Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 August 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 1 August 3 August >

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. Consensus is for keep rather than merge. (non-admin closure) —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 23:38, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandria Shipyard[edit]

Alexandria Shipyard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG, almost all mentions in reliable sources are WP:ROUTINE coverage of other events. Nathan2055talk - contribs 23:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are plenty of sources showing notability. This shipyard might be physically located at the port, but I see no evidence that it is managed jointly, and so no reason to merge. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:37, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Agreed. A military shipyard with plenty of sources is notable. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:53, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable shipyard with sources and passes out criteria for WP:GEOFEAT. Wm335td (talk) 22:14, 9 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. And rename to Palm Park Formation. (non-admin closure) —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 23:30, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Palm Peak Formation[edit]

Palm Peak Formation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The formation name cannot be found at the cited Fossilworks source, nor at GEOLEX, nor with a Google or Google Scholar search. Kent G. Budge (talk) 23:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense to me. As the original nominator for deletion, I'm going to recommend the reviewing administrator close this with Rename as the decision. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 02:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. It's been a week and there seems to be complete consensus. As I understand the process, all that's needed is for an administrator to formalize the decision and then I can go rename the page. Administrators? --Kent G. Budge (talk) 16:56, 9 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 Marc Gunn. Salvio 07:44, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Live at the Cactus Cafe (Marc Gunn album)[edit]

Live at the Cactus Cafe (Marc Gunn album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another non-notable album, from the same musician who produced Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irish Drinking Songs for Cat Lovers. AllMusic page is a track listing, not even any user reviews. [3]. I found sources from Mage Records and Marc Gunn, but Gunn is the musician and the album was released on Mage. Beyond that, I'm finding sales sites, bandcamp, napter, and other unreliable sources. Hog Farm Bacon 22:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 22:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 22:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 22:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom, WP:NALBUM doesn't appear to be met. (Album didn't appear in any national music chart, wasn't certified gold or similar, not nominated for any notable awards/Grammys/whatever, hasn't demonstrably received rotation/play on major stations, etc.) WP:SIGCOV also doesn't appear to be met. (Can find nothing to indicate that album was subject to significant coverage, reviews, analysis, etc.) Sources confirm that subject exists/existed. And that's about it. Can't see how meets project's notability criteria. Either those we have now, or those we had when article was created. Guliolopez (talk) 10:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Marc Gunn#Discography: Barely found anything about the album. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 05:00, 6 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 Marc Gunn. Salvio 07:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Drinking Songs for Cat Lovers[edit]

Irish Drinking Songs for Cat Lovers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not finding significant coverage in reliable sources for this album. I'm finding several hits on Marc Gunn's website, but as the creator of the album, he's not independent. [4] looks like a blog. AllMusic page is a track listing [5]. [6] appears to be a self-published blog. Nothing else looks any more reliable. Has been in CAT:NN since late 2010. Hog Farm Bacon 22:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 22:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 22:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 22:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, looked for sources for this a couple of weeks ago, didn't find enough RS. Caro7200 (talk) 22:34, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Marc Gunn#Discography, where it is already listed. Quite honestly, I'm not positive he is notable himself due to the poor sourcing on his own article, but for now, redirecting to the discography would be a valid solution. Rorshacma (talk) 02:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete,Per nom. not enough coverage by reliable sources. Alex-h (talk) 08:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Marc Gunn#Discography: Barely found anything about the album. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 05:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Marc Gunn#Discography. Which sounds like a valid alternative to straight deletion. Since it's already mentioned there and because while this isn't notable enough on it's own for an article, it's still worth being redirected IMO. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:44, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete without prejudice to recreation as a redirect Salvio 07:59, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

K.W. Miller[edit]

K.W. Miller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails . Many of the cited sources are from PR Newswire, aka press releases from companies he has worked for. Some, like #25, are WP:SELFPUB. Others are tweets and some blog pieces pointing out how wacky he is on Twitter. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:POLITICIAN. I have just removed the infobox link that went directly to his fund-raising website. "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability" This reads like a political campaign advertisement. No evidence he's held office before. No indication he's ever been interviewed by any major/national news media. Ballotpedia is self-published. His list of corporate affiliations are not substantive of leadership roles.— Maile (talk) 22:47, 2 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. (non-admin closure) —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 21:20, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Raes Jamil Bhurgari[edit]

Raes Jamil Bhurgari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deceased politician who is only mentioned in an obituary. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. AviationFreak💬 21:07, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. AviationFreak💬 21:07, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. @AviationFreak:, how does this fail WP:NPOL? I agree the sourcing could be better, but Bhurgari served as a member of a provincial legislature. WP:NPOL clearly states that members of provincial legislatures are indeed notable. LefcentrerightDiscuss 21:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Lefcentreright: I see what you mean, but the bit stating that on the WP:NPOL section has a footnote that calls serving in a regional legislative body a "secondary criterion." Furthermore, the only source on the article states that Bhurgari "barely attended any meetings" while in office. I would still argue that Bhurgari is not notable. AviationFreak💬 22:03, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That same note also says that in this subject area, completeness is the most important consideration. The actual rule is that as long as it's possible to verify that the person actually held the claimed office and isn't a hoax, deletion is off the table forever regardless of any sourcing problems, except maybe in rare extenuating circumstances (e.g. the person won the election and then died the very next day and thus was never actually sworn into office at all) that haven't been demonstrated here. We also have a terrible habit of writing bad articles about politicians, which say little more than "Person is a politician who held office from [Year] to [Year], the end" — not because improvement is impossible, but because we don't necessarily always put in the work to make the improvements. (And we have an especially serious problem when it comes to politicians in countries where the bulk of the potential sourcing is likely to be in a foreign language that many Wikipedians cannot read, meaning we'll miss even more possible sources than we already do for anglos.) Also, the source says he rarely attended committee meetings, not that he never attended sittings of the legislature. Those aren't the same thing. Bearcat (talk) 19:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NPOL, including the footnote referenced above which says "this criterion ensures that our coverage of major political offices, incorporating all of the present and past holders of that office, will be complete regardless". No convincing argument has been made as to why this should be an exception (and the only exception I have ever seen) to our general practice in this area. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NPOL. An individual becomes notable once they are elected or appointed to a provisional legislature. --Enos733 (talk) 20:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable because of office. WikiMacaroonsCinnamon? 09:02, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yes, the article needs referencing improvement; however, the provincial legislature of Sindh is the legislature of a province of Pakistan, and thus a role that straight up passes NPOL #1. Bearcat (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:14, 6 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 08:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rainbows (charity)[edit]

Rainbows (charity) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage per WP:ORG. SL93 (talk) 20:59, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I can’t see any significant independent coverage. Mccapra (talk) 03:00, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there isn't any references in the article and it seems like nothing that would pass WP:NORG is out there. So, deleting it seems reasonable to me. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Phyllis A. Balch[edit]

Phyllis A. Balch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NWRITER. No significant coverage. AviationFreak💬 20:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. AviationFreak💬 20:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment her book, Prescription for Nutritional Healing, co-authored with James Balch, is very popular and widely cited, so is probably notable. If someone wants to create a stub for the book, this stub for the author could be redirected. pburka (talk) 21:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or agree with pburka. Found a Publishers Weekly review, Library Journal, some hits through an academic database, some citations. Penguin makes some bold sales claims that I can't find any sources for, but her most popular book has gone through multiple editions, and another has gone through at least a second (I'm not making any argument for their claims). Caro7200 (talk) 21:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep for now. I'm finding some biographical information on her. I'm not sure that the sales claims should say, but wow, some of her works have had quite a few editions! I think will meet WP:NAUTHOR by the time we're through with the article. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 03:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 03:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 03:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 03:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 03:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep It seems like her book has gotten some attention. So, I'm willing to say weak keep for now with the caveat that someone should create an article for the book at some point and redirect this article to it. If that never happens though, then I suggest this be renominated and deleted. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Salvio 08:12, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1234 Shille Hodi[edit]

