of avoiding any drama. -2pou (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you dear 2pou Actually the nominator is doing this deliberately and not only but he is doing this with everyone whom he don't like. he was involved in vandalism and he has received warning multiple times from Mr. Ritchie333 and few others. anyways thanks for approving i appreciate it. Memon KutianaWala (talk) 15:40, 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. $Salvio$ 20:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

K. Radhakrishna Menon[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:BASIC. I found three very short obituaries for him ([2], [3], [4]). I suppose that could pass WP:THREE if one were feeling especially generous, but all they verify is basically his death date. The lone source in the article [5] does not appear reliable—the publisher prints books from just three authors, two of whom seem to be a couple. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:16, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:16, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - zero evidence of notability; nothing worth keeping as the entire article is just original research Spiderone 13:56, 26 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. Tone 06:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Sweeney (pianist)[edit]

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

Non notable musician. Whilst WP:BEFORE shows some Google hits, there’s no evidence of reliable, independent, substantial coverage. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. North8000 (talk) 14:34, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:49, 23 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ambuj Dixit[edit]

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

Has not received significant coverage in independent sources, neither meets WP:GNG nor WP:NPOL. Being spokesperson of a youth wing organization is usually not considered a claim to notability here. – Thjarkur (talk) 22:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 22:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 22:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article needs more editing, which will be included in some time. The editing is not done yet. There are several things which contribute to notability of a person and those will be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daishworya (talk • contribs) 04:51, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NPOL. --RaviC (talk) 14:17, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 20:36, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 01:17, 24 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. Tone 06:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ben 10 Versus the Universe: The Movie[edit]

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

Does not satisfy film notability guidelines, and in particular does not satisfy guidelines on future films. Unreleased films are only notable if production itself is notable, and there is nothing in this article to indicate that production is notable.

This article has already been moved into draft space once, and is currently in draft space, so that this copy cannot be moved into draft space and should be deleted. The copy in draft space can remain in draft space until the film is released. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Too early to establish notability. A a s i m 22:54, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as it's WP:TOOSOON. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:02, 25 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. Tone 06:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stan Sanvel Rubin[edit]

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

Non notable writer. WP:BEFORE shows evidence of some reviews, but none published through reliable sources. No evidence of substantial, independent coverage. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:14, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:14, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:14, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:14, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:14, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:31, 22 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) 21:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bundeloafe II: The Return of Jaffar (film)[edit]

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

Not a notable film. No reviews at Rottentomatoes and no significant coverage found on Google search. The two independent references are a podcast I can find no information about, and a Columbus-based blog post about a screening of the film. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete reeks of self-promotion. Donaldd23 (talk) 22:21, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A non-notable film that has absolutely no coverage in any reliable source that I have been able to find. As nobody involved with the production is notable, either, there is no valid redirect targets. Rorshacma (talk) 22:33, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Rorshacma. See also WP:NFILM. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable significant coverage is available. SL93 (talk) 19:56, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per above, not enough coverage in reliable sources. Alex-h (talk) 08:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails both WP:NFILM AND WP:GNG. Eternal Shadow Talk 03:38, 25 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. No consensus to delete this. Black Kite (talk) 20:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Coey[edit]

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

The subject does not meet inclusion or notability guidelines. WP:INDISCRIMINATE: "As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." The article makes no claim to anything that would be notable. Meets the lowest bar possible of multiple sources, but still fails the WP:SIGCOV portion of WP:GNG: the sources do not discuss the subject in depth. Same for WP:BASIC. A presumption is not a guarantee of notability and WP:BEFORE shows this is a perfectly ordinary person, certainly intelligent and hard working, but ordinary and not notable. // Timothy :: talk 20:43, 18 August 2020 (UTC) // Timothy :: talk 20:43, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 20:43, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 20:43, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Arguably one of the greatest Irish Railway Engineers, responsible for a large proportion of the locomotives that kept the Irish Railways going. Has the nom. actually read (Chacksfield, 2003) or at least even bothered to look it up ? This is going to be a nom. WP:TROUT. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:55, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would also like to know how the OP verified that the sources do not provide significant coverage. None of the books seem to be available on Google Books or Internet Archive so it seems improbable that they were able to access them all. I would assume that a book titled The Coey/Cowie Brothers would have significant coverage of him; don't know about the others but I'd be inclined to AGF on a historical subject like this. Wikipedia's definition of notability isn't based on our own subjective opinion of a subject's accomplishments but on whether or not they have received coverage in reliable sources. Spicy (talk) 22:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Yes I did look into this. He gets three mentions in Chacksfield, not significant coverage. The other sources give him mentions, not significant coverage. The references reflect this clearly. I also looked into him on Railroad enthusiast sites and he gets some mentions there as well, but he doesn't have the coverage you'd expect of "one of the greatest Irish Railway Engineers". The lack of significant coverage in the sources about his work is reflected in the lack of information about his work in the article. I think if he were "one of the greatest Irish Railway Engineers", you should mention that in the article, along with why he is considered so along with the sources. You actually barely mention any details about his work on locomotives (barely meaning you wrote one sentence), which I think (along with my BEFORE) also reflects the lack of information in sources. You wrote 825 characters about his family and education, but only 184 characters about his work on locomotives. There is more than four times more information about his family and education in the article, than there is about the work your notability claim rests on. His work barely gets mentioned. Why? Because the sources lack significant coverage. // Timothy :: talk 22:23, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "You"? I didn't write the article. If you were able to access the sources online, would you mind linking to them here so that AfD participants can assess them? Thanks, Spicy (talk) 22:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was replying to Djm-leighpark. I started the reply before you posted your own. No I'm not going to post links to pirated copyrighted materials. It should be obvious from the references.

Reply: Also note Robert Coey/Cowie is not mentioned in JSTOR, Taylor Francis, Open Edition, Sage or Project Muse. Although there is a "Robert Cowie" who is an expert on sea mollusks and another who is an expert on Late Medieval and Tudor archeology. This includes journals and magazines such as Railroad History, The Railway and Locomotive Historical Society Bulletin, Irish Historical Studies, The Irish Review and many more about Irish and Railroad history. Finally, the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography does not have a listing for him, but it does have one for "Cowie, Robert Isaac (1842–1874), physician and author". If he is notable, how could he have evaded notice? (fyi, you can access these sources from the Wikipedia Library). From this it appears he is probably not "one of the greatest Irish Railway Engineers", but just a good engineer, hard worker and ordinary person. // Timothy :: talk 22:58, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply specifically to Spicy. Since you strongly believe the sources provide evidence of notability and you've asked me to look at them, I'm assuming you have looked at them. Can you provide us any information from the sources that would back up the claim of notability that I may have missed? I've provided lots of evidence of my research, lets see some of yours. // Timothy :: talk 23:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying... yes, we shouldn't be posting links to pirated stuff. I didn't argue that the sources "provide evidence of notability", which is why I chose to comment instead of voting... just wanted to make sure that sources had been checked as they didn't seem easily accessible through the usual venues and some of the arguments in the nom seemed like they weren't necessarily based on the sources. May look into this more later. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 23:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spicy, sorry for the harshness of my reply, it wasn't intended that way, but it came out that way. I didn't have access to an index (not sure if there is one), so a paper copy might reveal more. // Timothy :: talk 23:22, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I realize my comments may have come off as harsh/ABF too. Spicy (talk) 23:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per consensus:delete: If Wikipedia is going to allow persons careering around with little purpose but to destroy peoples work then this article needs to be deleted .... as perhaps does wikipedia! Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:32, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With recognition of of a week keep below there is some point in putting effort to pull the article from unbalanced stub towards start class as it might not be a wasted effort. Having done this it is also reasonable to move my !vote to Per consensus. People may care to note the state of the article at the point of the nomination was Old revision of Robert Coey. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:58, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Unfortuately the description of the book (Chacksfield,2003) easilyfound at [6] is primary and somewhat puffy and not eligible.Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The TOC of (Chacksfield,2003) seems to proves its a passing mention also:

Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:51, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Djm-leighpark: Since you decided to attack me above ("If Wikipedia is going to allow persons careering around with little purpose but to destroy peoples work" and on your talk page "Unbelievably incompetent nomination in my opinion.", I'll comment. You stated in your first comment to me, "Has the nom. actually read (Chacksfield, 2003) or at least even bothered to look it up?". You also criticized me on your talk page ([7]) for not reviewing the sources before nominating. I replied yes I did check the sources in the follow up reply. However, from your comments above ([8], [9]) you did not actually look up the information. So you created an article based on sources you did not look up. You followed that up by criticizing editors that actually do look up sources and WP:V. This is completely unacceptable. Creating an article without checking and using sources only fills the encyclopedia with WP:OR and junk articles and creates work for editors that actually do WP:V and do take WP:RS and WP:N seriously. You not only wasted my time here but also Spicy's time. All of this gives more than ample reason to question the sources, content, and notability of every article you have created. Hopefully, reviewers looking at your Drafts will give them extra scrutiny. I'll give you a tiny bit of credit for the above comments about your sources, but it's too little too late. Yes, I'm irritated and Yes I have reason to be irritated. Now that I've vented my irritation I am dropping the matter. // Timothy :: talk 16:18, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Closer: Only an admin should close this and also review the above. This should be noted in case Djm-leighpark ever applies for Autopatrol or NPP. Thanks, // Timothy :: talk 16:18, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TimothyBlue lets be very clear you are the one who wasted everyone's time with this AfD. Are you trying to out me? Because if I have to defend further I may need to out. You'er still on the attack.? On your user page open to WP:TROUTing? Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do need to declare I accidently edited the article R. E. L. Maunsell (relatively minor sources but related) as my alternate Bigdelboy (talk · contribs) during this AfD. Coey was effectively Maunsell's Manager and they remained friends until death. If you need me to be banned from NPP and autopatrol that is probably a matter for AfD. You will likely now WP:HOUND me for life. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My final reply to Djm-leighpark re: "You will likely now WP:HOUND me for life." See my comment above: "Now that I've vented my irritation I am dropping the matter." I strongly suggest you drop this matter as well. See Law of holes. // Timothy :: talk 16:51, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this was done after my comment above, but I just saw "Are you trying to out me?" (the indent from the image (note:image now removed) were off so I missed it) I have no idea where you get this idea, but I understand "I may need to out." as a veiled threat to reveal my personal information and this requires admin attention. // Timothy :: talk 17:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ... not the last word. well stop mumbling and file a WP:ANI if thats where you want to go. I will say this AfD is still running however and points possibly remain to be addressed. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:46, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Per your above request: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Implied intent to reveal personal information. I told you I was willing to drop this, but you wouldn't let it go. Reveal my personal info if you wish, its not hard to find me from the info on my userpage, but your implications above are unacceptable. // Timothy :: talk 19:05, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Second Note To Closer: Please review the ANI report about this article, particularly this and this. when reviewing the WP:V of the creator's sources. // Timothy :: talk 09:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Passes WP:BASIC, depending on where we draw the line between "not substantial" and "trivial". If we discount Chacksfield's book (and I'm not convinced that we should discount it), we have several independent references that give brief details of Coey's career, but little information beyond what's normally given in an obituary. If this level of information is considered more than trivial, or if Chacksfield's book is admissible, we should keep the article. Tevildo (talk) 16:04, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Decently sourced and appears to be a notable figure in Irish railway history. No good reason for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:59, 26 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. Tone 21:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elliot Ikilei[edit]

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

Doesn't meet notability requirements of WP:POLITICIAN. Has no chance of ever being elected. -- haminoon (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To be notable, the subject (broadly speaking) needs significant coverage by independent reliable sources. Of the 18 sources cited in the article, 11 are independent of the subject. At least 10 of these are from reliable sources. So it comes down to substantial coverage. Some are certainly not substantial, mentioning Ikilei in passing (or sometimes not at all). Others provide more detailed coverage. The most substantial coverage of Ikilei comes from Spinoff (2019), Stuff (2017), Newshub (2020), and Spinoff (2018).

I am not certain that these sources are substantial, but it is reasonable to argue that they do, and I would welcome discussion on this point.

Finally, your statement that Ikelei "has no chance of ever being elected" isn't relevant. Firstly, possible future events are irrelevant for notability today. Secondly, you cited WP:POLITICIAN which in its criteria doesn't require election to be notable. HenryCrun15 (talk) 21:31, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, HenryCrun15. I agree with your points. Will be happy to search for more independent source such as news media in order to strengthen the article's case for inclusion. Elliot Ikilei has attracted some media coverage from mainstream New Zealand media outlets though not on the same level as politicians from parties represented in Parliament. Will do my best to save the article. Andykatib 21:56, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elliot Ikilei has a chance of winning the Takanini seat. It may be a low chance, but he is well known there as a youth worker for 10+ years. (Sorry for not logging in, I'm an extremely rare editor these days). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.98.125.97 (talk) 10:48, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG as well as WP:Politician. Insufficient coverage to be notable. NealeFamily (talk) 06:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The additions to the article since the AfD nomination bring it clearly over the GNG threshold. Schwede 66 15:40, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep When this article was nominated for deletion, there were already four independent, reliable sources with some levels of coverage. Since then, more such sources have been added, particularly the Times article. I consider these sources provide substantial coverage on the subject and so the subject is notable. HenryCrun15 (talk) 22:14, 24 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Black Crow Records[edit]

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

Non-notable record label. Fails WP:NCORP. None of the existing sources discuss Black Crow Records, merely some of their releases. And they don't seem to have many notable releases at that. Though many of the discogs are blue linked, they aren't actually bluelinked to those albums, they're linked to other things of the same name. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:54, 20 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) 21:07, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PBH Network[edit]

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

The company does not meet WP:GNG, WP:ORGCRIT, or WP:WEBCRIT. A WP:BEFORE search did not find any secondary reliable sources with significant coverage of PBH Network (not the unrelated magnets from The Strand) or its websites. Having a top-50,000 Alexa-ranked website and two popular Tumblr blogs aren't sufficient by any notability guideline. — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable. A a s i m 20:16, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads more like a promotional blurb than an encyclopedia article.TH1980 (talk) 02:29, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG , looks promotional Alex-h (talk) 09:00, 22 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. Tone 21:50, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Badria Essaied[edit]

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

While I cannot read Arabic, I find that there is no notability shown by reliable sources, mainly self published stuff in both searches and refs Naleksuh (talk) 19:16, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:19, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No reliable sources in the references. A a s i m 19:32, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She was a contestant on Star Academy 7 Arabia. Notable sources Rotana Magazine, Sayidaty and others --Jhondidi123 (talk) 19:58, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The "keep" voter above mentioned two Arabic magazines that may or may not be reliable in their own right, but that does not matter because both are already cited in the article and they are short celebrity gossip reports about her wedding, and I suspect that they are based on press releases from her management. Almost all of her media notice, under both the English and Arabic spellings of her name, are repeats of the wedding story. Her music is only present in the usual streaming services and brief listings like Discogs. Otherwise her music has no reliable and significant coverage at all. ~~This article is probably an attempted promotion.~~ (Also note that if you search for the Arabic version of her name, you may end up with results for an Egyptian singer of the same name who died in 1989.) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doomsdayer520: Hello I don't have any personal knowledge of this singer, so this is not a promotion --Jhondidi123 (talk) 17:08, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I retract that particular accusation. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:29, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:35, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:35, 20 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) 21:11, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Duck the Great Western Engine[edit]

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

This character does not appear to be discussed in reliable secondary sources, all of the coverage appears to be in blogs, primary fiction sources, user-generated sites, and sales sites. Not a WP:GNG pass. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:02, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:02, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:02, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:02, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:26, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Topic lacks real world information from reliable sources needed to meet WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 20:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Fancruft. WP:INDISCRIMINATE: "As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." // Timothy :: talk 20:51, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:FANCRUFT that fails WP:V and WP:NFICTION, as well as WP:GNG. I guess it is time to prune the Thomas tTE cruft to reasonable level.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per consensus:(but with a preference to keep if the consensus is in the balance)~~Keep~~: The articles existed for 15 years and get a notability tag for 2 weeks! Per the precedent to some extent of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EBCDIC 389 perhaps may need to go to a mass nomination to get a consistent result across a number of articles. Obviously I'm UK based to Thomas has a higher profile here. The citations of the article content are a nightmare but the book link immediately reveals to me three books where this engine is the primary or co-primary character. And this is the sort of deletion that should wikipedia major donators to consider their funding of wikipedia. I went to have a look at fandom.com to see what it was like and it turned me off (But I am somewhat of a luddite on all this new technology graphicy stuff). Had anybody tried to discuss on the associate project ... allbeit its inactive? ~~Anyybody bothers to notify the trains project as well? (delsorted)~~ Mind you the alerts system is barfed and didnt run fully 18 august 2020. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Djm-leighpark: I'm not sure how any of that really addresses the WP:GNG issue. Age of an article or length of tag placement aren't reasons to not delete, and the fictional works a character appears in are considered to be primary sources that don't establish notability. Personally, I think a bundled nomination like the EBCDIC is a bad idea in this case. There were similar amounts of notability for all of those code articles. However, there's a big difference between Duck the Great Western Engine and Thomas the Tank Engine. Thomas is slam-dunk notable, but a lot of the more minor characters are likely not GNG passes. There's just no good way to bundled nom, as all of these character pages have very different characteristics and some are notable, and others are probably not. Each one needs discussed individually. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:18, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked for any signs of a desire to retain Thomas (TtTE) related articles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animation/Thomas & Friends task force. From that it appears there were some reasonable discussion at [[10]] but there's been no attempt to bring it to the task force page. Takeaways that discussion indicate many former Wikipedia TtTE contributors have switched to