1234 Shille Hodi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable song. Indiaglitz is a bad source. This song is not relevant in any manner. TamilMirchi (talk) 19:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 19:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 19:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 19:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 19:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Note that more sources are found under the song's native language title "೧೨೩೪ ಶಿಳ್ಳೆ ಹೊಡಿ", but unfortunately it's more of the same, with basic press releases, lyric sites, and streaming entries in that language. Furthermore, most of those are dedicated to the movie that the song comes from. The English sources currently used in the article are mostly about the movie as well, plus unreliable celebrity gossip about who is in the video. The song has no reliable coverage in its own right. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 02:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Anjani Putra: Barely found anything about the song. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 06:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not satisfy WP:NSONG. -- Ab207 (talk) 18:33, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the song doesn't seem notable enough to pass WP:NSONG. Even under the "native" title of it. Normally I'd go with a redirect, but I don't think it's necessary in this case. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:04, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Derrick Stevens[edit]

Derrick Stevens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:1EVENT Launchballer 18:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:02, 2 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) 22:05, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Acupressure mat[edit]

Acupressure mat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page is clearly written by the producer of this "ShaktiMat". There is no mention of anything other than this mat and there is a direct link in the references to the company's website. Akrasia25 (talk) 18:46, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:40, 2 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 08:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maquete[edit]

Maquete (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable film, fails WP:NFILM, no suitable citations/sources found during WP:BEFORE search. Claims of awards not supported. Donaldd23 (talk) 18:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 18:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 18:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per nom. In addition to the polices outlined above, this article also fails WP:NFOE. I cannot find any awards given to the video. Donna Spencertalk-to-me⛅ 01:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there is a lack of coverage in reliable sources, for example there are no external reviews listed at IMDB and no entry at all at Rotten Tomatoes, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:00, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to failing WP:NFILM. Since it lacks multiple in-depth reliable sources about it. Like the vote above mine says, there isn't even an entry for it on Rotten Tomatoes. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Salvio 08:15, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

María M.[edit]

María M. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable film, fails WP:NFILM, no suitable citations/sources found during WP:BEFORE search. Donaldd23 (talk) 18:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 18:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 18:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. No notability whatsoever, and the article reflects that. AviationFreak💬 20:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 18:49, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article is a glorified directory listing and there doesn't seem to be the multiple in-depth reliable sources out there on the film that would be needed for the article to improve or meet the notability standards for films. So, I don't see why it shouldn't be deleted. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:11, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Wendell Morfe Dionido II[edit]

Russell Wendell Morfe Dionido II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not pass WP:NBIO. The only mention in secondary sources are low-level university awards and other routine coverage. Conifer (talk) 18:21, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:30, 2 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 Coptic saints. The gist of this discussion is that this Coptic saint is only mentioned briefly and in passing in a few quite old sources. There is consensus to not keep the article, but there is no consensus between a merger to List of Coptic saints or plain deletion. In such circumstances, I go with redirection as a compromise. Editors can separately decide whether or not to merge content from the history. Sandstein 09:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abratacus[edit]

Abratacus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Saints are of course notable but this sub-stub may be a hoax or a misspellings. I can't find any sources - Google gives just Wikipedia and its mirrors/forks, GScholar and GBooks have just a few hits and they all point to the cited, no preview Holweck, F. G. A Biographical Dictionary of the Saints. St. Louis, MO: B. Herder Book Co. 1924. Which to me suggests a misspellings in a century-old work, because one would expect a saint to be written up in more than just a single work. Ping User:Anarchyte who moved the article from draft space and then prodded it (only for the prod to be removed with no rationale by another editor shortly afterward; let's not add such hoax-possible content to the encyclopedia, people...). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with the above, but it would be good if someone with knowledge of the Coptic language could chime in here as presumably Abratacus is a translation from that and sources could exist in Coptic. SmartSE (talk) 11:31, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article creator is known to have crated hundreds of stubs of fictitious places based on completely unreliable single sources that are more than a century old. This seems like the same thing, only this time it's apparently a fictitious person. Softlavender (talk) 12:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/merge I had no difficulty finding another source. If there's not much known about this saint then perhaps we might merge to List of Coptic saints per WP:ATD-M. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:32, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is that 1844 source reliable? I have doubts about this and would like the existence of this saint confirmed by something from the last half a century or so, post-WWII at least. 19th century did not have peer review or such, you know. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/merge if there are other source(s) confirming this person's existence. Balle010 (talk) 15:55, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Here's the 1924 work with a full preview. It's not much more than a sentence and is very old. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 16:22, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Coptic saints. Of the cited sources, The Highlands of Aethiopia says only that his feast day is April 16. A Biographical Dictionary of the Saints has as its complete entry the following: "*Abratacus, a Coptic saint. F. 16 April. Cal. Copt." The asterisk means that he wasn't a Catholic saint; the "F." means "feast"; and "Cal. Copt." means that the cited source is "Several Coptic and Abyssinian Calendars, published by C. Harris in the 'Highlands of Ethiopia,' III ...." -- in other words, the previously cited source. Clearly neither author had any biographical information about Abratacus, nor did any of the editors who have edited this article over the last 13 years. If we add "Abratacus (feast day April 16)", with a citation, to List of Coptic saints, the encyclopedia will not lose any information. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this source lists him in the saints' calendar, not fictitious.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:16, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is the source from 1899 reliable, in light of the issues raised such as possible misspellings or errors in the old sources? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not really an additional source, as it was written by William Cornwallis Harris, the same person who published the calendar of saints which is already used as the main source in this article; it just means he published the same information in two different books. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:28, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Abratacus is almost certainly a Latinized form of his name. What other names does he have, if any?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:42, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well, I was all ready to write this off as a figment of Harris’s imagination when I stumbled upon the “Biblioteca universale sacro-profana, antico-moderna...“, (pub. 1701, author Vincenzo Coronelli), in which is the text (numbered 1859): “ABRATLO, Lat. Abrataus, i, Santo dello chiefa etiopica, si cui di celebra la festa il de 2 I del Mese 8 che corresponde 16 d. Aprile.”, which roughly translates as “ABRATLO, Lat. Abrataus, Saint of the Ethiopian church, whose feast is celebrated on the 2nd of the 8th month which corresponds to the 16th d. April.” Possibly the saint is also mentioned in “Lexicon Æthiopico-Latinum” (pub. 1699, author Hiob Ludolf) but I struggle to read the Latin text. Bulletin de la Société de l'histoire de France (pub. 1856, author J. Renouard) mentions “Ethiopie.... S. Abratée (Abrateus)” in a liste genéralé des saints for 16 Avril. I am rather doubtful though that we can use these ancient texts to write an encyclopaedic article, I would prefer something much more recent. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:52, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fascinating, really. I'd like to see this rescued, but if all we have is a name, affiliation (Ethiopian Saint) and information on his 'saint day', I think this would be better of as part of a list. Eternal WP:SUBSTUBs are not ideal articles. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:49, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I asked one user for help: User_talk:Lothar_von_Richthofen#Coptic_vetting. He is the only active wikipedia user with the Copt-3 box on his userpage, and there are no active users with any higher levels for Coptic. If he does not respond, maybe start contacting churches and scholars for help on this, at least to see if there is a non-Latinized version of his name (besides Italian) that we should be looking for.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:06, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Awaiting further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:26, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:21, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I do not believe these old books to be reliable sources but what is more telling is that this saint does not appear to have been covered in modern literature. Fails GNG. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this person has barely been talked about in texts from his time period, let alone in modern ones. There definitely doesn't seem to be any in-depth coverage of them anywhere. Therefore, I think deleting the article is the right thing to do. Normally, I'd go with merge when that's an option, but I don't think it's best choice here since there isn't really anything well sourced or meaningful beyond the basic "this guy exists" information to merge. So, merging is unnecessary. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

K. Moorthy Kannan[edit]

K. Moorthy Kannan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unknown director with no sources. Furthermore, the creator of this page is blocked. TamilMirchi (talk) 17:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 17:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 17:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 17:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable as all sources listed mention him in passing or not at all. AviationFreak💬 20:34, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:55, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the filmmaker doesn't seem notable and it appears that the article was created by a COI editor. So, deleting it is appropriate IMO. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:21, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:07, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Floris van Eyck[edit]

Robert Floris van Eyck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This biography says nothing about anything this person might have achieved in his own right, it is entirely about his family connections. PatGallacher (talk) 17:51, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I found one catalog of an exhibition at the Brook Street Gallery with an introduction by Roland Penrose, which isn't too shabby, but I can't find much else. His work appears at auction occasionally, but doesn't seem to be fetching high prices, several hundred pounds at best. Vexations (talk) 19:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I did not find any sources about his art practice. There are mentions in peerage books for his marriage, but that does not help.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MILL and WP:GNG. There's literally no allegation of notability, and one does not magically gain notability because one was once married to a noblewoman. A few hundred dollars for his works does not strike me as a notable artist. Bearian (talk) 16:16, 6 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) 22:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Adrian of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Prince Adrian of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject is not notable. He has received no coverage in reliable sources beyond genealogy publications. Since Wikipedia is not a genealogy website, it should not have genealogy entries masquerading as biographies. Surtsicna (talk) 17:36, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 17:36, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 17:36, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 17:36, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable aristocrat from some time after German abolished its nobility. This 1917 cartoon from Punch could apply to this and a lot of similar Wikipedia articles. PatGallacher (talk) 17:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"A good riddance"
  • Haha! I should probably just paste the cartoon instead of explaining the obvious. Surtsicna (talk) 18:34, 2 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) 22:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heinrich Donatus, Hereditary Prince of Schaumburg-Lippe[edit]

Heinrich Donatus, Hereditary Prince of Schaumburg-Lippe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no indication of notability. The article itself barely covers him; two out of three paragraphs are about his mother's mental health and marital history. Surtsicna (talk) 17:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 17:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 17:12, 2 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:06, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bihawana Seminary[edit]

Bihawana Seminary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This looks like a non-notable article about a seminary. The only source in the article is primary and I was only able to find a few brief trivial mentions out there about it. From what I can tell there's nothing that would help it pass WP:NORG. Adamant1 (talk) 02:29, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:38, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:38, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Flori4nK t • c 16:53, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, with a proviso. Don't see any WP:SIGCOV about this school beyond the info I just added, so I don't think it meets WP:NSCHOOL. One possible—albeit labour-intensive—WP:ATD is to move the material here to Bihawana or Bihawana mission, both of which get a fair number of hits and which I think would pass WP:NPLACE if we created them, since Bihawana is a [city or village] anywhere in the world whose existence can be verified through a reliable source. (At the Internet Archive: Bihawana; Bihawana Mission.) I know this is a slightly odd suggestion—just seems a shame to delete when there's another option to preserve this info. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:54, 2 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 Aga Khan Education Services. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:08, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aga Khan Mzizima Secondary School[edit]

Aga Khan Mzizima Secondary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable secondary school. The article hasn't cited any sources since 2010 and nothing that would pass WP:GNG or WP:NORG came up in a WP:BEFORE. As an alternative deletion maybe it could be merged or redirected to the organization that operates it Aga Khan Education Services. I think that's the current procedure. Adamant1 (talk) 02:22, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:38, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:38, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Flori4nK t • c 16:53, 2 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:08, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of hospitals in Manjeri[edit]

List of hospitals in Manjeri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an un-referenced list that doesn't contain any blue links either. So it fails WP:LISTN. As an alternative to deletion it could be merged with List of hospitals in India. Although, I'll leave that up to others to decide. Adamant1 (talk) 04:31, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No notable entries. Not even worth a merge or redirect. Ajf773 (talk) 08:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Flori4nK t • c 16:53, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nothing of value worth keeping Spiderone 07:04, 3 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:08, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Schwarz–Goursat simplices[edit]

List of Schwarz–Goursat simplices (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:N. I found zero sources for "Schwarz–Goursat simplices", possibly WP:SYNTH. --Pontificalibus 06:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:46, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can find no evidence that this is an established term. Nor is there evidence that the part beyond what we already cover in Schwarz triangle and Goursat tetrahedron has been discussed in any depth. If there is literature on the higher-dimensional generalizations that I'm not finding, it can go into a section of an existing article. I'm doubtful that there can be much interesting to say about those higher-dimensional cases, because past dimension 4 the classification of regular polytopes becomes pretty bland. This looks like a harmless bit of fun, but it's not Wikipedia's job to host a pet project or to promote terminology that the mathematicians haven't already adopted. XOR'easter (talk) 18:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Flori4nK t • c 16:53, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete per comments above. jraimbau (talk) 15:18, 3 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. Sandstein 09:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pehli Raat[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Pehli Raat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An article about a Bollywood film, sourced only to (non-WP:RS) IMDb since creation in 2015. A WP:BEFORE search failed to disclose even the plot, which the article lacks, let alone any RS coverage. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG.

(A previous version of this article was speedied in 2015, with a closing summary which hints at knitted foot coverings.) Narky Blert (talk) 06:57, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Flori4nK t • c 16:52, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NFILM. Donaldd23 (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to failing WP:NFILM. I did some research on it also and couldn't find anything about it either except for basic information. So, it doesn't seem notable. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:39, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mirek's Cellebration[edit]

Mirek's Cellebration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NN software, fails the GNG. ZERO coverage in reliable sources, substantial or otherwise, beyond casual mention on various download sites. Notability tagged for over a decade. Ravenswing 15:39, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 15:39, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 15:39, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Flori4nK t • c 16:52, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:NSOFT. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per above. Also it has been tagged for notability for 11 years. Also after all of this time there's no real text; just vague advertising type phrases. Understandable if there is still no suitable coverage in references. North8000 (talk) 12:54, 8 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. Sandstein 09:59, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nakayama Naotaka[edit]

Nakayama Naotaka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NN acupuncturist, fails the GNG. Beyond numerous Wiki mirrors of this article, I could find ZERO sources discussing the subject, reliable or otherwise, substantial or namedrops. No evidence that the awards claimed in the article were actually awarded. Suspicion that misleading information was included; a medical journal was cited for issues in 1970 and 1974 when Elsevier states that Volume 1, Issue 1 was in 1979. Notability tagged for over a decade. Created by a SPA with no other Wikipedia activity. Ravenswing 15:57, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 15:57, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 15:57, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I googled "中山直隆" and couldnt find much. Searching あはぎ法制定４０周年 returned nothing either.--RZuo (talk) 09:04, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Flori4nK t • c 16:52, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lacking notable enough sourcing for a while now, being created by a SPA, and the fact that nothing about the person can be find. So, this seems like a pretty clear cut delete case to me. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:43, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:59, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Encounter: Education for Meaning and Social Justice[edit]

Encounter: Education for Meaning and Social Justice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per Wikipedia:Notability_(periodicals)#Criteria. This journal is published by an org called Great Ideas in Education, with senior editors who are academics at smaller colleges or previous WILEY editors--so fails point 3. No indication of national awards per point 2. I'll group point 1 and 4: googling many of the articles they have published results in one or two citations, or more likely, pdfs of the pieces where it becomes clear that this isn't a publication with national reach. Nole (chat·edits) 16:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:32, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Kadzi   (talk) 16:25, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Flori4nK t • c 16:51, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NJOURNALS and WP:GNG. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for failing WP:NJOURNALS and WP:GNG. I think the original nominator did an excellent job giving the reasons why this notable and I don't feel the need to repeat them. So, I'll just it at that. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:45, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Source mods. Sandstein 10:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eclipse (video game)[edit]

Eclipse (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of significant mentions in reliable sources that I could find, article appears to be a perma-stub without much info to fill it out further. Fails WP:GNG. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect to List of Source mods could work.--69.157.254.92 (talk) 03:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Flori4nK t • c 16:51, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Could not find sources to make this one work. A non-notable game mod that never received significant coverage, and likely never will. Archrogue (talk) 18:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or redirect to List of Source mods. Since it's already mentioned there and doesn't seem notable enough for it's own article. I think merging or redirecting a fair middle ground compared to straight deletion. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dapo Awofisayo[edit]

Dapo Awofisayo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tricky one as subject of article does appear in “reliable sources” but upon closer observation of this usual Nigerian reliable sources we observe that half are sponsored posts & the other half written by guest editors. Hence in this context the reliable sources are not to be considered reliable. Possible UPE article where subject of article falls short of WP:ANYBIO. Celestina007 01:44, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 01:44, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 01:44, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 01:44, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 01:44, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:50, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 12:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. non notable businessman. Nika2020 (talk) 22:26, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the subject has received media coverage, specifically for being a "Group Executive Director of CPL Group", which according to the general notability guideline is an "invalid criteria" since both company as well as the post he has retained are not notable – fails to meet WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO.

TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 09:51, 7 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. Anyone can create a redirect in the normal course of editing. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:15, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cecilie, Princess of Waldeck and Pyrmont[edit]

Cecilie, Princess of Waldeck and Pyrmont (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Again, lots of genealogy and no indication of coverage in reliable sources beyond it, i.e. no apparent notability. The subject is a make-believe princess who has married and had children. She leads a private life and virtually nobody's heard of her. Surtsicna (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 16:48, 2 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) 12:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amat al-Aleem al-Asbahi[edit]

Amat al-Aleem al-Asbahi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

De-PROD'd today. Original PROD rationale was: Although her death was tragic, the fact that it was briefly a news piece does not make her encyclopedically notable. I did not find any indication that her death prompted any WP:LASTING changes, or coverage long beyond the event.

Post-PROD, only one source (this book) has been located, and it's no more than a two-sentence mention.

Participants should take note of two discussions: the talk page discussion, where de-PRODder Bookku made a suggestion to merge to Yemeni Civil War (2015–present)#Children and women, which I believe is WP:UNDUE prominence. (They also left some remarks about an AfD discussion being biased, stonewalling, and a waste of time, which I find to be in bad faith.)

Secondly, the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red#Amat al-Aleem al-Asbahi is relevant; SusunW advised not being able to find any substantial sources in Arabic, which should help with concerns of English-language bias. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yemen-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Thanks to PMC for raising the question: I'm generally less deletionist than PMC, but the project benefits from diversity of perspectives. I created the stub. In doing so, I was consciously trying to push against systemic bias. Geographically, Yemen is among many countries which are under-represented in Wikipedia. It's also among the 10 countries with the lowest proportion of women on Wikipedia: women are ~8% of Yemeni biographies. So, though Yemen has a population of 28 million, en-WP has pages for under 100 Yemeni women. A general paucity of sources makes this bias hard to address. When it occurred, Al-Asbahi's death was unusually widely reported around the world, but as PMC says there's been little subsequent attention, excepting a paragraph about her (I count it as 6 sentences rather than 2, incidentally) in an encyclopedia page summarizing women's political participation in Yemen. I agree this is borderline, but hope we can keep the page. Dsp13 (talk) 21:54, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I counted it as two since the rest of it was more about the fatwa impacting her area of work in general, but IMO even if you count it as six sentences, that's still not in-depth coverage. I appreciate your dedication to pushing against systemic bias, I just don't think it should come at the expense of notability standards. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:23, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment just for record With due respect. Basically my statement about bias is not personal accusation but contextual. When it is possible to redirect article to Yemeni women's human rights article not doing so but single minded focusing on deletion is continuation of internalized multi-layer 'systemic bias'. (Read word 'multi-layer systemic bias' once again) and hence stone walling. In the time one spends on a deletion discussion could have been used to create a article for human rights of Yemeni women and killings of their activists could have been covered. The time which could have been used more productively not doing so is waste of time. (Read again The time which could have been used more productively not doing so is waste of time.)
Until conflicts continue many times journalists are unable to publish in local news under pressure or threat in such cases news are handed over to English language press. So coverage in prominent sources trickles slowly And that adds to additional layer of systemic bias against active women in conflict areas Bookku (talk) 00:54, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Accusing me of wasting my time on AfD is a bit rich, especially since you took the time to comment here after insisting you wouldn't, and to type it out twice for some reason. Discussing the removal of articles which do not meet our notability standards is as productive a use of time as creating new articles which do. I'm sorry that that upsets you, but it's been a part of the Wikipedia process since the beginning. Approaching the process with bad-faith accusations of bias, stonewalling, and now time-wasting only undercuts your own point, since it quickly becomes obvious you don't have a policy-based argument to make. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If some one misunderstands and misquotes the other has no option but to reply it. When redirection is possible insisting on deletion is waste of time of one's own and others too; And Wikipedia has unemployed army of administrative hopeful deletionists - interpreting Wikipedia rules in tiger's fossilized stripes fashion sans logical imagination, like the ultra conservative Maulans interpreting scriptures as if Wikipedia has no rule for flexibility denying room with multi-layer barriers - 'when 10 deletion votes are enough for democratic majority they vote in hundreds' is waste of time. Read again, 'when 10 deletion votes are enough for democratic majority they vote in hundreds'. Bookku (talk) 03:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirection to where? I already explained on the talk page that your proposed target is not suitable. Unfortunately, repeating yourself does not magically make your point stronger, and resorting to name-calling only exposes the fact that you don't have a policy-based argument. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Arabic page indicates she was one of the most prominent women activists in Yemen (a country of 28 million) as does the Arabic language article. Patapsco913 (talk) 10:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All of the coverage (including the Arabic-language article you added) is about her death, circa the date of her death. In other words, it is news coverage about her death. No one yet has located any coverage of her life prior to death, and no one has located any from after her death indicating that it had any significant lasting impact. We are not a newspaper bound to create an article on every incident that makes the news, and not a memorial for everyone who has died tragically. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for procedural reasons. I don't see any attempt has been made to include content and sources from the Arabic language article. Bearian (talk) 20:48, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bearian, did you not read the comments right above yours? Patapsco913 mentions the Arabic-language article, and my response to him notes that the single source from that article has been added to the English article (and that it's more news coverage of her death). There aren't any other sources on the Arabic article except that one (which leads me to believe that maybe you didn't read that either?) And just to forestall any other complaints about Arabic sources, please re-read the nom statement, which links a WiR discussion about this article where SusunW specifically notes that she looked for Arabic sources and found nothing. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying the information, Premeditated Chaos, although "Death of AB" articles do exist, this does not fit into the same category based on lack of WP:SIGCOV. Delete away. Bearian (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 07:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:45, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:NOTNEWS, unfortunately nothing wikisignificant has been found beyond this person's tragic death. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now. NavjotSR (talk) 16:37, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no significant coverage about the organization and there is barely any mention unrelated to Yemen civil war. Subject does not pass WP:GNG. Accesscrawl (talk) 03:17, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since the person lacks multiple significant reliable secondary sources about them. Plus, everything about them seems to be in relation to a single event and Wikipedia isn't a news source. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:56, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Whether to redirect anywhere is an editorial decision. Sandstein 10:02, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Charlotte of Saxe-Altenburg[edit]

Princess Charlotte of Saxe-Altenburg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I see no significant coverage in reliable sources beyond mere genealogy. If someone can find sources discussing her rather than merely listing her in a family tree, please cite them. Surtsicna (talk) 16:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 16:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 16:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 16:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.Smeat75 (talk) 18:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to father's article, unless/until it too is deleted. No independent notability, but worth a redirect (plus redirects from other names). PamD 10:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per User:Bearian/Standards#Notability_of_Consorts_of_nobility to her husband's article. I say merge, because there are three citations and a table that could be added. Ping me if you want me to do the smerge. Bearian (talk) 01:28, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I just removed a deprecated source (thepeerage.com) and a user-generated genealogy site, neither of which demonstrated notability for her anyway as she was just a person on a list. JoelleJay (talk) 01:17, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete she doesn't seem to be notable enough due to lacking in-depth reliable secondary sources about her. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:12, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. hether to redirect anywhere is an editorial decision. Sandstein 10:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anastasia, Margravine of Meissen[edit]

Anastasia, Margravine of Meissen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is another genealogical entry. There are plenty of genealogy websites out there. Wikipedia should have articles only on people who meet its notability criteria. Having existed and married is not one of them. Surtsicna (talk) 16:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 16:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 16:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Smeat75 (talk) 17:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to husband's article, unless/until it too is deleted. No independent notability, but worth a redirect (plus redirects from other names). PamD 10:18, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable member of a deposed noble family, they were deposed before her birth.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:49, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to her husband Maria Emanuel, Margrave of Meissen, per User:Bearian/Standards#Notability_of_Consorts_of_nobility. She stayed out of both scandal sheets and social pages, and is the last of her line. Bearian (talk) 01:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and I guess redirect to her husband's article. There is an impressive lack of information on this person. JoelleJay (talk) 01:12, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as she lacks the multiple in-depth reliable sources needed to be notable. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The "titles and styles" section is also wholly fictional, as all these titles were abolished in Germany in 1919. —Kusma (t·c) 09:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Salvio 15:44, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nikul Desai[edit]