Fandom (Website) at ([[11]]) with no need to take content from here. The discussion also lists concerns linking to the commericial Fandom website from Wikipedia, and I share concerns to some extent. While there might be reasons for retaining this article if it was better sourced, and I have some views for doing that; it isnt likely to be in its current form. On that basis I have changed by !vote. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:32, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- This would be more suited to a dedicated TtTE wiki. Here, it is excessive and badly sourced fancruft. Reyk _YO! 11:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't care how old the article is, if it fails GNG then it should go Spiderone 10:11, 21 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) 21:13, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Thomas & Friends rolling stock[edit]

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

I can find no indication that the topic of rolling stock in Thomas & Friends has ever been discussed as unit in depth in reliable sources, so I see no indication that this article could ever pass WP:LISTN. As this content is unsourced at the time of writing this, a merge is also out of the question. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. See also List of Thomas & Friends railway engines, List of Thomas & Friends narrow-gauge engines, List of Thomas & Friends non-rail vehicles, and List of people and animals from Thomas & Friends. Classic WP:FANCRUFT. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fan wiki content not backed by any reliable sources. TTN (talk) 02:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This page is better suited for a Thomas & Friends fan wiki than here.TH1980 (talk) 03:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoot! Hoot! All aboard! Per the above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:35, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We are still being weighted down by the sins of pre-2010 indiscriminate creation of articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:09, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT. The list is clearly trivial. desmay (talk) 04:59, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is Fancruft. Fails WP:LISTN. Is WP:OR // Timothy :: talk 03:33, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even though Fancruft is an essay, I will invoke it here. WP:LISTN criteria not met. Lightburst (talk) 17:26, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: My heart says no, but head says yes. Completely OR. ❯❯❯ S A H A 07:22, 25 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. Tone 21:50, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Killing Bottle[edit]

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

The following films are also being included in this bundle, because they are also part of the same poorly documented film series, and have also been created, moved to draft space, and re-created:

Kokusai himitsu keisatsu: shirei dai hachigo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Kokusai himitsu keisatsu: Tora no kiba (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Kokusai himitsu keisatsu: Kayaku no taru (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This article has been moved to draft space at least twice and is being repeatedly re-created in article space. This article has no references, and so cannot satisfy film notability, let alone general notability. Google search shows that the 1967 film is listed in IMDB, which probably means that it exists. At this point, Articles for Deletion seems to be either the only way to get rid of this zombie page or the only way to get the film documented. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable; consider coaching creator of article about recreating articles moved to draft space. A a s i m 19:39, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, user is now blocked. Wonder if we can get this speedy closed as "Delete". A a s i m 23:10, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - You presumably mean a snow delete, since this doesn't satisfy any of the criteria for speedy deletion. As nominator, I respectfully disagree with a snow close, and think that this AFD should be allowed to run for seven days. I couldn't find sources in English, but there might be sources in Japanese. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G5. The article represents block evasion by Oliverdrinkstars57 and Special:Contributions/2601:440:C080:36F0:5CCD:B40D:5A45:8CF6. If someone is to write about the topic it should be an editor in good standing. Binksternet (talk) 17:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I respectfully disagree with User:Binksternet as to G5. The author was blocked after creating these articles, and was blocked for persistently creating unsourced content, such as these articles. These articles are the unsourced content that needs deleting. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:24, 23 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. – Joe (talk) 12:31, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James Pipas[edit]

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

non-notable scientist Therapyisgood (talk) 18:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:39, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep miserable failure of a deletion nomination, basically WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE, with no attempt at evaluation by WP:PROF. He clearly passes #C5 (named chair) based only on the text of the article as nominated, and even a cursory search of Google Scholar also shows heavy enough citations to pass #C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:56, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep As noted above, he passes WP:PROF#C1 and C5, and the nomination makes no attempt to argue otherwise. XOR'easter (talk) 19:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Named chair - obvious pass of WP:PROF, nevermind citations, etc. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He holds a named chair at a major university so he clearly meets the academic notability guidelines. There is no reason however to speedy this discussion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:16, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I for one was thinking of speedy under WP:SKCRIT #3. It may yet turn into a WP:SNOW in any case. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nomination does not explain a legitimate reason for deletion, the subject clearly meets NPROF. WP:SNOW would be apt. PainProf (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clear pass of WP:Prof#C1. Nominator should carry out WP:Before before making further nominations. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:41, 24 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) 21:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of NCAA Division I FBS football games (2012)[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. This information is already found on per-team pages, which is a better way to present what here is "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics". power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:29, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:29, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Indiscriminate information. The results are best listed at the team pages, and any games of particular note can be mentioned at the season page. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The list is clearly WP:DISCRIMINATE, but that does not necessarily mean it should be kept. The data is maintained in multiple other pages and a schedule/results of a season of Division I FBS football would clearly meet WP:GNG. I'm just not convinced that we should create a stand-alone page of duplicated data (for example, 2012 Auburn Tigers football et al).--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:10, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think this list article is particularly useful. The subject can be better covered at 2012 NCAA Division I FBS football season and the various conference and team articles for the 2012 season. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 15:05, 22 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 European GNSS Agency. $Salvio$ 20:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GNSS Service Centre[edit]

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

Merge into European GNSS Agency': The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRIT for a stand alone article. The subject lacks multiple independent secondary sources providing significant coverage. Per WP:SIGCOV: ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail". WP:BEFORE revealed nothing that would contribute to demonstrating WP:N. // Timothy :: talk 07:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 07:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 07:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Salvio

18:28, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with European GNSS Agency: Per above A a s i m 20:18, 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 speedy keep. Per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 13:46, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iffat Rahim[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMODEL two links which are mentioned in this Wikipedia is dead, i found no links mentioning of her a very strange shock that how her page get approved. (Not mention in any news except Tribune they are talking about her statement. If this is a criteria of Model to be accepted here on Wikipedia than i am sorry to say every model is notable then. Memon KutianaWala (talk) 18:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep as notable - This has been the outcome of the past two AfD discussions on this article, and there are multiple sources in the page itself. As has been previously stated, she can also be found under the name "Iffat Omar." AviationFreak💬 22:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. This is reckless nomination. --Saqib (talk) 23:07, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep. This is nothing more than a revenge nom. Praxidicae (talk) 23:23, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A person Saqib is making personal attacks on me and one more editor since very long. I am not tagging the pages for deletion which you are calling mass deletion spree, it's you who are adding multiple articles for deletion since long. I am going to raise this issue with others to Wikipedia higher authorities. The pages of mine which are accepted by administrators are now being deleted by you in a revenge and this is not it, you are deleting the pages of public figures because you don't like them. many users have sent a complaints to administrator that you are making personal attacks on them. I request administrators to look into this matter as Mr. Saqib is deleting my pages in revenge that why the hell i have put AFD on wahdat and two other models. Nick Wrenn and Misbah Mumtaz, Bin Swelah and many of my other notable pages were deleted or nominated for deletion by them since 2019 even tho they were notable and had been mentioned in Guardian, BBC, CNN and others. A page of mine Ayesha Chundrigar was also nominated for speedy deletion but i rescued that page somehow and if i tries to speak something he and others have sent me message via Talk page to stop it else you will be ban. Please let me know how to file a formal complaint to Wikipedia Administrators. Mr. Saqib has put deletion tag in revenge to my two articles Nick Wrenn and Bin Swelah today after this debate an article which was accepted by administrators and editors. Kindly check the email logs of mine. Memon KutianaWala (talk) 10:51, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks like enough refs there now. Curdle (talk) 10:52, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:18, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Suburban Fairytale[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 17:54, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 17:54, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not satisfy film notability. In particular does not satisfy future film guidelines. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFP, and WP:CRYSTAL applies. Needs more verifiable sources to warrant an article. Google, JSTOR and ProQuest searches returned no acceptable sources. Z1720 (talk) 18:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet WP:GNG. A a s i m 20:21, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Bruce (filmmaker)[edit]

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

This WP:SOAP WP:PUFFERY of an obscure associate producer and line producer does not seem to establish a WP:BIO notability. This is a WP:FRINGEBLP as she maintains a conspiracy theorist website. Doesn't seem notable for that either, however. jps (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Clearly fails GNG, can't find any substantial coverage. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:24, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried searching for sources in various major newspapers but failed to find any coverage, indicating WP:NBLP is not met. The very first version of the article long ago clearly described her as a conspiracy theorist but also lacked any decent source to back it up. —Paleo Neonate – 21:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 15:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 15:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 15:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Terrible sourcing, and nothing obvious with which to improve that. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per notability criteria. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 10:58, 25 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional locations in Thomas & Friends[edit]

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

Impressively, all 87 footnotes to this article are to the primary source material itself. I'm not finding anything in reliable, secondary sources that treats this is a topic, therefore WP:LISTN does not appear to be met. I'm not seeing a way that this can pass the notability guidelines, at least not in this form. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:05, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:05, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:05, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:05, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A truly impressive piece of WP:FANCRUFT. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I'm sure there must be a Thomas the Tank Engine fan wiki somewhere that this would be prefect for. Here, it's just excessive fancruft. Reyk _YO! 21:32, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a true case of excessive fancruft.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:08, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:13, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - in-universe garbage Spiderone 18:13, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: then call in a drone strike on the article to make sure nothing survived. Total Fancruft // Timothy :: talk 19:10, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT. The list is clearly trivial. desmay (talk) 04:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the reason for deletion is obvious--Cts499m (talk) 20:54, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per LISTCRUFT, FANCRUFT, PRIMARY, NFICTION... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:00, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a rather tedious list of cruft. This is trivial and not encyclopedia worthy Lightburst (talk) 17:24, 24 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Wendt[edit]

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

Being a political candidate is not notable itself. Anyone can run for Congress, but that's not a sign of notability. He needs to win his race to become notable. Fails WP:NPOL as a current primary candidate and does not pass WP:GNG as Wendt is not notable outside of his campaign.:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.Pennsylvania2 (talk) 16:33, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions.Pennsylvania2 (talk) 16:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions Pennsylvania2 (talk) 16:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 August 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2020 United States Senate election in Wyoming.Djflem (talk) 17:10, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No substantial coverage outside of candidacy. Caro7200 (talk) 17:19, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People don't get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they have not won — and the existence of one piece of "man declares candidacy" in his district's local media is not a free pass over WP:GNG that would exempt him from having to pass WP:NPOL in and of itself. To already be eligible for an article today, he would need to demonstrate either that he had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten him an article anyway, or that his coverage was nationalizing to such an extent that he had a credible claim to being much more notable than the norm for candidates, in some way that would pass the ten year test for enduring significance. Obviously no prejudice against recreation after election day if he wins, since his notability claim will have shifted from "candidate" to "officeholder" — but nothing here is already enough today. Bearcat (talk) 19:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Had he won the Democratic primary, I would have supported keeping the article, but now that it has been called for Ben David, Wendt is not even a party nominee, so he is not notable enough to have an article. Jacoby531 (talk) 03:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject did not win the Democratic nomination. Had he won, I would have suggested a redirect. Does not pass WP:NPOL. --Enos733 (talk) 15:09, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be a platform for free distribution of campaign literature.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:51, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, unsuccessful candidate fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. KidAd talk 01:22, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-effective referencing. scope_creep^Talk 18:34, 22 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Luttrell[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSOLDIER. Only claim to notability is receiving the Silver Star once, which is not his nation's highest award for valour. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:38, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:38, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:38, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No coverage in secondary sources as far as I know. This Bing Search shows a bunch of SNS profiles, blogs, and a FANDOM wiki, not any reliable sources that we can use. A a s i m 00:58, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:10, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet SOLDIER. Vici Vidi (talk) 07:21, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:18, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Zhmodikov[edit]

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

Apparent WP:NPROF/WP:NAUTHOR fail. No article in the Russian Wikipedia. He has a single article on JSTOR [12], with 66 cites per Google Scholar. Prod declined in October 2019. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an extremely fringe theorist without the widepsread coverage needed to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:44, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither searching for his Romanized name on Google Scholar nor his name in Cyrillic turned up enough citations to pass WP:PROF#C1, and there seems to be no other claim of notability advanced by the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:56, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DElete -- Not enough publications to be notable. Even if that hurdle was passed, most of it is in Russian, which will be inaccessible to an English reader. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:22, 21 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of creators of billion-dollar animated movie franchises[edit]

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

List uses a set of completely arbitrary criteria: "the original creators of source material for animated movie franchises that have each generated over $1 billion from all revenues after only 1 sequel." Whether Wikipedia needs a list of creators of major movie franchises is debatable, but why only animation? Why $1 billion as the cutoff, and why the limitation of "after only 1 sequel?" BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a completely arbitrary selection of criteria that has no basis in any reliable sources that discuss the concept. The references being used in the article are each about the individual franchises, none of which appear to actually be from reliable sources, that have been WP:SYNTHed together to make this hodgepodge list. As there are no reliable sources that discuss the concept of "creators of source material for animated movie franchises that have each generated over $1 billion from all revenues after only 1 sequel" as a set, it fails WP:LISTN completely. Rorshacma (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Rorshacma. In addition, several of the cited sources don't even establish that the specific individuals mentioned created the franchise, and most of them don't establish that these franchises generated $1 billion or more in revenue. Furthermore, if the point is to rank these franchises by revenue, splitting the list into groups based on whether one person or more than one person created the franchise doesn't help readers. We can see from this article that Shrek outgrossed other franchises created by one person, and Toy Story outgrossed other franchises created by more than one person, but not how Shrek and Toy Story compare to each other. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:25, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Total WP:OR. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Had a look into this earlier, I agree it should be deleted as list cruft. Shashank5988 (talk) 11:48, 20 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. Tone 21:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comité international pour la protection des droits de l'homme[edit]

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

Fake organisation. No reliable source. Be careful with cases of homonymy: the acronym of this organization (CIPDH) is identical to that of other institutions such as the UNESCO International Center for the Promotion of Human Rights (Centre international pour la promotion des droits de l'homme) or the UN International Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Comité international des droits des personnes handicapées). Deniev Dagun (talk) 16:20, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:33, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:33, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: only 23 results on a google search, which does not meet the significant coverage requirement of WP:GNG. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 19:30, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The organisation exists but their website contains false claims such as being an "Association Reconnue d'Utilité Publique", they are not on the list here [13]. It looks like they are surfing on the name of the UNESCO institution. --Dom from Paris (talk) 17:32, 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 keep. Tone 21:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pesenti Family of Painters[edit]

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

An apparent WP:V fail. The lone source (in Italian) has, by my count, one reference to the "famiglia Pesenti". Pesenti (famiglia) exists in itwiki, but it is about 20th century businesspeople, not 16th century artists. This would be an interesting and notable article if it were verifiable, but I don't think it is. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:10, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:10, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:10, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:11, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- The output of each member of the family seems to be small, and none seem to have articles of their own, so that this might serve as a joint biography, but for it to be a useful article redirects from the individual members ought to be created. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:17, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability of Pietro and Vincenzo is confirmed by ULAN [14]. Other family members are more obscure but their existence & works are noted in Grasselli 1827, and a few other sources (e.g., Lamo, Alessandro, et al. 1774, Notizie istoriche de' pittori, scultori, ed architetti cremonesi: opera postuma; and Docci, Mario, Disegnare idee immagini n° 39/2009: Rivista semestrale del Dipartimento di Rappresentazione e Rilievo dell'Università degli studi di Roma La Sapienza) mention the family. Ewulp (talk) 00:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As consensus seems to be to keep (especially given the excellent research by @Ewulp), could closer move this to Pesenti family (painting) or something similar? The capitalization looks wrong to me. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:49, 25 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. Tone 06:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Misbah Mumtaz[edit]

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

Non-notable model/reality show contestant. Fails WP:NMODEL --John B123 (talk) 15:52, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete fails to meet Wikipedia:NACTOR. --Saqib (talk) 19:28, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not allowed to comment here so accept my apology to editors and administrators, i need to mention here that Misbah Mumtaz is a first Pakistani model from Gilgit Baltistan (Hunza Valley) and there is no other model from that state/city as being said by English Newspapers.^[1] ^[2]

Misbah was the runner up and in top 3 finalist of Miss Veet Pakistan 2014 a contest by Miss Pakistan World^[3] she is also mentioned in different newspapers including Pakistani and Americans. in the public interest this page should be rescue as she is a only single model from Gilgit Baltistan. Memon KutianaWala (talk) 10:22, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Model Misbah Mumtaz comes candid about nose job". The Nation. 2019-05-07. Retrieved 2020-08-19.
^ "Misbah Mumtaz opens up about her rhinoplasty". The Express Tribune. 2019-05-07. Retrieved 2020-08-19.
^ Quraishi, Faisal (2014-10-25). "Veet Miss Supermodel 2014 winner crowned". DAWN.COM. Retrieved 2020-08-19.