Nikul Desai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:FILMMAKER and GNG. A non notable Indian television producer of a likely non notable organisation Optimystix Entertainment. - hako9 (talk) 16:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 16:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 16:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 16:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the two sources in the article don't seem to work for notability and I couldn't find anything about him when I did a search for his name. So, the article fails both WP:FILMMAKER and GNG. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Salvio 15:44, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Balram Shri Krishna[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Balram Shri Krishna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An article about a Bollywood film, sourced only to (non-WP:RS) IMDb. (An earlier version was deleted at AFD in March 2015.) A WP:BEFORE search turned up nothing at all except the usual listings sites and scraoes. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 16:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by nom. The 2015 AFD is no precedent for this nomination. The article went in 2015 as part of a mass deletion of articles created by a WP:SOCK. Narky Blert (talk) 17:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NFILM. Donaldd23 (talk) 18:34, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - concerns around WP:GNG and WP:NFILM Spiderone 15:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since it fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Hopefully it won't just be recreated again. Although I acknowledge the AfD shouldn't be used as a way to knock recreation since it doesn't seem to have been about notability. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:17, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Tatiana of Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg[edit]

Princess Tatiana of Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is yet another genealogical entry. There is no indication of notability as the subject is not covered in reliable sources beyond genealogy publications. Surtsicna (talk) 16:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 16:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 16:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 16:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.Smeat75 (talk) 17:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 17:36, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 19:32, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to husband's article, unless/until it too is deleted. The only source is about their marriage. No independent notability, but worth a redirect (plus redirects from other names). PamD 10:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not supposed to be a biographical dictionary of deposed royal houses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. Wikipedia is not WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Nika2020 (talk) 22:28, 6 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 15:45, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DWNA[edit]

DWNA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A follow-up to a similar AfD 4 years ago. Currently defunct station which is left unreferenced for more than 10 years. There's barely any source about it. Fails WP:BCAST.

The callsign is not listed in the 2011 NTC listing. However, it is listed in the 2019 NTC listing, where its callsign belongs to Neutron Broadcasting Network and is licensed to Infanta, Quezon, and its frequency is owned by Aliw Broadcasting Corporation under PA. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 16:00, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 16:00, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 16:00, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE per nom. Radio stations of colleges and universities are not noteworthy if unsourced, and I doubt there's significant coverage of this topic. The tone of the article seems "promotional" too. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable --Devokewater @ 22:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since it seems like the only stuff about this is basic trivial information. So it fails WP:BCAST. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:22, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Gilbert[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Joel Gilbert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This individual does not appear to be notable. His only claim to fame is a handful of self-produced direct-to-DVD documentaries on conspiracy-esque subjects and Bob Dylan, and belonging to a local Bob Dylan cover band. This page has already been deleted once in the spring of 2012 and a deletion attempt that December after a since indefinitely blocked user resurrected the article resulted in the article being kept. The page also looks to be little more than a self-congratulatory effort at pretending he is a notable individual as the article has been tagged. Pahiy (talk) 22:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 22:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Previous discussions: 2012-12 ✓ keep, 2012-05 ✗ delete
Related discussions: 2016-10 Atomic Jihad ✗ delete
Logs: 2012-05 ✗ deleted
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio 15:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think the sourcing is enough for general notability. I am willing to be persuaded otherwise. Yipee8f93k (talk) 16:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject is notable in that his work has been reviewed and discussed in numerous reliable sources, as two minutes of research will verify. No doubt the article can be improved but that is not the question here. Dayirmiter (talk) 11:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: enough coverage in reliable sources to contribute to the notability of subject.--Deepak G Goswami (talk) 14:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 20:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pen Medina[edit]

Pen Medina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Possibly non-notable actor. Found some source on Google news but they don't seem to pass our notably standards. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep satisfies WP:ANYBIO by winning significant Philippine awards in acting. Needs a lot of expansion though. --Lenticel (talk) 06:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the basis of the awards. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 12:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as passes WP:NACTOR with prominent roles in multiple reliable productions as confirmed by Phillipine national newspapers references which are mainly reliable and have been added to the article since its nomination. He has also won a number of notable awards, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: With reliable sources which partially talk about his roles and awards added, the article easily meets WP:NACTOR. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 16:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable actor in our country. Existing citations suffice, but more additions needed. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:55, 5 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. Black Kite (talk) 23:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

H. Candace Gorman[edit]

H. Candace Gorman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:NOSALESMEN

The article is a WP:PROMO article and should be deleted per WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:NOSALESMEN. Subject does not meet notability test. I found trivial mentions of work in news searches, google searches, JSTOR, and others.

Working on high-profile litigation is not itself notable, especially when hundreds of attorneys can work on a case and perform minor supporting roles. For instance, just one nonprofit worked with at least 600 attorneys on Gitmo litigation as of 2008, but merely appearing on a legal team for a notable case does not meet notability guidelines. Many lawyers work on high-profile cases; Wikipedia does not list hundreds of thousands of lawyers merely because of that.

Additionally, fails WP:NOSALESMEN parts 4 and 5. Contributions are primarily a personal resume: the article consists solely of her relative's name, the names of her former clients, and her work filing an unsuccessful FOIA lawsuit. The only exception -- the article's statement that "Gorman and fellow habeas corpus attorney Anant Raut were two of the first people to dispute the Bush administration's charge that approximately 30 former Guantanamo detainees had returned to the battlefield, a claim later substantiated by researchers at Seton Hall Law School" -- is unsourced; the cited source (number 3) does not mention Mr. Raut's and Ms. Gorman's supposed stance. Moreover, it is not clear why disputing a Bush Administration stance (something half of Americans, if not more, did) is notable.

The article focuses on what her clients have done or been accused of, not what she has done, with the exception of an apparently losing effort to sue the government once (something hundreds of thousands of attorneys have done). Signing on to be part of a legal team is itself not notable. Yipee8f93k (talk) 14:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Anyone searching for evidence of notability will find more searching for "Candace Gorman" than searching for "H Candace Gorman", e.g. this in-depth profile of her in Chicago Tribune. I will do some searching, and I suspect more than enough coverage will be found for GnG. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thank you -- I will note that the Guantanamo litigation discussion was removed from the Wikipedia article after an extensive discussion from 2008 and 2009, around the time of the Tribune article mentioned. The Trib article itself focuses mainly on the activities of her clients; the most notable aspect, perhaps, is the fact that she dropped all paying work and devoted herself to pro bono Gitmo work. Certainly people devote themselves to charity in all lines of work every day; I doubt that is notable. As it pertains to Gorman, the article focuses on procedural aspects of case (getting a security clearance, flying to Cuba, how to permissibly read classified material, and talking with her client), things any lawyer involved in Gitmo would have to go through. Most of the article is devoted to her father's or other family member's previous work and activities, accusations against her clients, or what the U.S. government did in the Global War on Terror. Cheers Yipee8f93k (talk) 16:53, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A distinguished civil rights attorney whose career has been covered in multiple RS including two in-depth articles 1) lots of biographical detail and info about her Guantanamo work and 2) focuses on her central role in uncovering secret "street files" Chicago Police withheld from defendants. Lots of RS talked about her work with Guantanamo defendants, which is featured in Ron Suskind's 2013 book The Way of the World, although I agree it's poorly supported in existing article. A third piece of her work that got lots of RS coverage including WSJ and AP was a class-action discrimination suit that she ended up arguing in the Supreme Court. So there's a lot to include, and I am working to include it per WP:HEY. HouseOfChange (talk) 01:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a relic of our unreasonable coverage of evertything and everyone even remotely related to Guantanamo Bay, no matter how non-notable, and there is no reason to keep this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update WP:HEY I have improved and expanded the article from the situation where it was originally AfDed. The two in-depth Chicago Tribune articles (2009 and 2016, by two different reporters) I mentioned above are WP:SIGCOV: discussing Gorman and her work "directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Her first big civil rights case, which she took to the Supreme Court, was covered in the NYT and WSJ. Her Guantanamo work got some wide coverage and was featured in a book by Ron Suskind. Her more recent work exposing the secret files of Chicago Police got featured in the CNN tv show Death Row Stories. Getty Images sells a photo of her with the street files. I think the "street files" story deserves its own Wikipedia article, but for a start I hope people who look at this article as it stands now can see that Gorman clearly meets WP:BASIC: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." HouseOfChange (talk) 01:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete while being in-depth, the two Chicago Tribune articles only count as a single source according to the notability guidelines. Unfortunately everything else doesn't seem to cut it either. So, there's technically only a single source that can be used for notability. That said, if someone can find another in-depth reliable secondary source I'd be willing to change my vote. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:57, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Adamant1: A third in-depth source would be the book by Ron Suskind, you can read some of what it says about her in the last third of this published excerpt. Others thought the coverage substantial enough that Observer reviewer listed her as one of Suskind's "archetypes of our time." A fourth would be Northern Express. And I just found a fifth in depth, a book review with a lot about Gorman. But per WP:BASIC, "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" and the coverage of Gorman's work in the 30+ RS cited in the article is far from trivial. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's all well and good. Except your miss quoting the Observing article to make it seem way more glorifying of her then it is. Not that it would matter, because notability isn't based on an author being overly fawning about someone anyway, but even less if it's being miss quoted. what it does say is "He presents the archetypes of our time." As in, every damn person he talks about in his book is an archetype of our time. So by your logic we should have articles about all of then I guess. That aside though, the article only name drops her after that. There's zero indication that she's a major player in the book from the article and she's sure as hell not a major player in the article itself. Which is the important thing if your going to use it as a claim of notability. Whatever WP:BASIC says, it doesn't mean you can take 50 random name drops, put them together, and call it notability. Otherwise, all we would have to do is find someone's name in a few phone books. "Hey it's basic, but it's multiple sources...So..." Seriously. Not to mention it's semi disingenuous to use a book that mentions someone as a source to show they are notable and then to also use an article about that book as way to prove they are notable. A book review doesn't show a character in the book is notable. It shows the book is notable. That's it. So go create an article about the book and add a brief mention of her to it. I'd be fine with that. I'm not going to comment on your other sources, because they are just more of the same. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Adamant1 The brief mention in an Observer review is NOT evidence of notability, and I did not present it as evidence of notability. I mentioned 4 independent sources that talk about CG in depth, let me make it clearer what those four are:
  • 1) 2009 article in Chicago Tribune titled "Gorman vs Goliath," about her Guantanamo work.[1] You agreed this is in-depth coverage of Gorman, including many biographical details.
  • 2) 2016 article in Chicago Tribune by a different reporter, writing 7 years later about different work by Gorman.[2] You agreed this was also in-depth" but claimed it was essentially the same as #1 above. This second article never mentions "Guantanamo," the first article never mentions Chicago police or "street files." No sensible policy would call these two the same.
  • 3) 2008 book by Ron Suskind has in-depth coverage of Gorman.[3] That link goes to an excerpt from the book, but even the excerpt talks about her in depth. You can search for "Candace" and "Gorman" yourself with Google books, it's there in preview mode. I mentioned the Observer review only to support Gorman's presence in Suskind's book. She is not a "source" behind Suskind's book; she and her adventures are part of the story he tells.
  • 4) A book review, published in the Chicago Bar Association Record, of a book authored by multiple Guantanamo lawyers. This 4-page book review also talks in depth about Gorman and her experiences.[4]

Due to in-depth coverage in multiple sources, I think Candace Gorman is Wikipedia-notable. But I am asking David Eppstein for his advice, because he knows more about policy than I do. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Hundley, Tom (May 10, 2009). "Gorman vs. Goliath". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved August 2, 2020. Gorman, who practices alone, specializes in civil rights cases. She has been doing this for 25 years, simultaneously raising three kids, the youngest of whom is now in 11th grade...After majoring in philosophy at the University of Wisconsin, Candace Gorman followed in the footsteps of her brother and father by going to law school.
  2. ^ Meisner, Jason (February 13, 2016). "Old police 'street files' raise question: Did Chicago cops hide evidence?". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved August 2, 2020. With the approval of a federal judge, Chicago attorney Candace Gorman has spent much of the last year combing through street files found in the basement of the old Wentworth Area headquarters, trying to match their contents with evidence that was disclosed by police and prosecutors at the time of trials long ago...Gorman and her small team of attorneys have spent hundreds of hours and tens of thousands of dollars tracking down prisoners whose murder cases were among the stack she was allowed to review.
  3. ^ Suskind, Ron (August 4, 2008). The Way of the World: A Story of Truth and Hope in an Age of Extremism. Retrieved August 2, 2020. 'Thank you, Mr. al-Ghizzawi, I am officially your lawyer.' With that exchange of consent, Candace Gorman, a fiftyish civil rights lawyer from Chicago, mom of three teenagers, steps to the edge of a border, a low, long table separating her from a man the U.S. government calls among the 'worst of the worst.' {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
  4. ^ Gately, Clifford (2009). "CHICAGOLAND LAWYERS WHO TOLD THEIR STORIES IN THE GUANTÁNAMO LAWYERS" (PDF). CBA Record. Retrieved August 11, 2020. Among Guantánamo attorneys, she is fondly referred to as the 'feisty Gitmo lawyer.' Gorman reaches a broad audience through speaking engagements, as well as periodic articles published in the Huffington Post and In These Times, a not-for-profit, independent news magazine... At her law clerk's suggestion and with his technological savvy, she maintains a blog (http://gtmoblog.blogspot.com), and frequently posts articles, stories and artwork relating to issues at Guantánamo.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – notable per the 4 sources enumerated and described by HouseOfChange. Dicklyon (talk) 05:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY, excellent work by HouseOfChange. — Toughpigs (talk) 03:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep = her work on the secret police files is notable; she is known as an "expert" in her sub-field. Bearian (talk) 22:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

H. Candace Gorman

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Ogedengbe[edit]

Maria Ogedengbe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable artist, with referencing that fails on many levels.

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.kansascity.com/entertainment/visual-arts/article41840157.html No Interview with the subject Yes A regional paper, the source appears reliable Yes Apart from the interview there is commentary ✘ No
http://kcstudio.org/arts-news-kc-artist-creates-a-magical-community-garden/ No Interview with the subject No Blogs are not reliable Yes Apart from the interview there is commentary ✘ No
https://www.artintheloop.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/ArtintheLoopCatalog.pdf No A cataloge for an exhibition where the subject participates No An advert No advertorial ✘ No
https://gis.olatheks.org/maps/sculpture/pdf/8_Fancy_Buoy.pdf ? Can't work out what this is, exactly No This appears to be a tourist guide to exhibitions No Looks self generated ✘ No
https://billboardartproject.org/cities/chicago.html ? catalogue No no mention No no mention ✘ No
https://billboardartproject.org/cities/atlanta.html ? catalogue No no mention No no mention ✘ No
https://billboardartproject.org/cities/new_orleans.html ? catalogue No no mention No no mention ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Fiddle Faddle 13:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ——Serial 14:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with the nom's analysis of the existing sources. I have searched for better sources, but didn't find any proper independent coverage apart from Wikipedia mirror sites - a few interviews, a few things she'd written herself, a few mentions on webpages of projects she was affiliated with, that sort of thing. Seems to fail GNG. GirthSummit (blether) 14:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I had also endorsed the initial PROD, as a search did not find SIGCOV or relevant accomplishments to meet NARTIST.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:49, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, and in the interests of transparency, I created this page per this discussion; but as it was merely a technical edit I don't think it affects my judgement. Which is that the nominator's analysis of the current sourcing is superlative, and the results of my WP:BEFORE clearly matches theirs and other !voters. There's nothing approaching meeting WP:ANYBIO, with none of the requirements of WP:BASIC being close to met. For the bot, Delete. ——Serial 15:34, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What can be found on the web is what is given as sourcing in the article; and it does not amount to sufficient sourcing to satisfy WP:ANYBIO or WP:NARTIST. Absent better coverage, the artist fails notability requirements. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per all of the above Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 12:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and subject failing WP:NARTIST. Kudos to nominator for doing an in-depth assessment of sources for other editors to view. --Kbabej (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete mostly per nom and analysis therein. My search revealed a few more arts-and-culture announcements from the Kansans City Star, but no significant coverage. I'd give the first source listed as "weak" counting toward GNG given the prose that is outside the interview, but that is one source, and so the topic does not appear to pass GNG or WP:CREATIVE. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:22, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I note this reverted edit from Mbcmfa criticising the analysis of the references. The place to put that is in these comments, but I put that down to inexperience. Out of fairness I wish us to consider that edit as contributing to this discussion even though it broke the rules by refactoring another's comments Fiddle Faddle 13:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The original creator was mbcmfa - the subject's initials and art qualification at the time. It's a promotional autobiography. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:07, 7 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. Sandstein 11:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Popular castles of Scotland[edit]