These 02 news stories about her Rhinoplasty is not enough to satisfy WP:NBIO. She must receive significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. And being runner up in a non-notable event like Miss Veet Pakistan does not make a difference either.--Saqib (talk) 11:45, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also a note that being a runner up doesn't mean someone is notable. Winning the actual Miss Pakistan World, perhaps would but not a contest that is dime a dozen from yet another pageant. Praxidicae (talk) 12:27, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we do not have enough and broad enough reliable source coverage to show actual notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:48, 21 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 delete. Delete requested by author per WP:G7. (non-admin closure) _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Champion (League of Legends)[edit]

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

Unnecessary spin-off from main article League of Legends, about in-game characters called 'Champions'. Huge overlap with the main article, without any relevant stand-alone coverage. Most of the references are just run-of-the-mill WP:CHURNALISM. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 15:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, note that pretty much the same article was deleted over five years ago (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of League of Legends champions (2nd nomination)) and there actually was a deletion review about that last month (see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 July 17). List of League of Legends champions has been WP:SALTED, but it's clear consensus hasn't changed. Isn't this a form of WP:SALT evasion? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 17:19, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was actually close to nominating this for deletion myself, but looks like Soetermans beat me to it. Anyway, this article greatly suffers from a lack of any significant coverage provided by reliable sources. Most of it is just fluff made to pad out the article, and some sources (like Mashable and "www.gameskinny.com") seem very dubious and don't come off as reliable. There is no way this is notable. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 15:55, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Player character covers this in a more vague sense, and actually makes sense as a separate article, but this is overspecific and only applies to a single game, making it something more fitting for Wikia/FANDOM. It is essentially gamecruft and we must also consider the substance of the article rather than whether there are just sources that mention Champions._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:13, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete: lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources to write anything that isn't already covered in the main article. As is, the section about champions in the main article is heavily unsourced, or sourced to primary sources. And it's fine to have an under sourced section in an otherwise notable article, because that's where the editing process is supposed to step in with sources and/or removal. But all we're doing here is turning an under sourced section into an under sourced article, at which point you're just creating something that cannot meet the WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:27, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A DRV related to the similar-but-differently-formatted List of League of Legends champions discussed this draft as essentially a reframing of the same topic. The DRV was ultimately endorsed. The draft was declined twice at AFC before being accepted by another reviewer with no further changes against the consensus expressed in the DRV and on the talk page of the then-draft. Otherwise, agree with the nom and Shooterwalker's rationale. -- ferret (talk) 17:05, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This page has no better justification for remaining than any of the other attempts made over the years to include content that is non-notable and/or is already covered in the League of Legends page. I am particularly unimpressed with the fact that shortly after the draft was rejected, it was still pushed into the main space. DÅRTHBØTTØ_(T•C) 17:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify I don't know who made the move into article space, but as the person primary working on the article I oppose it being moved into main space at this time. Honestly I didn't think it would be mainspaced given that it was rejected at AFC. Hopefully admin closing this with do this for me.--Prisencolin (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Could we possibly get a consensus to speedy revert back to draft space so I don't have to go the procedure to ask for this to go back to draft space in a week?--Prisencolin (talk) 17:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is clear that this cannot and will not be notable, so I do not see the purpose of draftification. It will just get rejected again and again. You are perfectly free to edit the League of Legends#Champions to incorporate any reliable sources._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:57, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the past venue shopping by the article creator in regards to this article, it's List sibling and other League of Legend sub-topics, I am opposed to a speedy close or a revert to draft. This needs a clear statement and close on notability. If the topic isn't notable, there's no reason to keep saving these drafts until the next time Prisencolin tries to get them into mainspace and we repeat this. We've spent enough time on this. Half of this began because after the close of the last AFD, he was allowed to keep a draft of the article under specific conditions that he subsequently violated. If this is taken to DRV or REFUND after closing and asked to be draftified, I'll oppose that too. -- ferret (talk) 19:13, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to be clear this time it was @Hobit:, not myself, who mainspace this article this time.--Prisencolin (talk) 19:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Either way, per WP:ARTN, notability is a property of a subject, no amount of improvements will make a non-notable topic notable. Therefore it is pointless to continue attempting to WP:SPLIT this._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:21, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is no such rule that an article, given that it meets sitewide rules for content, cannot at least exist in draft space just because it doesn't meet notability standards at the moment, unless decided decided upon by ARBCON or some other body. Furthermore the popularity of both the game and media franchise surrounding the character is projected to increase over time.--Prisencolin (talk) 05:28, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did move it to mainspace. It certainly seems to meet the GNG, I apologize to Prisencolin as apparently that wasn't their desire. Hobit (talk) 01:05, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hobit: Well I did tell you I wasn't going to be actively working on the draft much anymore and you didn't fix any of the problems you brought up yourself...--Prisencolin (talk) 05:28, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources seem well over the bar. Let's take the best three:
- PC Gamer This is an article in a reliable source entirely about the design process of a Champion in League of Legends.
- Engadget This is an article in a reliable source about Champions in League of Legends and the future plans for new ones.
- [15] A paper published in ICIT that analyzes usage of Champions in play.

In addition there are tons of articles on Champions:

- Polygon This is an article in a reliable source about the design of a single champion.
- PC Gamer2 This is another article about a single Champion.
- Eurogamer is about a lawsuit involving the likeness of a Champion. Also in a reliable source.
- The Verge is an article in a reliable source solely about how Champions from LoL are being used in other media.
- Vogue is an article about how Louis Vuitton has done clothing designs for a Champion.

All told, this article is better sourced than the vast majority of our articles. It easily meets the GNG. Yes, I know Wikipedia folks tend to frown on "popular culture", especially geek popular culture as it tends to be over-represented here. But this easily meets our inclusion guidelines with sources not only in gamer culture spots like you would expect, but mainstream media and even an academic paper. Hobit (talk) 01:05, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have here articles about individual Champions, but not about the concept of a Champion, which results in WP:SYNTH. So, excluding those, the PCGamer and Engadget ones are interview, and therefore WP:PRIMARY. They are not WP:SECONDARY coverage required to establish notability._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking at the sources. Sorry I pinged you below, I'd missed this. The acadmic paper is surely a secondary source. And yes there are other sources like [16] which appears to have an entire section on Champions. Hobit (talk) 03:09, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per all the previous discussions on its lack of notability, and WP:TROUT the person who felt it was a good idea to move it into the mainspace anyways. Sergecross73 msg me 01:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Sergecross73: Could you address the sources? It may not have been notable at one time, but I think the sources above show it is now. Do you have any issues with those as counting toward WP:GNG? Also pinging @Soetermans: @Zxcvbnm:@Ferret:@Shooterwalker:@DarthBotto:. It would be great if you all could address WP:GNG and the sources listed above. They all appear to be reliable, independent, and in-depth coverage of the topic. Do you disagree with that? Hobit (talk) 03:02, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Interviews are not significant coverage, since the information comes from the developers themselves (making them primary). The other sources provided don't offer much outside of mentions or specific characters instead of the champion itself, so that also adds to this subject's lack of notability. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 03:13, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Certainly; they might be good sources for the Development section on the League of Legends page. DÅRTHBØTTØ_(T•C) 03:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Can we agree the academic paper is an independent secondary source? Hobit (talk) 04:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hobit: I tagged this for WP:G7 speedy deletion since I'm the main contributor to this article. Would you be okay with this happening, seeing as you're the only other editor who has made any substantial edits?--Prisencolin (talk) 05:54, 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. Tone 06:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Losliya[edit]

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

The page Losliya Mariyanesan has been deleted twice. She has no notability other than participating in Big Boss. This page should be created after her films are released. TamilMirchi (talk) 14:55, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 14:55, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 14:55, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 14:55, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - not saying that this page should stay - but just an enquiry how this logic differs from some articles you have recently created such as Abarnathi (0 films), Tiger Garden Thangadurai and KPY Kuraishi (minor roles in films) . If anything, Bigg Boss has way greater viewership and media coverage than any of those. Neutral Fan (talk) 20:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails the requirements of WP:NACTOR - as stated in the two previous AfDs (refer Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Losliya Mariyanesan (2nd nomination) for previous discussion) simply being a contestant in Big Boss Tamil does not establish notability. Dan arndt (talk) 01:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:46, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable plus this page is probably a CSD candidate looking at the past discussions. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 02:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and possibly Salt, deleted through Afd previously and declined multiple times at Afc within a few hours (by me as well). Bingobro (Chat) 10:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment This is not a candidate for CSD under G4, as this version differs considerably from the previously deleted version. Should this AfD conclude as "delete", I would recommend an ample dose of salt. --Randykitty (talk) 16:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Losliya is acting in a Film friendship, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendship_(2020_film) She is the only female leading actress in that movie. The movie will be released in 4 languages. Recently, movie crew have released first look, teaser & a single from the movie. Please reconsider deleting the page, because of the popularity of the movie and actress Losliya. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suban03 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt - clear GNG failure Spiderone 20:31, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt: Notability is measured by significant coverage in reliable sources. This hasn't been met, however hotly the fervor of fanboys burns. If there are similar articles with even more meager coverage out there, feel free to file AfDs on them. Ravenswing 05:33, 26 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. Tone 21:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard Casley[edit]

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

Merged into Principality of Hutt River; he is not otherwise notable. Errantius (talk) 14:39, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 05:03, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 05:03, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (disclaimer: I am the page creator). it passes WP:ANYBIO. However, it can be merged/redirected to the Principality of Hutt River since the subject has received significant media coverage in RS. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 05:14, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per the nomination. WWGB (talk) 06:15, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As noted above, he certainly does pass WP:ANYBIO and also sails over WP:GNG, hence a stand-alone article is warranted. (It would not be, if it needs saying, for anyone else in the "royal" family.) I mean, he has a UK Times obituary - that's not something you see for non-notable Australians. Frickeg (talk) 06:56, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obituary in a major national newspaper = notability. This is a longstanding convention. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For some reason the Australian media has long been fascinated by this guy and his fellow cranks in the self-declared Principality of Hutt River, so WP:BIO is easily met. Nick-D (talk) 08:59, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in response. To those who are favouring Keep: What need can there be for a personal article on somebody whose sole notability is for a single activity that already has its own article, to which searches (I expect) are most likely to be going and to which his name would be redirected? Having an obituary in a major newspaper is a fine thing: like the obituary, a personal article would normally contain information on life and work that would not be found elsewhere. In this case, however, there seems no reason for Leonard Casley to contain anything that is not or could not be in Principality of Hutt River. The personal article seems to be needless duplication. Errantius (talk) 12:31, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Frickeg, Necrothesp and Nick-D. Deus et lex (talk) 23:52, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's independently notable based upon the obituaries in major newspapers. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:45, 25 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. Tone 21:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Amazing Feats of Young Hercules[edit]

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

Non notable short film with no independent sources found during search. Tagged since January for notability. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:35, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:35, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:35, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:35, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I did some digging, but I can't find any reviews for this thing. I'd say it's not notable as per nom. EverybodyEdits (talk) 02:19, 20 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 2021 Virginia lieutenant gubernatorial election. Redirecting now to preserve history for a merge. Tone 16:39, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Perryman[edit]

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

Does not meet NPOL. There is some coverage of his potential run (in the 2021 Virginia lieutenant gubernatorial election, a year and a few months away with primaries still to be held), but little of depth outside of this election. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 13:24, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unelected candidates for lieutenant governor are not notable. The election is not until November 2021, before that he will not be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:16, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perhaps the politician angle is not the right standard. General notability means a reasonable number of mentions for their achievements in secondary sources. The subject seems to meet that standard.

As a note on standards, I just came out of an AfD discussion about a woman, where the standard of what counted as notability was raised over and over---one person said she isn't notable until her book is nominated for a Nobel or comparable prize! The standard for earning a line in Wikipedia's database of six million entries is that the person is of enough public interest and has done enough to be reported on in a number of reliable secondary sources, and I really hope that the standard for this individual doesn't arbitrarily get raised beyond the norm. B k (talk) 17:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People do not get articles just for declaring themselves as candidates in future elections per se — but since every candidate in every election can always show some evidence of campaign coverage in their local area, the existence of such coverage does not automatically hand candidates a "GNG"-based exemption from having to pass NPOL, because they every candidate would always get that exemption and NPOL itself would be inherently meaningless. So for media coverage to rise to the level of exempting a candidate from NPOL, it's not enough that it exists: rather, it has to demonstrate that either (a) he already had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten him into Wikipedia before he was ever a candidate for anything, or (b) it demonstrates a credible reason why his candidacy could be considered much more special than everybody else's candidacies, in such a way that even if he loses the election in the end his candidacy itself would still pass the ten year test for enduring significance anyway. Nothing here passes either of those tests. Bearcat (talk) 18:31, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that because the subject is running for office, he has to meet GNG _and_ NPOL? That seems odd to me. If we remove the last line about how the subject is running for office, the article still covers his career as Counsel in the House Oversight Committee, Director of a division of the Internet Association, and other points unrelated to candidacy but notable enough to be discussed in reliable sources. Even if he loses the election, we can expect that he won't leave the public spotlight for the next ten years. And one more time: the norm on Wikipedia is to rely on secondary sources to advise GNG, and make an effort to not rely on arguments listed in WP:PPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B k (talk • contribs) 18:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that because every candidate in every election always receives campaign coverage, and thus every candidate in every election can always claim to have passed GNG and thus be exempted from having to pass NPOL, the existence of campaign coverage is not in and of itself the test of whether the candidate has gotten over GNG in the first place — because if it were, then NPOL itself would be inherently meaningless, because nobody would ever have to pass it at all anymore. GNG does not just count the number of footnotes and keep anybody who has surpassed an arbitrary number — it also tests the sources for their depth, their geographic range, their timeframe and the context of what they're covering the person for.

For example, you say that the article discusses his career as counsel in the House Oversight Committee, and director of a division of the Internet Association — but (a) those aren't inherently notability-clinching roles that guarantee a person an article just for holding them, (b) his career as counsel in the House Oversight Committee is not referenced to sources which demonstrate that he was getting substantive coverage in that role while he was holding it, but to a brief mention of it as career background in coverage of the candidacy, and (c) his job as director of a division of the Internet Association is sourced to a single brief blurb of the "person gets job" variety, which is not in and of itself enough coverage to make him notable for that.

If you can't show ongoing coverage of his work in a job, then the fact that you can show one brief blurb about his initial hiring for it is not a notability clincher all by itself — and if you have to depend on mentions of his prior work as background information in coverage of the candidacy, then you haven't demonstrated that his prior work got him over the "preexisting notability" bar if you can't show that he was already getting notability-making media coverage in that job at the time.

And none of this is my personal opinion, either: it's the established consensus around how political notability works. Politics is one of those fields where people are very highly prone to attempting to misuse Wikipedia as an advertorial PR platform for campaign brochures — so our rules around political notability are very strict because they have to be. And one of those rules is that the existence of campaign coverage is not in and of itself enough to exempt a person from having to pass NPOL on the grounds that he technically has enough press coverage to claim that he passes GNG instead — every single candidate could always make the exact same claim, but we do not indiscriminately accept every candidate as notable enough. So the test for getting a candidate over GNG on campaign coverage alone is not "campaign coverage exists", but "the campaign coverage demonstrates a reason why he's much more special than every other candidate". Bearcat (talk) 15:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. The article contains more than a dozen sources - including ones from universities and nonprofits - explaining why he is an expert on tech policy and specifically AI/ML bias issues. Per most recent edit, the article now contains 23 separate sources. If his NAACP advocacy doesn't rise to the notability threshold, his speaking and advocacy as a part of Internet Association definitely does. Recommend keep. Lalalalllla7 (talk) 13:58, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources "from universities and non-profits" don't assist in building or supporting notability. Real journalism from real media is the only kind of sourcing that does that. Bearcat (talk) 03:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY and WP:GNG. Agree he fails WP:NPOL, but meets GNG. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Accomplished, not yet notable. Caro7200 (talk) 16:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Very, very weak Keep~~ Largely this discussion shows the limitation of GNG and NPOL as guidance for article creation. It is very likely that the page was created because the subject announced their candidacy for Lieutenant Governor of Virginia. As a candidate, the subject does not meet the community expectations of passing WP:NPOL. But, the original article only mentions the candidacy in passing and focuses on the subject's life and career. What we have is numerous sources that suggest the individual has done a number of interesting things that get press coverage, even if those occurrences may not meet the community's notability standards on their own. So, while my inclination is to say "delete" interesting individual and move on, I do think there does becomes a point where an individual does become interesting enough as a spokesperson that a global audience would start caring about a subject. --Enos733 (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For the most part we have passing mentions (student award), routine PR announcements from employer, and coverage that arises from Perryman's candidacy (which exist for any candidate and to a large extent is feeding self-promotion to the press). If we limit sourcing to pre-2019, before becoming a candidate, it is obvious Perryman is not notable.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 06:39, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Striking vote, leaving rational. Many of the sources are underwhelming even as there is coverage from many parts of the subject's career, especially some of the subject's work with the Fairfax County NAACP (and very recent coverage of his challenges to the racial demographics of the faculty in Fairfax County schools). So, to me, the appropriate standard is, or will soon be, WP:GNG as the subject's work with the NAACP appears unrelated to the subject's Lieutenant Governor run. --Enos733 (talk) 15:23, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not (yet) notable. Perhaps recreate after the election. Stifle (talk) 15:44, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2021 Virginia lieutenant gubernatorial election. In general we need to recognize that Wikipedia exists in the real world. So while Perryman is not notable on his own, we are well served by having some information, say two or three sentences, present in an article given the coverage that does exist and I don't think Wikipedia should be giving incumbents an advantage (not in play here but generally speaking). More prose on the 2021 LG election page would not, in my mind, be a bad thing. If closed this way I will do the work for all the candidates listed (so we're not giving Perryman UNDUE coverage) if someone pings me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:33, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2021 Virginia lieutenant gubernatorial election: very selectively, per Barkeep49. I don't see independent notability here, but it's a plausible search target and he's notable in the context of the election, (a mention at that article is merited). Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:02, 30 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. Stifle (talk) 15:44, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Konstantinos Konstantinidis[edit]

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

~~Not notable Laz (talk) 09:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Laz (talk) 09:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Laz (talk) 09:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Laz (talk) 09:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any sources. Maybe some Greek articles exist? I don't know. Open to change my vote. ~Styyx ^{Hi! ^-^} 13:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sourcing is so lacking, that we cannot even be sure how to categorize him. He seems likely to actual belong in ethnic Greek and Ottoman categories, he seems to have been an Asia Minor based merchant and was not part of the then existing Greek nation. However with so little sourcing we should just delete this article unless we can find sourcing that shows he was actually truly impactful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He was a notable man from Pontos who worked for the independence of his homeland. This is an entry on him at Prandektis, the "Modern Greek Visual Prosopography" database of the Institute for Neohellenic Research of the National Hellenic Research Foundation. Ιn this article written by Professor Emeritus of Modern History at the University of Western Macedonia in Greece Kostas Fotiadis, that first appeared in 1996 at a special edition by the Greek daily Kathimerini on Πόντος, 30 αιώνες Ελληνισμού, there is extensive coverage of Konstantinidis activities. This is a biography of him at the Pontos News Portal, a reproduction from the Encyclopedia of Pontian Hellenism (in Greek, Athens, 2009). And there is much more … . Of course, the article has to be expanded and references have to be added. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 15:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - on the basis of the Greek-language sources indicated by User:Chalk (now added), with the possibility of more, it's clear that there's enough to support notability. (Even a brief WP:BEFORE on the name in Greek would have shown that these exist). Ingratis (talk) 16:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:02, 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. $Salvio$ 09:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of phase III cancer clinical trials, 2015[edit]

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

group with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of phase III cancer clinical trials, 2016 Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:43, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per comments in the main discussion Spiderone 17:59, 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. $Salvio$ 09:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of phase III cancer clinical trials 2014[edit]

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

group with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of phase III cancer clinical trials, 2016 Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:43, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per comments in the main discussion Spiderone 17:59, 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. $Salvio$ 09:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of phase III cancer clinical trials, 2017[edit]

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

group with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of phase III cancer clinical trials, 2016 Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:43, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per comments in the main discussion Spiderone 17:59, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recovery (2016 film)[edit]

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

Article about a documentary film, not properly sourced as clearing WP:NFILM. The only notability claim being attempted here is that it won an award at a minor film festival whose existence I'm completely unable to verify — I can find absolutely no Google hits for it whatsoever aside from this filmmaker's own résumé, suggesting that it may possibly be one of those fake "film festivals" that don't really screen films for the public, but just hand out "awards" for PR purposes. Five of the nine footnotes here are primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as IMDb and the filmmaker's self-published PR — and of the four footnotes that are real media, three are local human interest coverage about the person profiled in the film, thus not speaking to the notability of the film as it's more about the person than the film, and the only one that's substantively about the film in its own right is a weekly community hyperlocal in the same city, thus not enough coverage to singlehandedly get this film over WP:GNG all by itself as the only reliable source about the film in play. Nothing here is sufficient to make this film notable enough for inclusion. Bearcat (talk) 14:39, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:39, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:39, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom's extensive explanation. I couldn't find anything either. Ravenswing 13:32, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 13:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Found nothing to suggest a clear of WP:NFILM on a search of Google, GBooks, Newspapers.com, library.syr.edu, and proquest. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:24, 26 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. Tone 21:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Eskenazi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:FILMMAKER. The subject has received basically zero coverage outside of occasional non-significant mentions related to her defunct film company whose work itself hardly seems the it would allow her to pass WP:FILMMAKER W 42 13:20, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:32, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:FILMMAKER. I searched Google, JSTOR and ProQuest but only found passing mentions to being a producer for films. Not enough significant coverage for an article. Z1720 (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 15:37, 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. Tone 07:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Merridew (YouTuber)[edit]

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

small time youtuber with no meaningful in depth coverage. Huffpo piece is a contributor piece, not from their editorial staff, the rest are questionable in terms of reliability/interviews or puff pieces and the ithacan isn't exactly a large publication that would establish notability. Praxidicae (talk) 13:14, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:32, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:32, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability. Some sources, but generally not RS. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:20, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not seem to meet WP:GNG either. Eternal Shadow Talk 22:57, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Simply put, meets neither the GNG nor any other notability criteria. Ravenswing 05:22, 26 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. Tone 07:03, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

George Gage (16th-century landowner)[edit]

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

No nontrivial coverage in secondary sources. —Kodiologist (t) 13:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:32, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:32, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:NOTGENEALOGY. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:10, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NOTMEMORIAL, to add one to the list. @Kodiologist:, you might also want to take a look at Henry Gage (16th-century landowner), Margaret de Bereford, Lawrence Sanderson, Sir Thomas Boyville, Richard Boyville, John Sanderson (17th-century landowner), and heck, the article creator's new page creations generally: he made a whole bunch of these. Ravenswing 05:28, 26 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. Tone 21:55, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Weebl and Bob cartoons[edit]

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

Excessive, unsourced trivia about a borderline-notable web series. It's been correctly tagged as unsourced original research for over a decade. There's nothing that can be merged since none of it is referenced. Reyk _YO! 12:51, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:57, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:57, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lists of names and dates provide little context to the general reader. This is not a television series. It's just a bunch of nonsensical internet shorts. Adding summaries would be pointless given the subject matter, so there's no information actually worth cataloging. This is information for a fan wiki at best. Here, it's just a list for the sake of having a list. TTN (talk) 20:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. EverybodyEdits (talk) 03:46, 20 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. – Joe (talk) 17:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dan McGirt[edit]

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

NN author, fails the GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Searches turn up sellers like Amazon, Goodreads and various social media sites, but no evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources and none presented in the article. The front page of his website for his flagship "non-trilogy" (his words, and which article I'm likewise nominating) has a comment section where exactly three readers have chimed in, not a sterling sign of being noticed. Notability tagged for over ten years.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 12:51, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and speedy close. ISFDB shows multiple reviews of the author's commercially published print novels, and genre book review indices show even more; reviews can be found in outlets like Asimov's Science Fiction, Publishers Weekly, Locus, and Science Fiction Chronicle. Worldcat search also shows some library holdings for the original print editions, which for three-decades-old paperbacks indicates much more extensive original holdings. Whether the two articles should be merged is a reasonable question, but calls for a standard merge discussion rather than AFD. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 20:21, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:11, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:06, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:NAUTHOR, works have received multiple reviews, ie. Jason Cosmo, in addition to the reviews mentioned by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz above (Locus, Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine,, Publishers Weekly, Science Fiction Chronicle), there are reviews in Science Fiction: A Review of Speculative Literature (here), Paperback Inferno (here), Yellow Submarine (here), Emergency Librarian (here), Lan's Lantern (here), Kliatt Young Adult Paperback Book Guide (here), Royal Chaos: reviews by Locus here, Paperback Inferno here, no probs with merging Jason Cosmo, although with 10 reviews, as listed above, there could easily be an article on the novel Jason Cosmo rather than the character. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Jason Cosmo, no opinion on the author himself at this point. Bundled nominations are rarely a good idea... PS. Jason Cosmo the novel may be notable, Jason Cosmo the fictional character is not. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:25, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NAUTHOR#3 Wm335td (talk) 02:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable author. Agree that bundled nominations are complicated and we can talk about the fiction separately. Archrogue (talk) 18:12, 23 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stan Medalie[edit]

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

NN businessman, fails the GNG and WP:BIO. The references in the article only namedrop him, and news/newspaper searches turn up zeros. A more general search turns up casual mentions and namedrops, but no significant coverage in reliable sources. Notability tagged for over ten years. Created by an SPA with no other Wikipedia edits, and unimproved in all that time. Ravenswing 12:39, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 12:39, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 12:39, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom; also performed a WP:BEFORE which didn't demonstrate notability. Hmanburg (talk) 13:28, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Also agree with the nom and the page itself is written like an advert under WP:PROMOTION which means it fails WP:GNG. CreativeNorth (talk) 14:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Article reads like a résumé/advert. And not notable. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 11:26, 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. Tone 21:55, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lycée Français de Luanda[edit]

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

The article is an extreme stub that only cites a single primary source and I wasn't able to find anything that would satisfy the notability the guidelines in a BEFORE about it. Plus, Wikipedia isn't a directory. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:29, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:43, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:43, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not supposed to be a lightly annotated directory of websites, which is what we become when we source articles only to their own website.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:30, 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 keep. Best arguments are from Cunard and AquaDTRS Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agoda[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Half of this is a series of press releases, which is not encyclopedic material. The second half is a collection of consumer complaints, which are also not encyclopedic material. DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Goh, Kenneth; Bhattacharya, Lipika; Allen, Peter (2017-05-10). "Agoda: Perpetual Disruption and Post-Acquisition Challenges". Harvard Business Publishing. Archived from the original on 2020-08-03. Retrieved 2020-08-03.
This is a 12-page case study.
McCormick, Eli (2018-03-08). "Agoda.com Review". TopTenReviews. Archived from the original on 2020-08-03. Retrieved 2020-08-03.
Jan, Yu-Ying; Wang, Tzu-Hsun (2017-03-01). "Online Hotel Booking Service Quality, Satisfaction and Customer Loyalty: A Case Study Using Agoda". 運動休閒管理學報. 14 (1). 台灣生態休閒產業管理學會: 45–66. doi:10.6214/JSRM.1401.004. Retrieved 2020-08-03.
Muangon, Ananchai; Thammaboosadee, Sotarat; Haruechaiyasak, Choochart (2014). "A Lexiconizing Framework of Feature-based Opinion Mining in Tourism Industry". 2014 Fourth International Conference on Digital Information and Communication Technology and its Applications (DICTAP). Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. doi:10.1109/DICTAP.2014.6821677. ISBN 978-1-4799-3724-0. Retrieved 2020-08-03.
Kaveevivitchai, Nithi (2013-08-05). "Boom at the inn. From humble beginnings in Phuket, Robert Rosenstein has helped transform Agoda.com into one of the world's biggest hotel booking platforms". Bangkok Post. Archived from the original on 2020-08-03. Retrieved 2020-08-03.
Huang, Elaine (2013-09-18). "3 challenges and opportunities online hotel booking sites face". Singapore Business Review. Archived from the original on 2020-08-03. Retrieved 2020-08-03.
Razati, G.; Irawati, A.; Dirgantari, P.D. (2020). "Effect of online servicescape on behavioural intention online reservation hotel services". In Hurriyati, Ratih; Tjahjono, Benny; Yamamoto, Ikuro; Rahayu, Agus; Abdullah, Ade Gafar; Danuwijaya, Ari Arifin (eds.). Advances in Business, Management and Entrepreneurship. Boca Raton: CRC Press. pp. 175–178. ISBN 978-0-367-27176-3. Retrieved 2020-08-03.
Chou, Christine (2015-10-19). "Taipei fines Agoda.com over US$ 626,100 for breaches". The Jakarta Post. Archived from the original on 2020-08-03. Retrieved 2020-08-03.
Yoon, Ja-young (2018-04-27). "Agoda ordered to revise unfair refund policies". The Korea Times. Archived from the original on 2020-08-03. Retrieved 2020-08-03.
Morrison, Scott (2010-03-24). "Priceline Shifts Model in Asia". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2020-08-03. Retrieved 2020-08-03.

Sources with quotes

Goh, Kenneth; Bhattacharya, Lipika; Allen, Peter (2017-05-10). "Agoda: Perpetual Disruption and Post-Acquisition Challenges". Harvard Business Publishing. Archived from the original on 2020-08-03. Retrieved 2020-08-03.
This is a 12-page case study. The abstract notes:
Rob Rosenstein, the co-founder of Agoda.com, had a difficult task ahead of him. Agoda had been acquired by a global online travel giant - the Priceline group in 2007. The terms of the acquisition were based on a three year earn-out period following which Priceline would pay Agoda the bulk of the acquisition pay-out. However, by 2008, Agoda was in dire need to improve its revenue figures, and the Priceline Group's board was pessimistic of Agoda's chances of hitting its earn-out targets. The general assumption was that the Asia based start-up's assets would be gobbled up and integrated into the group as part of its much larger and profitable western brand. Rosenstein, however, believed in the strengths of his company - a venture he had co-founded with Michael Kenny in 2005 in Singapore. Agoda.com was one of the first online travel platforms in Asia to build its business globally and attract travellers from all parts of the world. By the late 2000's however, Agoda had lost its dominance in Asia, with the emergence of global players in the market and rising competition from Chinese online travel agencies (OTA's). Other challenges like technology disruption, a fragmented and diversified Asian market, unstable political environment in Thailand (Agoda's largest office was in Bangkok at the time) and difficulty in attracting the right talent, obstructed its growth path as well. In December 2009, heightened concerns over the future of Agoda prompted Rosenstein to sit with his team and formulate a strategy to enable Agoda to hit its earn-out targets within the stipulated three year period ending in 2010. How could Agoda grow its business and revenue? How could it improve on its marketing strategy, further build its supply and attract more consumers to make bookings on its website? How could Rosenstein make the acquisition work?
McCormick, Eli (2018-03-08). "Agoda.com Review". TopTenReviews. Archived from the original on 2020-08-03. Retrieved 2020-08-03.
The review notes:
Agoda is a hotel booking service owned by Booking Holdings, which also owns Booking.com and Priceline.com. If you’re strictly looking for hotels, this is one of the best services. It has good search features and offers secret deals with heavy discounts.
Like most of the booking services, Agoda lets you sort search results to find the lowest price or the most highly rated hotels for your target dates. You can also look at the secret deals that Agoda selects for you. These are highly discounted rates, sometimes as high as 4 percent, at hotels that remain anonymous until you book a stay. If you’re looking for the best deal, this is a good place to start.
You can filter your results, so only hotels that fall within a certain price range or have certain amenities are displayed within the results. This is also where you can remove certain types of accommodations, so if you’re not interested in hotels or resorts, you can exclude them from the search. Agoda includes hostels and apartments in its results. If you’re traveling by yourself, a hostel is usually cheaper than a motel if you don’t mind sharing rooms with fellow travelers.
Jan, Yu-Ying; Wang, Tzu-Hsun (2017-03-01). "Online Hotel Booking Service Quality, Satisfaction and Customer Loyalty: A Case Study Using Agoda". 運動休閒管理學報. 14 (1). 台灣生態休閒產業管理學會: 45–66. doi:10.6214/JSRM.1401.004. Retrieved 2020-08-03.
The abstract notes:
This study explored key considerations of travelers when using the online booking website, Agoda, and examined whether consumer background affect their perception of online booking site quality, satisfaction and loyalty.
Muangon, Ananchai; Thammaboosadee, Sotarat; Haruechaiyasak, Choochart (2014). "A Lexiconizing Framework of Feature-based Opinion Mining in Tourism Industry". 2014 Fourth International Conference on Digital Information and Communication Technology and its Applications (DICTAP). Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. doi:10.1109/DICTAP.2014.6821677. ISBN 978-1-4799-3724-0. Retrieved 2020-08-03.
The article notes:
Latterly, the web Agoda has been the most popular hotel agency because it stores and presents a scoring, rating and opining of previous travellers. Typically, when a customer needs to choose a hotel, they will find the general published opinions according to the products and service of their interested. For this reason, Agoda conducts to the research and surveys. Agoda is important the growth in economic and social of Thailand, especially by the explosive growth of the generated opinions the web users. Normally, Agoda separates users into two types: travellers and hotels. Firstly, a traveller reviews the efficiency of hotels by reading the opinion of the previous travellers and reserves the chosen hotel via Agoda directly. Secondly, a hotel achieves benefit from score and opinion. Thus, Agoda has no necessary to conduct surveys, to organize focused group, or to employ external consultants in order to find consumer opinions or sentiments about its products and those of its competitors. Consequently, an automatic system which can extract and retrieve the opinion related to their interest might be essential.
...
Agoda is an online hotel reservation and booking website that popular in current. The Agoda supports 37 languages that widely used in the world. Moreover, it collects more than 250,000 hotels around the 37,000 cities worldwide to be significant information for customers booking. Agoda website welcome to keep a customer feedback that review affiliated hotels.
The Agoda achieves customer opinions when they finish their trip. Generally a customer opinion will accord to Location, Cleanness, Service, Staff performance, Food and Comfort. The hotel scores are calculated from rating of customer that review according to the hotel. The top-rank hotel in 2017 of Agoda website achieved from the summation of the whole customer rating on a particular hotel divided the number of reviews that get the hotel ranking.
Kaveevivitchai, Nithi (2013-08-05). "Boom at the inn. From humble beginnings in Phuket, Robert Rosenstein has helped transform Agoda.com into one of the world's biggest hotel booking platforms". Bangkok Post. Archived from the original on 2020-08-03. Retrieved 2020-08-03.
The article notes:
The rise of the internet over the past two decades has had many impacts on global culture and commerce, with the travel industry one of the first to see the potential in the online world. Among the pioneers in the field has been Asia-based Agoda.com, today one of the world’s fastest-growing online hotel booking platforms.
Robert Rosenstein and his friend Michael Kenny cofounded Agoda 15 years ago in Phuket and worked through growth, downturn and acquisition. Mr Rosenstein now leads the Singapore-based company as CEO, overseeing 1,300 employees representing more than 20 countries.
...
Beginning life as PlanetHoliday.com, the company signed up its first hotel in Phuket, before expanding to Bangkok, then across Thailand and the region in the following years. In 2005 it became Agoda and set up headquarters in Singapore.
...
Even though Asia is the main focus for Agoda, its site now covers all the major capitals around the world that Asian travellers love to visit, among them New York, Los Angeles, London and Paris.
Huang, Elaine (2013-09-18). "3 challenges and opportunities online hotel booking sites face". Singapore Business Review. Archived from the original on 2020-08-03. Retrieved 2020-08-03.
The article notes:
In 1997, two men — Michael Kenny and Robert Rosenstein – co-founded a company with a website named PlanetHoliday.com, which aimed to disrupt the hotel booking space. In Phuket, Thailand, they started to work out deals with hotels and charged users directly with their credit cards.
In early 2000, the company started experimenting with user experience features like real-time chat with customer service officers, and grew the business with pay-per-click advertising.
In 2003, PlanetHoliday added PrecisionReservations.com as a partner and the two merged as Singapore-based Agoda.
Later on in 2007, Agoda was then acquired by Priceline. Robert, now the CEO of Agoda, told Tech Cocktail in 2012 that he had started the company with a global site in mind.
Razati, G.; Irawati, A.; Dirgantari, P.D. (2020). "Effect of online servicescape on behavioural intention online reservation hotel services". In Hurriyati, Ratih; Tjahjono, Benny; Yamamoto, Ikuro; Rahayu, Agus; Abdullah, Ade Gafar; Danuwijaya, Ari Arifin (eds.). Advances in Business, Management and Entrepreneurship. Boca Raton: CRC Press. pp. 175–178. ISBN 978-0-367-27176-3. Retrieved 2020-08-03.
The abstract notes:
This study aims to examine the influence of online servicescape against the behavioural intention of Agoda products in Indonesia. The research was verification study, and the method used was explanatory survey. Using a simple random sampling technique, 165 respondents were involved and path analysis was used. The results showed that there was a significant effect of online servicescape on behavioural intention. In an effort to improve the behavioural intention of consumers, it is recommended that companies better understand the factors online servicescape as one of the basis in providing services for users of Agoda websites in Indonesia.
Chou, Christine (2015-10-19). "Taipei fines Agoda.com over US$ 626,100 for breaches". The Jakarta Post. Archived from the original on 2020-08-03. Retrieved 2020-08-03.
The article notes:
In trouble: The Singapore based Agoda.com, one of Asia's leading hotel-booking websites, is fined for more than NT$20 million (US$626,100) for not legally registering as a business in Taiwan and for failing to issue unified invoices.
The National Taxation Bureau of Taipei (NTBT) fined Agoda.com, one of Asia's leading hotel-booking websites, for more than NT$20 million (US$626,100) for not legally registering as a business in Taiwan and for failing to issue unified invoices, the NTBT said Thursday.
Yoon, Ja-young (2018-04-27). "Agoda ordered to revise unfair refund policies". The Korea Times. Archived from the original on 2020-08-03. Retrieved 2020-08-03.
The article notes:
The country's corporate overseer plans to "order" Agoda to revise its unfair refund policy as it didn't take proper action regarding a previous recommendation.
...
While the rest of the three online travel agencies followed the FTC's recommendation, Agoda stirred controversy by refunding customers with mileage points instead of cash. According to a consumer media outlet, a customer was offered 50 percent of the cash back as mileage points despite the cancellation being made four months prior to the flight date. An increasing number of customers have been using global online travel agencies here to reserve hotels abroad, but consumer complaints have been soaring due to unfair policies.
Morrison, Scott (2010-03-24). "Priceline Shifts Model in Asia". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2020-08-03. Retrieved 2020-08-03.
The article notes:
Agoda is Priceline's effort to find new sources of growth in Asia as its U.S. and European business mature and face increased competition.
...
Now Priceline is sending Agoda employees to pound the pavement in Asia and calling on hoteliers there in an effort to get them to list on the site. Agoda's services are offered in 30 languages and target customers in Thailand, Malaysia, Hong Kong and Singapore.
Like Priceline's European business, Agoda offers fixed-price listings and takes a cut from each booking.
...
The company in 2007 acquired Agoda, a Bangkok and Singapore-based start-up with about 200 employees, in a deal valued at around $158 million. Agoda, which had gross bookings of $36 million in the 10 months before Priceline bought it, had $244 million in bookings last year, or about 3% of Priceline's total business.