Popular castles of Scotland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Original research and synthesis. The selection, grading and tallying of the 46 websites on which the article is based are made by the article's creator. Bishonen | tålk 14:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Bishonen, for complementing me on the amount of work. There is more that needs to be done (more edits and info) that I plan on doing in the next couple of days that I think are essential to the article. I hope that I will be given the opportunity of a few days' time to do that bit of work on it and that any final judgment will be suspended until that time.QuakerIlK (talk) 14:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
QuakerIlK, these discussions are normally kept open for 7 days before a determination is made. Bishonen | tålk 15:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:28, 2 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 AC4. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 18:55, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AC4 (album)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
AC4 (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:NALBUM or WP:GNG. May be worth a redirect to AC4#Discography as an WP:ATD but I don't see it as valuable to merge the information. Last AfD was more than 7 years ago and attracted only two comments - closed as no consensus with no prejudice to swift renomination. it's not swift, but hopefully a 2nd AfD can establish a consensus after 7 years in CAT:NN. Boleyn (talk) 14:09, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to AC4: Barely found anything about the album. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 06:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to AC4. Since this isn't notable enough for it's own article, but a redirect seems fair anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:29, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to AC4 not a notable album the band are barley notable band probaly due to kerrang mentions DanTheMusicMan2 (talk) 10:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vishal Dhankhar[edit]

Vishal Dhankhar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I may be missing something a Hindi reader can pick up on, but I couldn't find evidence he meets GNG or notability as an athlete. No ATD I can recommend. Also appears to be an autobio. Boleyn (talk) 14:03, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable runner.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:NATHLETE Spiderone 16:43, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks the significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG and has no achievements that meet any SNG. The autobio aspect is another problem. Papaursa (talk) 01:16, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for all the reasons above. I hope they are able to improve their time and meet notability requirements, but it's just not there yet. Ravensfire (talk) 21:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Per consensus (non-admin closure) Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 09:09, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday Times Rich List 1989[edit]

Sunday Times Rich List 1989 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Sunday Times Rich List 2005 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sunday Times Rich List 2007 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sunday Times Rich List 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sunday Times Rich List 2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sunday Times Rich List 2010 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sunday Times Rich List 2011 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sunday Times Rich List 2012 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sunday Times Rich List 2013 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sunday Times Rich List 2014 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sunday Times Rich List 2015 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sunday Times Rich List 2016 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sunday Times Rich List 2017 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sunday Times Rich List 2018 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sunday Times Rich List 2019 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sunday Times Rich List 2020 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There seems to be a 'tradition' of creating the lists in Category:Sunday Times Rich List, but these lists are the copyright of The Sunday Times and WIkipedia cannot legitimately publish them.

In your consideration please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sunday Times Rich List 2007 and also the essay Wikipedia:Copyright in lists. Essays, of course, are not policy, but this one is a decent interpretation of policy.

This is a nomination for this and all these articles:

Assuming deletion as copyright violations please can the eventual closing admin consider a mechanism for preventing re-creation and creation of future versions? Note, please that the category and the template within the category are separately listed for discussion at the relevant venues. Those interested in participating there may find those via the category.

(Procedural note: I am about to place the deletion notice on each article, and relevant creating editors, the latter to the best of my ability  Done) Fiddle Faddle 14:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 14:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 14:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 14:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 14:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep You can't copyright a listing of names.★Trekker (talk) 16:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @*Treker: Yes you can, depending on what is behind it. See Key Publications, Inc. v. Chinatown Today Publishing Enterprises, Inc., 945 F.2d 509 (2d Cir. 1991). —Mdaniels5757 (talk) 14:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's fucking disgusting, I hate copyright.★Trekker (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Sunday Times - if someone is feeling ambitious they can selectively merge, there is room. Lightburst (talk) 16:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No copyright problem - it is ok to reproduce a small subset of the list. See Forbes' The World's Billionaires. This is a standard UK reference tool for estimated wealth of prominent people, so highly notable for WP, similar to Forbes billionaires.--Mervyn (talk) 18:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I also don't see the copyright problem. This list looks merely factual. Can you be more specific? --Bsherr (talk) 18:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you think these "facts" are published by other reputable sources, you are wrong. As the ST frequently boasts, it involves a permanent staff of researchers, & much of it is frankly guesswork. Johnbod (talk) 02:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I created the STRL 1989 article last week. No Copyright violation here. Ultimately this type of list of names and financial sum accounts in quantitative order, is more akin to a sports league results points table, than any deeper creative sorting endeavor. Also, it is intriguing, and perhaps just a coincidence, but this suggestion of deleting all the WP STRLs articles came subsequently after I started this talk section the other day: Talk: Queen Elizabeth II, Listed as Richest Person in UK STRL 1989 --Death Star Central (talk) 20:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - note, the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sunday_Times_Rich_List_2007 mentioned above refers to an earlier version of the 2007 article, a mass data dump of the complete Sunday Times list, not a small subset.--Mervyn (talk) 15:04, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--there's other reasons for deletion: the list, published annually, needs to meet the requirements of the GNG. In other words, other reliable, secondary sources should discuss them in-depth, to establish that there is some notability here. One cannot really argue "rich people are notable so this list is notable". Drmies (talk) 20:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, Drmies, the list gets lots of coverage from other media every year, a burst on release, then a trickle of continuous references. Here, for example, from the article's refs is their rival The Guardian's splendidly predictable analysis of the 2020 list. Johnbod (talk) 02:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wouldn't it be true that, if the list is notable (which the existence of an article would suggest), the individual annual releases are also notable by extension? --Bsherr (talk) 06:25, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Those who say that the STRL consists of mere facts, and facts can't be copyrighted, perhaps aren't familiar with the 'facts' in question. As explained in Sunday Times Rich List, the wealth figures are the result of investigation, analysis, editorial judgment and other journalistic endeavours, and represent estimates at best. Even the choice of names on the list is subjective, as there is no clear rule as to who should be included or excluded. In a way, the Sunday Times including a person's name on this list and tagging a £-figure next to it is no more factual than, say, Michelin deciding to award a particular restaurant *** instead of ** (and no, I'm not making the otherstuffexists argument there). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that's much less true for most of the small group at the top of the list, the ones the articles actually give, whose wealth is mostly in shareholdings in listed companies which are a matter of public record. Hence some of the big movements from year to year (liike the Mittal family, down £4bn from 2019 to 2020). It's far more true lower down the list, where private companies, art collections & old family money is involved. Her Majesty (1989 only) is something of an exception to this, as is the Duke of Westminster. Johnbod (talk) 02:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it's a very small selection - the full list is nearly 1,000 I think. Have we heard from Murdoch's lawyers yet? No, I didn't think so. Johnbod (talk) 02:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Salvio 15:47, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Code (2007 TV series)[edit]

The Code (2007 TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This existed, but I can find no evidence of notability - awards, long-term significance, extensive coverage. I can't find a suitable ATD. Boleyn (talk) 13:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:53, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:53, 2 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) 15:57, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Fear of Fear[edit]