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Agoda to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 10:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required, the article can be improved to address its deficiencies. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources containing information about the company's history and criticism of it. Overly promotional material or material sourced to press releases can be removed.
Cunard (talk) 10:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NCORP. Graywalls (talk) 19:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure if US editors know this but Agoda is quite a well known brand... in Asia-Pacific can we consider an alternative to deletion here. i.e. SMH, my understanding is they are owned by Booking holdings and are just individual properties. But they run ads on primetime TV in Australia for instance.... so its a highly plausible search term, rather than just delete this property whic is more popular in Asia pacific - probably consistency would be needed with their other properties... PainProf (talk) 20:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Cunard and PainProf. Agoda is notable and well-known Online Travel Agency brand in APAC region. – robertsky (talk) 02:16, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing to pass the notability guidelines of WP:NCORP. The sources provided by Cunard all seem to be trivial and don't establish notability. Which is just proven by the votes and comments below his that ignored the sources and said the article should be kept "because popularity." Which isn't a policy based rational or one based on the topic meeting the COREDEPTH standard. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:23, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 08:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 08:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as there are a number of publications on Google Scholar which mention Agoda, but they are mostly about pulling data from the website to analyse the data in there. These are some of the better sources:

Zhou, Lingqiang; Ye, Shun; Pearce, Philip L.; Wu, Mao-Ying (2014). "Refreshing hotel satisfaction studies by reconfiguring customer review data". International Journal of Hospitality Management. 38: 1–10. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.12.004. ISSN 0278-4319.
Octavia, Danayanti; Tamerlane, Andes (2017). "The Influence of Website Quality on Online Purchase Intentions on Agoda.Com with E-Trust as a Mediator". Binus Business Review. 8: 9--14.
Darini, Mohammad, and Fatemeh Khozaei. "The study of factors affecting customer’s satisfaction with the three star hotels in Dubai." International Journal of Advanced Engineering, Management and Science 2.2 (2016): 239373.
(#3 above) Jan, Yu-Ying; Wang, Tzu-Hsun (2017-03-01). "Online Hotel Booking Service Quality, Satisfaction and Customer Loyalty: A Case Study Using Agoda". 運動休閒管理學報. 14 (1). 台灣生態休閒產業管理學會: 45–66. doi:10.6214/JSRM.1401.004. Retrieved 2020-08-03.

There is a case study here used as educational material which might have citations to reliable sources, but I'm not able to access it. Given the number of publications that cite Agoda as a source of travel data (same as booking.com, hotels.com, etc.), this might be enough to warrant a keep. But it might not be enough to write something substantial about the company/website. Maybe a solution is to stubify the article and remove all the non-encyclopedic material, or rewrite the article from scratch using the publications on Google Scholar, then fill in the missing parts about its history from the press releases. -- AquaDTRS (talk) 06:29, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:12, 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. Acknowledging the content and the possibility of merger, anyone requiring the content to do this should place a listing at WP:REFUND. Stifle (talk) 15:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Latin American protests[edit]

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

Hi.

I am bringing this article into the elimination debate because I understand it to be a case similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Protests of 2019 (2nd nomination).

I feel that this article was built with a mixture of opinions and writings from journalists trying to find a connection with all the protests that took place in Latin America in 2019, but the reality is that it is not a wave of protests, but several protests with different objectives, dimensions and ideological positions. Unlike the Arab Spring and the Revolutions of 1989, there is no real connection between all the protests listed in this article. They are individual and disconnected protests.

For example, in the case of Bolivia, there were protests by right-wing groups against electoral fraud by a left-wing government, there was an action by the military (passively, but there was) and an evangelical-oriented government was established, something that did not happen in other countries.[17] In Venezuela, the protests have been held since 2014, so can not be considered part of a wave, because it is at other times. In Nicaragua, idem; protests have been taking place since 2018 against a leftist government. [18]

On the other hand, in Chile, in Ecuador and in Colombia there were protests by left-wing groups against neoliberalism and the austerities policies of right-wing governments.[19] [20]

Other countries are mentioned, but let's be clear: if the protests did not happen daily, if there was only one incident, this should not be enough to consider them part of a wave, which includes Mexico and Paraguay.

The article aims to build a speech that, supposedly, all the Latin American protests that took place in 2019 are a same phenomenon, which is not true. There is a rigged interpretation, and not neutral, over-dimensioning some phenomena or mixing others, because in any democracy it is normal for different people or groups to protest, or march, whether women, gays or farmers. And what the article intends, by mixed information or confused interpretation, is to put everything in the same category: a protest in Chile, another in Venezuela, with normal protests or strikes, to establish that there was a wave of protests. Readers are being lied to, cheating or confusing them, by telling them that what happened in Chile is the same, what happened in Bolivia or Venezuela, since the protests have nothing to do with each other.

The concept is unavoidably synthesis and original research. As regards the individual protests discussed in this article, every single one of them that is actually notable already has its own page. Fontaine347 (talk) 23:16, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Fontaine347 (talk) 23:16, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Fontaine347 (talk) 23:16, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Fontaine347 (talk) 23:16, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep probably needs work, and there has been a discussion about merging with Latin American Spring, which I wouldn't be opposed to. When this article was started, I made sure to exclude Venezuela for reasons above, and there have been debates on other countries not part of the spring/wave. Honestly, google 'Primavera latinoamericana', (Latin American Spring): it is very much a thing. The region has a very interconnected economic history that has spurred a lot of the tribulations that causes the various protests, some directly and some indirectly. (And I was a massive advocate for deleting the Protests of 2019 article, so don't worry, I understand exactly where you're coming from) Kingsif (talk) 23:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lol I missed the second nom of Protests of 2016, glad it ended that way. These are unrelated events that merely happened on the same continent. Content that makes up the majority of the article is purely original research that summarizes the concept of modern-day protesting and what happened in these, but inappropriately suggests they all have interconnected causes, backgrounds, and methods. Links in List of protests in the 21st century with some prose discussion is welcome, or reasonable expansion in Latin American Spring#2019, but something that happens regularly around the world for a variety of reasons need not be synthesized as one. Reywas92^Talk 04:45, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment both acknowledges the Latin American Spring is real, but also tries to claim that protests in Latin America are unconnected. Do you see the issue? Kingsif (talk) 19:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Latin American Spring article should be limited to listing specific protests that have very clear similarities and connections; it is to an extent but is still problematic. The article at hand has significantly more synthesis and with the table at the bottom lumps together every protest in every country. Just happening in the same year in the same region is not a commonality as this presents. Protests happen regularly all around the world, and even when commentators discuss multiple contemporaneous protests that were caused by entirely different reasons, it is orginal research and unencyclopedic to present them as one. Reywas92^Talk 19:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Latin American Spring" is also a problematic article. It was even deleted from the Spanish Wikipedia because it was considered an original research and an essay. This article should not be about an incontrovertible phenomenon (wave of protests), but it should be revised to describe a term / political neologism used by journalists.

If we search Google for "2019 Latin American protests", we will obviously find several results because protests took place in Latin America in 2019, but that does not mean that all these protests are connected. Most of the existing sources are opinions and journalists writings trying to find similarities and differences among all the protests. This text of Washington Post shows how protests in Latin America are distinct from each other.

I admit that the protests in Chile, Colombia, Ecuador have similarities, but what happened in these three countries has nothing to do with the protests in Bolivia, Nicaragua, Venezuela and Puerto Rico that are mentioned in 2019 Latin American protests#Affected countries and in this template. --Fontaine347 (talk) 00:31, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then you can clean it up? You're also saying "it's a thing, but the article is too broad". WP:SOFIXIT Kingsif (talk) 22:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Far, far, far too broad: treating all protests for a whole year over a whole continent as a unitary thing? Definitely fails WP:SYNTH, and probably needs TNT or a vast reduction in focus and renaming. SOFIXIT? Fix what? Is there any particular reason to draw together economic (or political, or environmental, or ethnic, or conflict-based) protests between more than one South American country as opposed -- say -- to 2019 protests in Ecuador and Tajikistan and Malawi? Ravenswing 16:46, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete way to broad of a subject and no proof that they are all somehow connected. Plus, TNT clearly applies. An article with a different name that's just about the ones that can be proven to be connected would probably work though. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:43, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly original research. It's just like it tries to connect different events in order to create a bigger everything. This and Latin American Spring (that is not such, not one of those "springs" promoted by external actors) should be deleted. Chilean protests were due to social discontent to the high unequality of the society and the political and legal system that promotes the status quo, while Bolivian protests were mainly political and electoral. Peruvian protests were also unrelated, and mainly raised because high-profile political corruption. There were contemporary protests, but unrelated each other, and these protests didn't inspire nor ignite among themselves. --Onwa (talk) 14:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While my statement above stands as my rebuttal to a lot of the delete !votes that are actually calling for improvement or merge, it needs to be said that reliable sources very much disagree with you that these protests didn't inspire nor ignite among themselves. They're linked in the article if you want to learn something ;) Kingsif (talk) 23:31, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete Of course some of these events are related. They're part of the march of history in which things are bound to be loosely connected. Some of the protests have more obvious connections, and some have more subtle connections. However, almost any series of events can be drawn into articles like this if an editor has such an inclination. I feel that merging into Latin American Spring may be the best idea to capture these events on a single article if it is really felt necessary or useful. Having said this, I note that the Latin American Spring page on the Spanish wiki was deleted.JohnmgKing (talk) 04:14, 21 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. No prejudice against creation of a redirect pointing to WIBC (FM)#Local news and talk, just not a strong enough consensus to create it as a result of this discussion. Primefac (talk) 01:24, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chicks on the Right[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

This reads mostly like an ad and does not feel to be notable enough. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 18:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WARNING: This page is being outside attacked by Chicks on the Right. If you are coming here to protest, we suggest looking up the Wikipedia policies on notability and not be used as a Single Purpose Account. Link here: [21]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 18:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to WIBC (FM)#Local news and talk Pretty much a copy of their station's website bio (though with some clashes; this page's claiming they moved to spend time with their family, while the website says it's for their speaking agreements). Nate • (chatter) 21:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They seem pretty popular and have some fairly well known Twitter followers. They also had a book published not too many years ago. I think the page should stay as it is and should not be combined with another page. Alaska4Me2 (talk) 01:35, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither subjective assessments of popularity nor who does or doesn't follow them on Twitter have anything to do with Wikipedia's notability criteria. When it comes to getting a Wikipedia article, the notability test is the degree to which they have or have not been the subject of third party coverage about them, in sources independent of themselves, to establish that their work has been externally deemed as significant. That is, it's not established by their own writing or speaking about themselves or other topics — it's established by other people analyzing the importance of their work in the third person. There's only one source here (#2, USA Today) that meets the necessary standard, and one source isn't enough. Bearcat (talk) 15:25, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The optics of any deletion would imply censorship. Is this what Wiki wants?Oz Cro (talk) 12:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is NOTCENSORED, nor is it without notability guidelines or content policies. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 13:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without prejudice against recreation of a redirect after the history is deleted first to prevent reversion warring. This is referenced almost entirely to content where they're the authors rather than the subjects — but as I explained above, that's not how you make people notable enough for Wikipedia: you make people notable enough for Wikipedia by showing that they've been the subject of reliable source coverage written by other people. This is, of course, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can actually reference them over WP:GNG properly — but Twitter tweets and YouTube clips and sources where they're doing the writing or speaking isn't how you get them over the bar. Bearcat (talk) 15:25, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Bearcat, do any of these help with notability? http://centergrovemonthly.com/chicks_on_the_right/ https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/emmis-digital/chicks-on-the-right https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/chicks-on-the-right/ https://www.cameo.com/chicksontheright http://radio-indiana.com/emmis/wibc/personalities/chicks-on-the-right/ -- A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 20:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. They have to be the subject of journalism written by other people in real media outlets, not of social networking profiles or podcast content or "our programming" profiles on the self-published websites of their own radio affiliates or anything on a WordPress blog. Bearcat (talk) 18:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And no...paying them to say whatever you want on Cameo doesn't clinch anything except you can pay them to say anything you want on Cameo. And if you're on talk radio...you get a podcast feed automatically these days. That doesn't say anything except 'their show is re-edited into a podcast'. As to the "optics" comment above; we regularly discuss talk radio hosts here and whether their notability allows them an article. There's no censoring going on; like most radio talk show hosts on local stations, there's only an inordinate amount of N you can get before it fades out unless you get a national show. Nate • (chatter) 00:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to WIBC (FM)#Local news and talk: The scope of the article focuses more of the two hosts rather than the show itself. Neither of the hosts are notable. The show isn't notable enough to have a standalone article. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 12:18, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak ~~keep~~ delete per [22] (republished by USA Today but it's from an Indianapolis paper) and [23] (nontrivial coverage in WaPo). AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It takes more than just two newspaper hits to get a topic over GNG. Bearcat (talk) 18:10, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: You're right. Switched to weak delete per your note. Also found [24], but it's a namedrop. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:17, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I find it mildly amusing that you believe your site to be so important to the integrity of research that you would consider deleting this article. In case you are unaware - people use Wikipedia as a quickie overview - not a serious “notable” source. Students citing Wikipedia are cautioned against doing so as you are an open source site. Many people pop in to your site to quickly identify a name, term, etc. and this article gives the average person all they need to know to decide if/when they decide to conduct real research on the Chicks. This attempt at gravitas is laughable at best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lena464870 (talk • contribs) 13:08, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You take down people who are politically incorrect. That’s your “deletion policy”. Wow, you should be ashamed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.111.254 (talk) 11:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above two comments are from WP:SPA. Please read introductory guides on Wikipedia and its deletion policy. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 14:29, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is an attempt to censor conservatives, and nothing more. There are thousands of less "notable" entities here that are not marked for deletion. The fact that you found this one and are trying to delete it proves that it's notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B06D:7DAD:6524:C831:AB3B:2F21 (talk) 15:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So what if that stuff exists? We'll get to those non-notable ones soon. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:N. And please don't cast aspersions on editors by calling this an attempt to "censor conservatives". Java Hurricane 15:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just how is it that anyone who has had a radio show for over a decade, can be considered not notable by Wiki? If there are popularity guidelines, you should list them. This is pure political bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:CFC0:52:6C46:9B58:15F4:C7EE (talk • contribs)

WP:N and WP:GNG Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 16:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I see no difference in the page for Chicks on the Right as I do for other similar genres.... like The Young Turks, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atific (talk • contribs) 19:04, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 19:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth and for those interested, look at the link for what has happened today as Chicks on the Right have responded to the deletion request here. They also list their credentials in regard to notability. It would be great if the people posting here would look into them and make a decision with that added information. https://www.chicksonright.com/blog/2020/08/25/wikipedia-editors-will-be-deleting-the-chicks-on-the-right-page-because-we-are-not-notable-enough/?fbclid=IwAR3eDRycpnNH_O9_0PDgMD3siSTqYFIcEE-RGRDjSK2N5QN8IHwmIv_mHAg A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 19:39, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are more credibility notations at another blog post today from the Chicks on the Right found at this link: https://www.chicksonright.com/blog/2020/08/25/an-atheist-feminist-gamer-from-the-daily-kos-has-responded-to-my-wikipedia-post-lololololol/?fbclid=IwAR23JoHgdIlmDG2jIiRqcaqNb4TH7ydosr_X2uI6YaecGKapl2dcQdDyyP8 A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 21:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets GNG with significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Besides the USA Today piece already in the article (actually Indianapolis Star), there are a few other references that would seem to indicate notability:

Benbow, Dana Hunsinger (June 30, 2014). "Chicks on the Right surprising stance on gay marriage". The Indianapolis Star.

Benbow, Dana Hunsinger (August 5, 2013). "Chicks on the Right get drive-time radio slot". USA Today.

Mignucci, Melanie (August 22, 2013). "Why Chicks on the Right Are So in the Wrong". Bust.

"Sneak Peek: The New Book From The Chicks On The Right". Indianapolis Monthly. October 29, 2014.

Stoeffel, Kat (August 13, 2013). "Conservative Women Reclaim 'Feminism' for the Self-Reliant". The Cut.

They've also had appearances on a bunch of national television shows and have a robust following on social media. The article clearly needs an overhaul, but I think we have enough sources to do a decent job. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 19:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the Washington Post is not a credible third party? https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2013/07/01/fox-news-radio-guy-facebook-has-problem-with-conservatives/ Andrew S. (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The stories for The Indianapolis Star and USA today are written by their coworker so they fail independent/secondary sourcing. I couldn't tell you about Bust or Indianapolis Monthly. The Cut is by New York magazine so it passes. You got one. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 19:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete - aside from the SPAs above, nothing pushes this any closer to meeting the general notability guidelines. Pretty much everything is either not significant coverage or is not secondary. Personally, I find the publication making several articles about this AfD to show that they have nothing better to comment on. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Not sure how to do this, first attempt) Keep - the political content alone argues for not deleting. "Big Tech" (sometimes including Wikipedia) is regularly accused of liberal bias. It costs nothing to leave this page up; it costs some credibility to take it down. Wikipedia is first and foremost a source of information. Any detraction from valid information, even if it isn't very 'notable', represents a loss. If even one person is searching for CotR on Wikipedia, then this page is serving a purpose. BTW, do we have any statistics on how many people do that? Just asking. Contrary to the original complaint, the article does not 'read like an advertisement', it reads like a short summary of the career of two radio/internet commentators. As to the WIBC link - Wiki articles are full of links, internal and external. Don't see a problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rfitz3 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am an annual donor to Wikipedia. I have always been a supporter of your OPEN platform as a means UNBIASED information. This is political censorship, and it’s a shame this media practice has expanded into platforms like Wikipedia. Will my lack of annual contributions be the demise of Wikipedia? No. But I will not continue to support this platform. Very disappointed... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:805:8282:9F90:20E2:296B:7F57:69B8 (talk) 23:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

The Chicks on the Right have been featured/covered widely by multiple sources in the 12 years they've been in conservative media. ^[1] ^[2] ^[3] ^[4] ^[5] ^[6] ^[7]

These sources are in addition to the many appearances the COTR made on various major TV networks to promote their brand and book. Those appearances are mentioned in links previously listed in this discussion. Contrary to what ZeroSerenity suggested above (and what he documented in his contribution to hardleft-leaning Daily Kos where he contributes articles ^[8]), Chicks on the Right were never co-workers of the writer for the Indianapolis Star, so their stories do NOT fail independent/secondary sourcing. Political bias should not be a factor in this decision, and yet, it clearly is. And contrary to Lee Vilenski's entry above, Chicks on the Right wrote TWO articles about this AfD in order to correct Zero Serenity's blatant falsehoods. Given that there are 40,000+ articles on their website dating back to early 2009, two pieces on this topic doesn't seem to fit any reasonable criteria for showing they have "nothing better to comment on." — Mockarena (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. —Preceding undated comment added 01:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I could find very few independent references to indicate notability Equine-man (talk) 01:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdRpBlD-u58
^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kd9yL_kDFzY
^ https://www.hollywoodintoto.com/mock-daisy-chicks-on-the-right-interview/
^ https://www.thecut.com/2013/08/chicks-on-the-right-reclaim-feminism-from-poor.html
^ https://kfyo.com/larw-to-host-chicks-on-the-right-in-lubbock-at-pink-elephant-gala/
^ https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/s2-e139-chicks-on-the-right-great-soups-and-more/id1451761026?i=1000479230231
^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2013/07/01/fox-news-radio-guy-facebook-has-problem-with-conservatives/
^ https://www.dailykos.com/blogs/Zero-Serenity

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 15:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alice (Lady Gaga song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONGS when (outside of commentary from artist, label, producers, and songwriters), the only credible sources discussing this track are album reviews. That page specifically states media reprints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work don't count as sufficient coverage for the song. It also goes on to say Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created. As a result, the citations used here aren't enough to warrant a page for the track. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG. The song has charted in more than a dozen countries and has been discussed in many reputable sources. You can bold all the text you want, but the content is not based on press releases, record labels, 'self-interested parties', etc. There are even more sources to incorporate into the text. The current article is a work in progress, as evidenced by the tag at the top of the page. I appreciate SNUGGUMS' concerns but this article should be kept and improved, not deleted. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charts (or lack thereof) are entirely moot in this case. They don't negate how every reference used (at least at the time of this writing) that goes beyond brief mentions (except for one cumulative paragraph here at most) is either comments from self-involved parties or album reviews, and I thought my above comment already made it clear that album reviews (which this page heavily relies on) aren't enough on their own to keep song pages. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 20:19, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The song fails to meet notability, moreover all the sources available on the article page and web come mostly from album reviews. Charting it only indicates that a song may be notable, not that it is, see WP:NS. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If the song does not meet the WP:GNG requirements, would a redirect to Chromatica be preferable rather than an outright deletion as this could be a plausible search term? Aoba47 (talk) 23:31, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether WP:GNG is met (moot when it doesn't meet WP:NSONGS and specific notability criteria takes precedence for music when it exists), I'd be fine with a redirect and tried to do that myself earlier per WP:Be bold, but then took this to AFD after that was contested. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the page should be redirected instead of deleted IF the subject is deemed not notable. Also, SNUGGUMS, you've already made your case, there's no need to reply to every editors' comments here when they disagree with your assessment. Finally, for the record, you jumped to AfD before letting more editors weigh in re: notability (actually, someone there also agreed the song is notable). ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. I think we have a similar perspective, but I just wanted to raise the question. I do think it is concerning that from the titles, none of the sources seem to be about the song alone, but I unfortunately do not have the time right now to add more or be of any help here. Apologies for that. Aoba47 (talk) 03:25, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In my opinion, if this article expanded the way "911" and "Sine from Above" expanded [adding a section about "Chromatica I"], this article would be stay-worthy. infsai (dyskusja) 08:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Such expansions would require sources that aren't album reviews, preferably pieces that specifically focus on this individual track. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 11:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP The song charted and also reliable sources mention things specifically about this song in their album reviews. Dream Focus 16:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Charted in several countries and it is one of the most discussed songs from the album. --Sricsi (talk) 16:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Salvio

10:30, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:IGNORINGATD. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:35, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chromatica#Songs per Andrew Davidson (who weirdly voted keep while arguing cited a thing about redirecting being an option) and WP:IGNORINGATD. Alice is already mentioned for a full paragraph in that article. Which I think is enough. There's zero reason to have a separate article for every single song from the album just because they are by Lady Gaga. Especially considering there are no reliable sources specifically about the song to substantiate that it is notable enough on it's own. Although it did chart, which maybe could be used as a keep rational, it seems like it didn't chart that highly except for in two sub charts. Which doesn't seem like enough on it's own without articles specifically discussing it. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. Right now the album article has 3 sentences about "Alice", which is fine, but does not give readers the level of detail possible based on sourcing. The song article is too much content to just 'upmerge' into the album article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't be to much to merge if the badly sourced stuff is cut out of it. Plus, more then half the article is just the chart. Which isn't necessary. Especially the ones where it charted like 112th or whatever. There's zero reason charting that low is worth mentioning. Plus the credits section is totally pointless name dropping. A lot of the quotes could be summarized to. Which is really how articles are suppose to be written and would cut it down by quit a lot. After doing all that the article would be like 1/5th it's current size if not less. Which would be totally fine to merge. So, I don't think your argument is valid. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:57, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well, I don't think downplaying 'charts' and 'credits' is a great argument either, so let's just agree to disagree. :) ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call not listing random studio personnel downplaying the credits. They aren't suppose to be an exhaustive list of anyone that had anything to do with the songs creation, no matter how menial. Otherwise, you should include the doorman and whoever brought her launch. Plus, they were the same people worked on the album. So, it's duplicate information that's already in the other article (or should be) anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The Credits/personnel section is exactly what it's supposed to be, consistent with other Wikipedia articles about individual songs. There's no point in going back and forth about this; you've clearly made up your mind and I'm simply disagreeing. Happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:32, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is too much reliably sourced information in the article to delete or redirect without merging. But given how extensive this article is, a merge to Chromatica would place undue weight on this song within the album article. So even though a lot of the sourcing for this article is from album reviews, I think we need to let GNG trump NSONGS and keep this article as is. Rlendog (talk) 15:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: NSONGS be damned, this article meets the GNG, and as Rlendog says, a merge/redirect blows the main article out of the water. Done deal. Ravenswing 05:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per reasons above. It has received WP:SIGCOV, albeit not independently. It has charted in several countries as well. That said, the article easily passes WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 08:00, 26 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gil Grant[edit]

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

Declined PROD. Writer with plenty of credits, but I did a web search and couldn't see any references that would satisfy the GNG. Despite declining the PROD, the author hasn't supplied any refs. Slashme (talk) 10:30, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:35, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My (non-author) PROD decline was strictly procedural: this was the article that inspired Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Resolve the inconsistency between WP:DRAFTIFY and WP:ATD, and I did not think PRODding this one made sense as long as that discussion is ongoing. Not !voting either way on this deletion. UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:16, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is time that we switfly remove all articles only sourced to IMDb. We have long held that IMDb is not reliable. We should not have anything based on it, least of all articles entirely relying on it. This needs to stop immediately.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a working, successful television writer, but there doesn't seem to be much coverage beyond that. Having a cool job in the entertainment industry is not inherently notable. EverybodyEdits (talk) 22:22, 22 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:16, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Y. S. Venkat Reddy[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. No notable achievement except being the father of a chief minister of the state (if that's an achievement). - The9Man ^(Talk) 10:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GOLDENRULE. Accesscrawl (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Ab207 (talk) 18:38, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Less Unless (talk) 14:16, 20 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sun Valley Magazine[edit]

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

An online local publication for which I couldn't find any reliable 3rd party RS mentions fails WP:WEBCRIT JW 1961 Talk 09:33, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 09:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 09:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 09:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 09:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an online magazine, but a biannual print magazine. I have found some local news sources giving its history. It seems that it has some local significance. Egeymi (talk) 18:56, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As this article has been improved and sourced, I as the nominator have no objection to an early close of the discussion and keeping the article. JW 1961 Talk 21:53, 24 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Smith Music Group[edit]

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

Couldn't find any in-depth coverage for the group. The sources provided in the article also don't seem to establish notability. This probably fails WP:GNG. Bingobro (Chat) 09:29, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bingobro (Chat) 09:29, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:10, 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. – Joe (talk) 17:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Hay, 14th Marquess of Tweeddale[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Given the lack of any significant coverage that I can find, I doubt that the topic meets the notability criteria set by WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. The article is about his brothers as much as it is about him. The article about the marquesses of Tweeddale should be enough to cover the matter. Surtsicna (talk) 09:25, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 09:25, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 09:25, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. 136.228.175.248 (talk) 17:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Given all previous marquesses qualified under WP:POLITICIAN, it makes sense for consistency's sake to also cover those who are no longer entitled to sit in the Lords by right. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:53, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That does not make sense at all. The idea that we should have an article about someone just because his ancestors were notable goes against WP:INVALIDBIO and WP:NOTINHERITED. Wikipedia is not here to fill in holes in rich people's family trees. The man is simply too obscure to have an article on Wikipedia. Surtsicna (talk) 14:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Be careful, Surtsicna's WP:IDONTLIKE arrow moved to Brirish peers from deposed royal family members. 136.228.175.248 (talk) 17:39, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that I don't like it. It's that it does not meet WP:BASIC and WP:GNG criteria because there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. Surtsicna (talk) 18:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As said above the purpose of Wikipedia is not to fill in the entirety of rich people's family trees. With the end to inherited seats in the house of Lords there is also an end to default notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:03, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Edward Douglas John Hay sat in the House of Lords under the title "Marquess of Tweeddale" between 13 March 1979 and 11 November 1999 MPs and Lords > Find Lords > Marquess of Tweeddale and died in 2005. His twin Charles David Montagu Hay would have inherited some things, but he didn't inherit a seat in the House of Lords. Drchriswilliams (talk) 21:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as noted he was never a member of the House of Lords and so that cannot be used as an argument for political notability. Indeed other than basic biographical details (which can be covered adequately at the article of the peerage - Marquess of Tweeddale - the only information that the article supplies is a notable speech made by his late brother in the Lords. However that does not make the current Marquess of Tweeddale notable. For a peer who has never sat in the Lords to be notable it would need to be in some other field (eg business, external political campaigning, charitable work, holding another position of authority), but there is nothing here to suggest that that is the case. Dunarc (talk) 14:56, 22 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:14, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of ten-pin bowlers[edit]

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

Indiscriminate list. Doesn't meet WP:LISTN or WP:GNG. No clear ATD. Boleyn (talk) 09:20, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 09:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The list is not indiscriminate as its focus is clear and specific. It meets WP:LISTN and WP:GNG because there are entire books written about bowling and bowlers including The Bowling Chronicles which "presents portraits of Dick Weber, Don Carter, Marion Ladewig and other tenpin immortals"; They Came to Bowl: How Milwaukee Became America's Tenpin Capital; and the Historical Dictionary of Bowling which "contains over 500 cross-referenced entries on professional and amateur bowlers, bowling coaches, writers and other contributors to the sport of bowling". If we look at the first entry in the list – Jason Belmonte – we see that they are a successful professional. Their article is in category:Australian ten-pin bowling players which is one of many sub-categories in category:Ten-pin bowling players and so WP:CLN applies, explaining that we don't delete lists to favour categories. Finally, WP:ATD certainly applies because it states that "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." So, the nomination is a complete failure and that's a strike! Andrew🐉(talk) 10:05, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. I'm baffled by this nomination. pburka (talk) 11:05, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I agree it's indiscriminate and should probably be deleted, but there are some notable players in it and Andrew Davidson provided a few sources. Although, I could gripe they are about "bowlers" and not "ten-pin bowlers." Which is kind of different IMO. My suggestion would be to clean it up, AfD the articles about non-notable players in the list (which there seems to be many), create a "list of bowlers" article or something that contains the actually notable ones that also includes non-10-pin bowlers, and then do another AfD for this in 6 months. That includes redirecting to somewhere (maybe list of bowlers) as an alternative to deletion. That's the only way I think your going to make a good case to delete to enough people. Also, in the meantime you could probably chop down on the categories and other things Andrew cited as a way to handwave his keep vote. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:25, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously all the red links should be removed and the notability of many of the bio's questioned. However there seem to be a few notable entries to justify a list. Ajf773 (talk) 11:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There should be no rush to remove red links because one of the advantages of a list is that it will support redlinks and so help in developing a neglected set of topics. For example, consider the second entry in the list, Sam Cooley. There's no article for them yet but they are a world-class bowler, holding a world-championship and with professional earnings of over $100K. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:51, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A reliable source will also suffice. And entries can be re-added. Ajf773 (talk) 19:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NLIST This list aides our readers in finding this information. Focussed and narrow list. Wm335td (talk) 02:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, one of many recent meritless nominations of navigational lists by User:Boleyn. We list articles by what they are just as we categorize them by what they are. postdlf (talk) 14:42, 22 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. – Joe (talk) 17:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El Gilano[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This was soft deleted about a year ago on the basis that at best it lacked the required verifiable evidence to show notability, if not failing WP:GNG outright. Not much has changed in the intervening time. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:45, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:45, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:45, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:46, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability, no Farsi sources provided to show notability, so until they are I have to delete. If anything is found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:56, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the previous AFD noted that article that was deleted was unsourced. This article was created after that deletion, and has a source. There's also additional sources listed in . I've improved the citation of the Farsi source that already existed in the article - perhaps it wasn't opening due to a formatting issue in the URL? User:GiantSnowman can you review again? Nfitz (talk) 04:37, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note, a lot of the sources in the Farsi version are stale ... but should be findable. I sorted out one from 2012 and added it to the article ... but there's no end of other recent media about this, such as last month. Here's a Google Search if someone wants to add more. Nfitz (talk) 05:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The 2 sources added are both extremely short and do not show significant coverage. `Giant Snowman

What about the one Farsi source that's been in the article since it was created over a year ago? Nfitz (talk) 14:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because both clubs and the league they play in are notable, sources like this that merely recount match results, don't demonstrate independent notability of the rivalry. I would expect to see this sort of coverage for any two clubs that have played long enough in a sufficiently well covered league. If there's enough shared sporting history, some sports journalist is going to write this type of article sooner or later, whether there's a rivalry between the clubs in question or not. None of the coverage I've seen covers the rivalry itself in sufficient detail. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:00, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 06:29, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to Gilan Derby AzeriCux (talk) 16:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 08:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:02, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Care to explain what you actually mean by the above? There's enough back and forth that your meaning is not clear. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:24, 23 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. Whilst there was some claim to GNG, comments post that claim did not agree, many of the keep votes are not clearly grounded in guidelines. Happy to restore to any userspace where an editor feels they can work on it towards GNG. Fenix down (talk) 07:22, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2008–09 Newport County A.F.C. season[edit]

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

fails WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG Microwave Anarchist (talk) 23:56, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 23:56, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 23:56, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 23:56, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a longstanding distinction between non-league teams' seasons, and former/present League teams that have previous non-league seasons. Owain (talk) 10:41, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Owain: the same longstanding distinction that saw this deleted. There is no such distinction and there is concensus that the cut-off point for NSEASONS is League Two. There is no evidence of GNG within the article and I struggled to find anything bar routine coverage of this season. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 13:13, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to recall this discussion happening over AFC Wimbledon seasons too, where the non-league season articles were put up for deletion. They were not, because the argument goes that as a notable team, as long as the season articles had general notability references that would trump NSEASONS. The same applies here. Owain (talk) 15:32, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Owain: The only AFD I could find for an AFC Wimbledon article was this, where a single editor made that claim against consensus. The consensus is that League Two is the cut-off point for season articles, and anything lower requires GNG to be met. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 16:17, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 71#AFC_Wimbledon_seasons from 2012 where the same arguments were brought up, but that did not result in the deletion of any of the articles. Owain (talk) 16:45, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that was merely stating that because of the nature of AFC Wimbledon as a club, GNG-level sourcing was likely. There was no claim that it passed NSEASONS. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 16:55, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Owain - they are correct. Such articles about teams usually playing in the football league, but with some non-league seasons are kept if they are notable. And it's the sourcing in the article that's the best proof of that. So start improving the article! Nfitz (talk) 05:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Spiderone 17:21, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Essential in retaining the full history of a current (fourth tier) Football League club online, this is the reformation season for Newport (County) AFC, notable and clearly significant under WP:NSEASONS.Pwimageglow (talk) 10:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pwimageglow: - how is it clearly significant under NSEASONS? I don't think wikiproject football would take too kindly for me creating articles for every single Craley Town season. I don't particularly agree with the deletion of articles in general and perhaps deleting this doesn't achieve much but this article clearly fails all notability guidelines. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 11:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I expect the early Crawley Town seasons would be hard to source references for, but all Newport seasons are easy to reference, including beyond-routine game coverage from the BBC, Times, Guardian, &c. Owain (talk) 10:13, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Owain: Where is this beyond routine game coverage from national media outlets then? I certainly can't find anything. The Guardian, for example, has 3 articles between 1 July 2008 and 30 June 2009 with 'Newport County' mentioned, one in an article about Ipswich Town in the 1930s, another about Weymouth Town's financial difficulties and the third being an article about football clubs sponsored by bands. The BBC doesn't do match reports for the sixth tier as far as I'm concerned and the article at the moment has nothing more than routine coverage. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 10:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article itself has two BBC Sport references that are not routine match reports. For comparison the 2003–04 AFC Wimbledon season article has no non-routine references. Owain (talk) 10:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Owain: They are routine transfer announcements and do nothing to prove the notability of the season. If they don't exist for the AFC Wimbledon article, that will prbably be AfDed too in the near future. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 11:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Announcing a former Premier League striker as manager of a non-league team is not a "routine transfer announcement". Owain (talk) 11:24, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That articles coverage may be slightly more than WP:ROUTINE actually, but it only suggests that the player is notable, not the season. Even if that did satisfy GNG, which it clearly doesn't, there would still have to be signofocant coverage in another reliable secondary source. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 11:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As it documents an important part of the history of a club that has spent 68 seasons in the Football League.Zebroski (talk) 13:49, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. If people want an article detailing the history of this club, create a wider one at History of Newport County A.F.C.; no need at all for a number of non-notable season specific articles. Giant Snowman 11:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There can be reliably sourced prose for 25 seasons. If they were all combined into one giant page it would become to large and would require splitting. Wikipedia:Article size gives a range of 30 to 50KB for the comfortable size of a single article, and this 2008-09 page is already 30KB. What benefit would there be in combining them all together? Owain (talk) 10:21, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSEASONS. Number 57 19:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, please note that the keep !votes from Pwimageglow and Zebroski appear to be as a result of this off-wiki canvassing by Owain. I presume they will be discarded and Owain sanctioned. Cheers, Number 5 7 20:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that no-one canvassed me, nor would I be influenced (or concerned) if anyone did. Wiki is only maintained and valuable because of the goodwill and consensus of contributors. Your silly bullying in order to force your view on others is despicable and against the spirit of wiki collaboration. I presume your vote will be discarded and you will be sanctioned for your insulting and childish accusations.Zebroski (talk) 13:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So it's just a coincidence that after over a month with no activity and within a day of the post being made on the Newport forum, your first edits happen to be comments on the two AfDs highlighted? Number 5 7 13:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I edited a number of pages on 10&11Aug, 6July and 17-23June. So what? In your mind how many wiki updates and when entitle a contributor to have an opinion? Have you checked the update history of those that agree with your biased opinion? No. Not that it's any of your business... I browsed many wiki pages between updates but I was rather busy working on a covid ward in July. If you want to waste your life deleting perfectly acceptable content and picking silly online fights that's your choice. You are a rather petty bully. Please Don't waste more of my time.Zebroski (talk) 18:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh do grow up. Zebroski is a regular contributor to Newport season articles, as well you know. It is this constant questioning of motives, and relentless searching of contributors' histories that puts people off creating anything. Owain (talk) 10:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Owain: Doesn't take anything away from the fact that you blatantly violated WP:CANVASS. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 18:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now it is my turn to tell you to grow up. Somebody with the name 'Owain' on the Exiles message board requested people join in a deletion conversation. You have absolutely no proof it was me. You do realise that 'Owain' is quite a common name in Wales, don't you? You do realise that people use aliases and not their real names online, don't you? You do realise that sitting in an ivory tower bossing people around, bullying them, questioning their motivation and threatening arbitrary sanctions is not a good way to influence people positively? I get that wielding Wiki-power is some sort of ego trip for people, but do step away from the keyboard occasionally. Owain (talk) 18:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've not threatened anyone with anything - I am merely following Wikipedia guidelines. You are absolutely right, however, about the fact that I live in an ivory tower. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 22:00, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try, but you admitted on the other AfD to the canvassing. The self-righteous indignation is in poor faith. Ravenswing 03:01, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How is getting people notified of proposed deletion a bad thing? I was not notified of the proposed deletion of the 1989 article, despite having created it. Owain (talk) 10:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, how do you not know this if you've been editing since 2003? See WP:CANVASS, and specifically WP:STEALTH. Your notice on the other website was not neutral as you specifically requested people "contest the deletion". Number 5 7 10:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a result of ridiculous bureaucracy, people including me rarely edit any more so would not have got the deletion notification. That is if people bother doing it correctly in the first place. Where was my notification of the proposed deletion of the 1989 article for instance? Of course people will want to protect their hard work from deletion. Getting people notified is the job of the deletion proposer and the author of the article. If no-one knows then these specious AfDs will pass with no contest at all. Owain (talk) 10:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you suggesting that Owain be sanctioned, User:Number 57? WP:STEALTH doesn't ban off-wiki canvassing - it merely discourages it. We also discourage people AFDing an article, without notifying the creator - and yet no one is proposing sanctions for that violation! Nfitz (talk) 21:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is not true User:Ravenswing - I explicitly added text and references (which looked far more non-routine to what's here) to that article, and I never even looked at the main article, so the text and sourcing was not in the main article. How is what's here not routine for a sixth tier club? I see a lot more historical discussion of that (1989-90) season than I do of 2008-09. Nfitz (talk) 22:19, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has national coverage here and here. Perhaps seasons of the perennial number 3 football club in Wales is notable even when it slips below the fully-professional tier. Nfitz (talk) 00:38, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not really seeing consensus here and some indication of GNG. Further discussion required.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 08:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NSEASONS and GNG. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:00, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a sports almanac. Stifle (talk) 15:49, 27 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. $Salvio$ 20:51, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ford P platform[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I am posting this nomination for Carmaker1, who states (rather convincingly) that this model platform does not appear to exist (and the article has has comments on the talk page complaining about it being inaccurate since 2004). While the trucks mentioned exist, the sources cited do not name this the "P platform". Something like a major carmaker's model platforms should be covered far better in reliable sources, so delete looks like the best option here. —Kusma (t·c) 22:28, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that the previous discussion was speedily closed as lacking content, so this is the first time this article is properly debated at AfD. Carmaker1 nominated this for speedy deletion, but Firsfron and myself declined the speedy. —Kusma (t·c) 22:32, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

yes, thank you so much Kusma for your help. I have only done this once, but never through an AfD. We definitely need to delete this article because it's not accurate, but I am undergoing the deep research of unearthing a connection between past body-on-frame Fords. Even as a minor COI, it is only my interest that this site has the most accurate information so that the greater public is not misled. Not to advertise for Ford. Even with professional access to deeper information, I am finding difficulty doing so from home vs at work and some databases are not expanding beyond Ford T1 introduced in 2006 on U324 and U354. Something tells me that I am missing something and I need to look harder, but in the meantime there is no way that there was a P Platform manufactured by Ford. I cannot find any research that supports this independent of Wikipedia based information. The only sources I find are clearly borrowed from that very article (and postdate it), by obviously lazy journalists not going to a credible outside source and turning Wikipedia into an original research project by them relying on content here.--Carmaker1 (talk) 23:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just in, here it is [25]. Although the U222 Expedition was introduced in May 2002 wearing the styling of the upcoming P221 F150, (originally due in December 2002) it still reused components from the UN-93 Expedition (October 1996) based on PN-96 F-Series launched in January 1996 and adding Independent Rear Suspension. It moved to T1 in 2006, however an earlier version of T1 was already on the 2004 F-150 in September 2003. As I did mention though before, T1 came into existence for both with time. Edit: Bingo, a full list [26] of our past platforms among many others, from 2008 (some estimates changed post-2008). Ranger built from 1992 to 2011 I knew was on Yuma, but U251 Explorer and Sport Trac were T4. P221 F-150 was its own special platform, not shared with anything else from 2003 to 2008, except P225 F150 SuperCrew. P131 was the basis for Super Duty from 1998 to 2016 under codes PHN131 (1998-2006), P356 (2006-2010), and P473 (2010-2016).--Carmaker1 (talk) 23:51, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (with reservation) For the most part, the article (or is it really a list?) has seen little substantial changes since its creation 16 years ago. As the article creator has not been active since 2011, we will likely not know the logic behind how this was created. While there may not be a distinct Ford "P" platform architecture, this has become a model code linking multiple generations of the Ford F-Series/Super Duty trucks (Carmaker1 says it in the above response...). Rather than being deleted outright, things would be better if it was updated with proper information. --SteveCof00 (talk) 09:49, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SteveCof00, sorry, I don't quite understand what you are saying. I am not interested in cars, so I am probably lacking the proper background here. What I get from the most recent versions of the article is that Ford has some codes starting with "P", but not a platform architecture. You say this is an important concept, so shouldn't the article just be renamed "Ford codes starting with P" or something similar? Is that really a notable concept? —Kusma (t·c) 13:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly it's not a platform at all. An article for T1 or T3 would be accurate, but this article for P platform or P designation is pointless and should be deleted, as neither is an actual platform for automobiles nor relevant in that sense, as creating a C or D article for Ford would be unnecessary just the same. The application only makes sense in regards to specific & fully related vehicle architectures (C1, C2, D3, D4, D5, D6 and not simply a letter prefix).

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

Salvio

07:56, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. According to the searches I have engaged, there is only one relevant reference to this; I can't find any more that reference the two variants on this page. Not notable. --Whiteguru (talk) 07:58, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge content While the consensus has come to the point where this article may have been created out of misinformation (I don't disagree), I do feel that some of its content can be used on Ford T platform (both the model codes and the source provided by Carmaker1...very useful). Along with putting the issues related to this article to rest, shifting relevant content could be a big help in improving an article/list in desperate need of attention. --SteveCof00 (talk) 10:33, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article creator's intentions are neither here nor there; this subject's notability is what's at issue. SIGCOV is just not there, full stop. Ravenswing 20:46, 26 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 per G5. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 18:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Sarkosh[edit]

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Non-notable at best, a hoax at worst. Article makes claims - some I've removed - that the player took part in events/finals that they did not. Lists off tournament finals they didn't compete at, and has a list of events listed as winning, where they only competed at. Never turned professional; which is the SNG. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 07:05, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 07:05, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Many of the sources are not even reliable sources. Language is out of the question, but this topic ultimately fails WP:GNG. See this Bing search... the first page is just links to other sites. This news search shows only one trivial mention which means the topic fails WP:NPERSON. A a s i m 07:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CSD#G5 (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ArmanAfifeh LTA) but I'm glad that there is also support for deletion on purely its own merits, as bad-faith content and a non-notable (at best) subject need not wait for a formal SPI conclusion. DMacks (talk) 14:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I see the socks have found this AFD. DMacks (talk) 06:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment indeed G5 material (creator has been blocked as a sock), but if folks would prefer to let the AfD run I'm happy to let that happen as well. For reference, I think everyone who has tried to add articles about this person has been a sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ArmanAfifeh. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:56, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's worth checking the spelling "Amir Sarkhosh" if this hasn't already been done. A search for "'Amir Sarkhosh' snooker" on NewsBank returns 196 results, but no doubt most if not all of these will be trivial mentions. It's a shame that the runner-up at the 2017 IBSF World Snooker Championship may fail GNG. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep:I agree with @BennyOnTheLoose includes the comfort of WP:GNG.But in the end, it does not fail.The real name of the person is "Amir Sarkhosh" who should be transferred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.62.236.236 (talk) 18:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Socks blocked. Java Hurricane 13:02, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

keep:Amir Sarkhosh have been the captains of Iran's national snooker team in world competitions and have become champions. How can they not be famous? 1 2 3 4 5 And here their championships are recorded--Mmmikiikikikikik (talk) 20:56, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

— Mmmikiikikikikik (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 06:06, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HickoryOughtShirt?4: My dear friend, I made my argument. Above, my old colleague confirmed that this is for everyone. They can give their opinion.Mmmikiikikikikik (talk) 06:56, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep: He is one of the most popular snooker players. Please refer to this link to know that this person is famous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.24.18.57 (talk) 05:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep:The bachelor's degree is a good example because he has a championship in the 2017 IBSF World Snooker Championship is a hero.--Iraniansnookers (talk) 05:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

— Iraniansnookers (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 06:06, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD G5 as GN noted. Java Hurricane 06:16, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G5. Best, GPL93 (talk) 10:51, 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 List of recurring characters in The Suite Life of Zack & Cody or any other such article as may be created by editors. Stifle (talk) 15:50, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zack Martin (Suite Life)[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:19, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:19, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As mentioned elsewhere, this character is a main character in two series spanning 158 episodes as well as a TV movie. The second series ended 9 years ago so sourcing is difficult as most sources are dead. However, that doesn't mean the character is not notable. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete'. Looks to me that this is a minor soap opera character, almost certainly fails WP:NFICTION in my opinion - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The character is not at all a soap opera character and was not minor either, having been one of the two title characters in two series spanning 158 episodes and a movie. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:39, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, 158 episodes make him notable? And 58 would not? Which part of WP:NFICTION does this number satisfy? - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:46, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have completely missed the point. Your claim that this is a minor soap opera character is incorrect. I do not see how you arrived at that conclusion. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Major character on long running show. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:22, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wait...which source states he was a "major" character, what is the definition of a "long-running show", and how any of this meets WP:NFICTION? - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You do realise that not everything needs an inline citation don't you? The first program is The Suite Life of Zack & Cody. His name is right in the title. The sequel/spinoff is The Suite Life on Deck, which is about Zack & Cody living on a ship. There is no doubt that he was a major character in both series, or the TV movie. As for what defines a "long-running show", both series were 3 years long each. A children's TV series spanning 158 episodes and 6 years is long running. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability is not inherited. You can argue that the more popular the series, the more likely sources exist, but that does not always actually correlate. That's especially true with children's shows which require a specific niche to get actual academic coverage. TTN (talk) 20:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cody Martin and rename to Zack and Cody Martin. The characters are twins who share in virtually all of their escapades; as a consequence, the articles overlap massively. Yes, they are notable characters, but basically only as a due, requiring a single article for complete coverage. BD2412 T 05:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually a reasonable suggestion, although I'd go one step further and merge all of the main characters from both series into List of the Suite Life characters. Presently, one of the main characters is included in List of recurring characters in The Suite Life of Zack & Cody where he doesn't belong. Merging all of the characters into one article, with a bit of trimming, seems the best overall outcome. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In this case I would be inclined to have a separate article due to the unusual number of appearances of the characters in other shows. BD2412 T 13:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability is not inherited. WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST is a particularly weak argument. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:44, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not only is the bar for fictional characters set a lot higher than this one, there's nothing really noteworthy in this article that's not already in the articles about the shows. Certainly fails the GNG. Ravenswing 20:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with all main characters from the two series to List of the Suite Life characters per AussieLegend's suggestion. Corachow (talk) 20:58, 26 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. Tone 08:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Sill[edit]

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

A failed attempt by external interests to promote Sill as a public figure. Mark^Dask 05:22, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mark^Dask 05:22, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 07:06, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 07:06, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Barely found anything about him. Search results return news about the winemaker of the same name. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the winemaker looks majorly notable; can we order a glass from here?

Mark^Dask 19:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable investor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:14, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a CV. Plus, there is little more than passing mentions of the subject in online sources, so seeing nothing that would allow a pass for WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Note (as discussed above) Igor Sill the investor (the subject of this article) is distinguished from Igor Sill the winemaker, for which there seems to be some coverage. --Dps04 (talk) 04:48, 25 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. Tone 08:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tremont House, California[edit]

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

Waystation, yes: settlement, not that I can document. I find a good number of mentions of the place which all refer to it as a roadhouse and make clear that it was a single establishment (of a number such distributed along the trails) and nothing like a town. Note that there was a hotel in Folsom also named the Tremont House. Mangoe (talk) 04:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 07:06, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 07:06, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. References don't exist for this place as a community or township. --Whiteguru (talk) 08:01, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not in GNIS. No post office, though Tremont Valley, Calaveras had a PO. Newspapers.com has trivial coverage [27], [28]. Google Books is a bit better, though the coverage is only in passing: [29], [30], [31] and others. Cxbrx (talk) 01:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable community. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 06:15, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be simply that, a house. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:12, 21 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 Ace Attorney characters. Tone 08:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Butz[edit]

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

This article fails WP:GNG. Though I’m not sure if this article about this character from the original trilogy along with numerous appearances throughout the Ace Attorney video game series would be worthy enough to be saved if it were to be improved. Through the paragraph about this character in the List of Ace Attorney characters may be good enough to describe the character. Pahiy (talk) 00:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 00:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 00:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The current reception reference is absolutely trivial, so there's nothing substantial enough in the article to pass WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 02:05, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to his section in List of Ace Attorney characters, as not sufficiently notable enough for a separate article and protect redirect if necessary to prevent recreation. If an article smells, it's usually the Butz._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:33, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to series character list. Like I mentioned in the Apollo Justice AfD, I have previously looked for sources for the characters in this series, and most just do not meet GNG. As a minor, irregularly recurring character, the situation does not even seem likely to change in the future with this character.--Alexandra^IDV 11:08, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Zxcvbnm and Alexandra, and salt. Same as the Apollo Justice AfD. -- ferret (talk) 17:30, 22 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.

AfDs related to this article:

Articles for deletion/Larry Butz

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ace Attorney characters#Apollo Justice. Will salt Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apollo Justice[edit]

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

This article fails WP:GNG. Though I’m not sure if this article about the titular protagonist from the fourth Ace Attorney video game series would be worthy enough to be saved if it were to be improved through the paragraph about the character in the List of Ace Attorney characters may be good enough to describe this character though there was another article about Apollo that was redirected to the list of characters back in 2016. Pahiy (talk) 00:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 00:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 00:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. As written, fails WP:NFICTION and is pure WP:PLOT. Japanese article is no better, it has only one source to [32](Famitsu) which does not appear to be particularly in-depth, although might be reliable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Currently lacks any reception information whatsoever. TTN (talk) 20:51, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to his section in List of Ace Attorney characters and protect against recreation if necessary, as failing GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect back to the series character list again. I have looked for sources for the major characters in this series before, and most of them, Apollo included, just do not meet GNG - which is reflected in the sources cited in the article. Things could very well change in the future if he keeps being a major character in any potential future games, but as it stands, he does not have enough coverage in RSs to warrant a stand-alone article.--Alexandra^IDV 11:04, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Zxcvbnm and Alexandra, and salt. -- ferret (talk) 17:30, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect And salt. No independent notability. Additionally, the original creator had serious issues with not understanding our notability concept, and has since been indeffed, so it’s not likely they had some sort of angle we’re unaware of either. Sergecross73 msg me 17:37, 22 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. Tone 08:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Geronemus[edit]

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

WP:PROMO for a ~~run-of-the-mill~~ dermatologist. Doctors are very often affiliated with hospitals, and very often publish in scientific journals. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Struck "run-of-the-mill" as misleading per the below. Misreading of the evidence on my part. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's always harder to judge with doctors, particularly with anything to do with dermatology, laser surgery, etc. But this doctor certainly does not appear to be "run-of-the-mill". GoogleScholar gives him the h-index of 76, which is astonomically high, for any discipline. Although in medicine many "best doctor in ..." type listings are not worth much as honors, he has a number of individual society awards (I added a couple to the article) of the type that WP:PROF has in mind. Also he was president of two scolarly/medical societies which could perhaps count as passing WP:PROF#C6. In any case, one can't fake an h-index of 76. So I'll say that passes WP:PROF#C1. Nsk92 (talk) 12:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#C1 and maybe #C6 as above. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:57, 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. Tone 08:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

King Fahd Suburbs[edit]

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

Unsourced article created in 2009 that fails WP:GNG Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 04:31, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 04:31, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 07:07, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Found nothing in Arabic and only one passing mention in English. Mccapra (talk) 11:40, 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 and redirect to Cockfighting in India#Kukkuta Sastra. Consensus is that the topic is covered adequately in the target article, and that the article as it stands should be TNT'd. No prejudice against recreation in a form that follows our policies and guidelines, it seems. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:13, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kukkuta Sastra[edit]

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

Now this is an interesting one. Ostensibly it is a form of divination based on the results of cockfighting (or something in that general vicinity—the prose is pretty garbled atm). This would certainly be a notable topic if I could confirm that it is real. But my searches for "kukkuta sastra" and "cock astrology" got precisely zero hits on the Internet Archive and just one passing mention in [33]. So we seem to have a WP:V fail here. There is an article in the Telugu Wikipedia, but it has just one source (which is a dead link). AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:51, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:51, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:51, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is definitely an interesting one. The article is just a mismash of several topics. But, here's a book that has something. Book Listing Book Preview. Now, the tricky part is this - the book was published in 2016, and this article was written in 2012. Did the book's author just pick it up from WP? Btw, looked at the Telugu Wikipedia link - looks legitimate, except for the sole-sourcing. PS:I used Google Translate to translate the article though. Ktin (talk) 04:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I could find two articles about this in Telugu newspapers,^[1]^[2] which mainly talk about how this shastra used in cockfights. So its definitely a real thing. A BBC Telugu article about cockfights^[3] says that there's no information about the author or when the book is written. I think it's very unlikely that the content is taken from wikipedia, as sastra is more of traditional knowledge than a book. -- Ab207 (talk) 19:25, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much Ab207! Just so I understand better: is Kukkuta Sastra a book/treatise—which is how the shastra article defines shastra—or is it a kind of divination (or both)? Kukkuta Sastra is so hard to understand that I can't really tell what it's about … AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:44, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- AleatoryPonderings, I don't have an expertise on this topic, but I think its a shastra (as in treatise) about cockfighting. I would have recommended merging this article into Cockfighting in India, if existed, which could provide a better context and a decent amount of sources for the topic. --Ab207 (talk) 20:08, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Ab207, Specifically to the question from AleatoryPonderings, while I too don't have an expertise on this topic, I think the answer might be a combination i.e. body of study / treatise and also divination.
  
  There is a book that is referenced in the Telugu wikipedia article. If someone can read Telugu, I think there might be a lot that could come out of that book. Unfortunately, I can not read the language. Also, irrespective - this article has a whole lot of unrelated things going on. This is truly a fascinating article, in that I agree with the nominator! Ktin (talk) 21:45, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Ktin, You may be right. As a native Telugu speaker, I haven't had the opportunity to go through the book. But the article seems to be written in a way that's detached from its real-world context. Ab207 (talk) 13:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: I have retrieved the source from Telugu Wikipedia.^[4] Kukkuta sastra is also the most viewed article of Telugu Wikipedia between Jan-July 2020 for some reason. --Ab207 (talk) 17:50, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The archived source from the Telugu WP looks like it's from Suryaa, which would give us one RS! Not quite verifiable yet, IMO, but getting closer; would be great to have WP:THREE. For others' reference, it looks like the name in Telugu is కుక్కుట శాస్త్రం, in case other Telugu speakers want to look into this. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC
- Nava Telangana's article^[2] also talks about Kukkuta sastra in detail. --Ab207 (talk) 19:41, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Ab207, AleatoryPonderings - I also noted one thing, the author for the bulk of this article is the same as the author of the Telugu Wikipedia article. But, the articles are fundamentally different. This one goes to some strange ways of linking to Mohenjo Daro etc. While the Telugu one is straight forward - this is the science (sic), these are the key divination inputs / outputs (so to speak). Ktin (talk) 19:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Ktin, You are right. Another editor (All Worlds) made the connection to ancient civilizations, quite mysteriously. Telugu article presents the actual contents in the book, which might explain high page views as the information comes handy for people who are involved in cockfights. Ab207 (talk) 20:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "పుక్కిట కుక్కుట శాస్త్రంతో... సిద్ధమవుతున్న కోడి పందాలరాయుళ్లు!". Andhra Bhoomi (in Telugu). Retrieved 2020-08-19.
^ ^a ^b "కాలుదువ్వుతున్న పందెంకోళ్లు... | ఖమ్మం | www.NavaTelangana.com". Nava Telangana (in Telugu). Retrieved 2020-08-19.
^ "కోడిపందేల చరిత్ర తెలిసి ఉండొచ్చు.. మరి కోడి చరిత్ర తెలుసా?". BBC News తెలుగు (in Telugu). Retrieved 2020-08-19.
^ K, Srinivas (2011-01-12). "కోట్ల రూపాయల కోడి పందేలు". Surya. Archived from the original on 2014-01-13. Retrieved 2014-01-13.

Summing up. As this is an AfD and not the talk page of the article—and no one has !voted yet!—perhaps we should run down how this article meets, or does not meet, policy as written. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It, to my eye, is utterly incomprehensible as currently written. Arguable WP:TNT case. (Although, of course, TNT is not policy.)
Further to point 1, I don't even know what this article is supposed to be about. It may either be a form of divination, a treatise about divination, both, or perhaps even neither. Another point in favour of WP:TNT, and one in favour of deletion per WP:V: you can't verify claims of an article that has an unclear topic.
We apparently have two, not WP:THREE reliable sources which appear to mention the topic in some capacity. As a non-Telugu speaker, I cannot evaluate them for quality. But my original rationale for the nom—that this article was utterly unverifiable—no longer applies.
By the same token as point 3 above, we have an arguable case for notability per WP:GNG. But, again, I am not in a position to evaluate.

_{(I think this is above post is a great call for action. Thanks for framing it this way AleatoryPonderings.)}

Weak Keep. But, use this opportunity to get rid of the Mohenjo Daro references etc. or atleast make that recommendation. Use that to restore the article to the text that was introduced by that author who also wrote the Telugu wikipedia article. Regarding 2 versus 3, I think we can go either way, and the keep-rather-than-delete-when-you-can mindset in me, drives me toward a Weak Keep. My choice has further been solidified by that LiveMint article that showed that this page was the most visited Telugu Wikipedia article! This has been an interesting AfD for sure, and for that, thanks AleatoryPonderings and Ab207! Ktin (talk) 20:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Ktin, I agree with your reasoning, though I've gravitated towards a different solution. Thanks for all the input! --Ab207 (talk) 21:14, 21 August 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

Agree with the Redirect as suggested below by Ab207 and AleatoryPonderings. Ktin (talk) 16:25, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Broadly agree with AleatoryPonderings that its a case of TNT. Although I think this topic may narrowly qualify GNG, the article is beyond repair and should be re-written from the scratch, imv. Better to delete for a clean start, I would do it myself if I can find enough sources and time. --Ab207 (talk) 20:41, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cockfighting in India#Kukkuta Sastra: @AleatoryPonderings and Ktin: As I have proposed earlier, the topic may be better suited for Cockfighting in India. I have created the article and added the content from the sources we have gathered during the discussion. Regards --Ab207 (talk) 14:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (because it's a total mess at the moment and should be blown up without prejudice against recreation as something useable) and redirect to Cockfighting in India#Kukkuta Sastra. Fantastic solution—thanks much, Ab207. (Note to closer: I know my delete !vote is implied as nom, but am adding "redirect" for clarity.) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:16, 22 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. Tone 08:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

M&A Today[edit]

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

Promo for a journal whose only function is promo. Redirect to M&A Source would be of dubious value since I'm not convinced that's notable either. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Obviously promotional. A a s i m 05:38, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, promotional, as above. Third reference is a dead link. --Whiteguru (talk) 08:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article seems to be promotional and lacks the multiple in-depth reliable secondary sources that it would need to be notable. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:33, 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. Tone 08:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fereshta Samah[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Apparently non-notable singer. The sources cited in the last AfD are all dead, and the one source—which I auto-translated—appears to be an interview. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:31, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:31, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:31, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:32, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficient sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:15, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete generally per nom. I could find nothing, with Google turning up stuff that was not about this person. --Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 18:08, 23 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. czar 01:36, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Attica (band)[edit]

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

One of the many non-notable bands from the late 1980s to early 1990s punk rock scene in Aberdeen. Looking on Google Books gives nothing, nothing to meet WP:NMUSICIAN. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:16, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article reads as if it was WP:MADEUP one day, and the article's creator made this article in July 2006, before disappearing. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:38, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC due to the lack of multiple in-depth reliable sources about it. They don't even have an AllMusic profile and I couldn't find anything about if they ever released any albums. Most likely the article was created as an attempt at notability through inheritance because of the Nirvana drummer being connected to it. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just another NN band. Nothing to see here people, just move along. No evidence of notability (other than maybe the fact that the drummer of Nirvana used to play here). No sources presented. And the part about their "hit songs" is quite funny in my opinion since crossover thrash bands aren't known to produce hits. And if they would, they certainly wouldn't release them with titles like "Jon Bon Jovi Has AIDS". But even then, the sentence about their "hits" is unsourced just like the rest of the article. Creator has only edited this article and added links to the Lowestoft article before disappearing. I would not proclaim him to be a single-purpose account since his edit in the Lowestoft article saves him from that accusation, but he is close to one. It is also difficult to search for this band because of the simple name (searching with "Attica metal band" does not help either), most of the results are about another metal band called "Attica Rage" and the rest of the results are just the words "Attica", "metal" and "band" separately. No evidence of sources, let alone reliable sources whatsoever. How this article managed to stay here since 2006 is beyond me. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 12:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Obviously invented. A a s i m 00:31, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Drastically fails notability guidelines. WP:GARAGEBAND. Foxnpichu (talk) 11:24, 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. czar 01:35, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Political Process[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG, the only coverage in reliable secondary sources is this borderline routine coverage of its Early Access release on Steam. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Though the game is mentioned by at least one reliable source, please note that the game is on early access, therefore it will be constantly updated. One reliable source is reasonable as this game is a stub and will develop in time. Thanks. KRtau16 (talk) 09:01, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that it is too soon, and it fails WP:GNG, but can the article be stored in the draft section rather than delete? Thanks. KRtau16 (talk) 04:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an issue with draftifying, although it is worth noting that even if deleted, you can request to have the article restored at WP:DRV once more sources are available. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok. I understand. It's up to the votes anyway. As majority of the people here voted Delete, then it should be. If there are sources, then I will request for the article to be restored at WP:DRV. Thanks again. KRtau16 (talk) 04:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems like a case of TOSOON. Since it isn't even released and there aren't any reviews of it yet. It's not like the article can't be recreated if or when both occur. As things currently are though, it fails WP:GNG. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete probably too soon. There is a decent chance this game will the reviewed by some publications but in the meanwhile fails WP:GNG. W 42 13:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I love this game, but yeah, I agree that this is WP:TOOSOON. The PC Gamer article is the only WP:RS I could find on the game, and it's not much. Article can be recreated when more reviews come out. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 20:04, 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.

[1] "Model Misbah Mumtaz comes candid about nose job". The Nation. 2019-05-07. Retrieved 2020-08-19.

[2] "Misbah Mumtaz opens up about her rhinoplasty". The Express Tribune. 2019-05-07. Retrieved 2020-08-19.

[3] Quraishi, Faisal (2014-10-25). "Veet Miss Supermodel 2014 winner crowned". DAWN.COM. Retrieved 2020-08-19.

[4] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdRpBlD-u58

[5] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kd9yL_kDFzY

[6] ttps://www.hollywoodintoto.com/mock-daisy-chicks-on-the-right-interview/

[7] ttps://www.thecut.com/2013/08/chicks-on-the-right-reclaim-feminism-from-poor.html

[8] ttps://kfyo.com/larw-to-host-chicks-on-the-right-in-lubbock-at-pink-elephant-gala/

[9] ttps://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/s2-e139-chicks-on-the-right-great-soups-and-more/id1451761026?i=1000479230231

[10] ttps://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2013/07/01/fox-news-radio-guy-facebook-has-problem-with-conservatives/

[11] ttps://www.dailykos.com/blogs/Zero-Serenity

[12] "పుక్కిట కుక్కుట శాస్త్రంతో... సిద్ధమవుతున్న కోడి పందాలరాయుళ్లు!". Andhra Bhoomi (in Telugu). Retrieved 2020-08-19.

[nt-13] "కాలుదువ్వుతున్న పందెంకోళ్లు... | ఖమ్మం | www.NavaTelangana.com". Nava Telangana (in Telugu). Retrieved 2020-08-19.

[14] "కోడిపందేల చరిత్ర తెలిసి ఉండొచ్చు.. మరి కోడి చరిత్ర తెలుసా?". BBC News తెలుగు (in Telugu). Retrieved 2020-08-19.

[15] K, Srinivas (2011-01-12). "కోట్ల రూపాయల కోడి పందేలు". Surya. Archived from the original on 2014-01-13. Retrieved 2014-01-13.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]