The Fear of Fear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing substantial found during search to support notability of this short film. Fails WP:NF Donaldd23 (talk) 13:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence in article or searches that this passes WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:07, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails the GNG and NFILM. No evidence of significant coverage presented. Ravenswing 23:15, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since it fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFILM due to there seeming to not be in-depth coverage about it. Which isn't surprising since it's a short film. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gregg Schlanger[edit]

Gregg Schlanger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are a lot of big claims in this article, which appears to have been written by the article's subject. There are sources, but a lack of reliable, independent ones. I couldn't find the evidence to show he meets WP:PROF, WP:ARTIST or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 15:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:08, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:08, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. As any academic knows, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Bearian (talk) 03:16, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I've cleaned up the article and I think there are enough stories about his art from enough different reliable sources to meet both WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST #3, "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". But my keep is weak because most of the coverage is somewhat local (to the place of exhibit, not to Schlanger's own locality): he clearly isn't a superstar of the art world, but he's getting stuff made and exhibited and written about well beyond his own backyard and I think that's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Article improved but I'd still like to see some more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 19:22, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:12, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not sure what to say about this one. There isn't any coverage in very good publications. Most of the coverage is not in-depth and mostly consist of sources like Clarksville Online and the like. Definitely fails WP:NARTIST for lack of SIGCOV in high quality sources, and the question of whether it meets GNG is cloudy. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:49, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Article is not supported bu reliable independent sources, Alex-h (talk) 07:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Alex-h: Really?? Is the CBC somehow now unreliable or non-independent? Outdoor Magazine? Can you at least make a more serious attempt at connecting the rationale for your deletion opinion to the facts of the actual case, rather than just leaving a generic opinion that could have been left on any AfD on any subject and that shows no evidence of checking through what is in the article? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slightly Weak Keep Moderate but sustained coverage over a span of years; the overselling has been removed and the sourcing generally improved. I'd be willing to call this an instance of WP:HEY. XOR'easter (talk) 18:50, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:09, 2 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 15:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Christine of Orléans-Braganza[edit]

Princess Christine of Orléans-Braganza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I see no indication of notability, i.e. no significant coverage in reliable sources. She does not appear to have had a significant role in promoting the monarchist cause in Brazil or any other role, judging by the lack of any reports thereof. We should not have articles that amount to nothing more than genealogical entries. Surtsicna (talk) 11:35, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 11:35, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 11:35, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 11:35, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 11:35, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable --Devokewater @ 11:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and the other comment above. Smeat75 (talk) 17:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to father's article, unless/until it too is deleted. No independent notability, but worth a redirect (plus redirects from other names). PamD 10:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete being a member of a royal house is not a default sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because she was a member of a reigning royal family, not just married into one, and not merely a deposed monarch's child. Her article also ties together several others. Bearian (talk) 01:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete consists entirely of genealogical information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.217.186 (talk) 13:49, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because she lacks the notability to be notable (shrug emoji). Plus, the article is just a basic listing and can't be expanded due to the lack of reliable in-depth secondary sources about her. So, there's really nothing worth having an article on her for. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:36, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Salvio 15:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(performed deletion as per m:Special:Permalink/20354131#Deletion_of_en:List_of_Total_Wipeout_episodes. --Base (talk) 19:49, 10 August 2020 (UTC))[reply]

List of Total Wipeout episodes[edit]

List of Total Wipeout episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Game show results/lists of episodes have been repeatedly deleted at AfD. This article fails WP:GNG and most of the sourcing is to posts on the Digital Spy forums. None of the actual gameplay is sourced and I doubt there is RS's out there to do so. Dougal18 (talk) 10:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator, no evidence this passes WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the vote above mine says, there's zero evidence this passes WP:GNG. I doubt it ever will either. Since this wasn't even a top tier game show or anything. Deleting these types of non-notable episode list articles seems to be standard anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:39, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to Peter, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein. Salvio 15:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Alix, Duchess of Schleswig-Holstein[edit]

Marie Alix, Duchess of Schleswig-Holstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject married and had children. That is all there is to it. I see no coverage in reliable sources as required by WP:GNG. We should not have biographies that are mere genealogical entries. Surtsicna (talk) 11:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 11:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 11:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and the other comment above. Smeat75 (talk) 18:41, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to husband's article, unless/until it too is deleted. No independent notability, but worth a redirect (plus redirects from other names). PamD 10:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete marrying into a deposed notable house does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:49, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into her husband, Peter,_Duke_of_Schleswig-Holstein, per User:Bearian/Standards#Notability_of_Consorts_of_nobility. While she has no independent notability - she avoided both scandal and socializing - there is some information worth saving. Again, if you need me to the work if smerging, ping me. Bearian (talk) 01:36, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think there is even any content in her article that isn't already in her husband's, besides I guess the unsourced list of styles and titles. JoelleJay (talk) 01:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to being un-sourced and failing WP:GNG. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to Christoph, Prince of Schleswig-Holstein. Salvio 16:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elisabeth, Princess of Schleswig-Holstein[edit]

Elisabeth, Princess of Schleswig-Holstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This woman bears a fanciful title, lives in a big house, and supposedly designs silk scarves. Yet I see no coverage, significant or otherwise, in reliable sources, so I doubt that she passes WP:GNG. Can someone dig up sources that discuss her beyond genealogy? If not, we probably should not have this biography. Surtsicna (talk) 11:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 11:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 11:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and the other comment above. Smeat75 (talk) 17:09, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to husband's article, unless/until it too is deleted. No independent notability, but worth a redirect (plus redirects from other names). PamD 10:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete members of deposed families are not default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Christoph,_Prince_of_Schleswig-Holstein per User:Bearian/Standards#Notability_of_Consorts_of_nobility. I can't find any proof that she is actually a scarf designer; the cite is a 404 link and there's no reliable sources. Her husband is a blood relative of the royal family of Denmark. Bearian (talk) 01:41, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Googling "Elisabeth" "Princess|Prinzessin" "Schleswig-Holstein" yields exclusively wiki mirrors and user-generated/self-published content. JoelleJay (talk) 00:59, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since the article is badly sourced and nothing comes up in a search for her except trivial and unreliable information. So, deleting the article seems like the way to go. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:43, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Total Wipeout obstacles[edit]

List of Total Wipeout obstacles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Even if this article was sourced, it still fails GNG. Dougal18 (talk) 11:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:20, 2 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 16:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Friedrich Ferdinand, Hereditary Prince of Schleswig-Holstein[edit]

Friedrich Ferdinand, Hereditary Prince of Schleswig-Holstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a wholly unsourced biography of a living person. If you Google him, you will see only self-published genealogy websites. He seems to be of no interest to the media and probably leads a private life. In fact, this may be best suited for a speedy deletion. Surtsicna (talk) 11:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 11:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 11:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable --Devokewater @ 11:56, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and the other comment above. Smeat75 (talk) 17:07, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This one is pretty egregiously uninformative. JoelleJay (talk) 01:18, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am encouraged that if we prune out these unneeded articles on non-notable people who are members of noble houses deposed from power before their birth we may avoid getting to 1 million biographies of living people this year.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Redirect to his father's article per User:Bearian/Standards#Notability_of_Consorts_of_nobility; that would be acceptable to me. I note that the subject is a relative of the royal family of Denmark and in theory could inherit his family's titles, so a soft redirect is preferred to a hard delete. Bearian (talk) 01:44, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone here and everything already said about how this person lacks notability. Except for the one redirect vote. Sorry redirect voter. I just don't think it's a good idea. Since it's not a very likely search term IMO. It's not like the article can't be recreated at some point if or when he does inherit the family title. I have a feeling that kind of thing is mostly dead at this point though. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:47, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Ubiquitous computing. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 18:56, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of ubiquitous computing research centers[edit]

List of ubiquitous computing research centers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:LISTN or WP:GNG; I don't think it is useful either. This has been in CAT:NN for 5 years; hopefully we can now get it resolved one way or the other. Boleyn (talk) 10:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
user:Andrew Davidson, please don't assume bad faith, and assume my reasons for my nominations. You aren't correct, but I appreciate your suggestion I explain more why I have not suggested an ATD, as that would indeed be more helpful to those commenting. Placing a merge proposal is every bit as simple as an AfD, and with less chance of the nominator being attacked, so it's certianly something I do utilise. In this case, I don't think it is useful. The UC article is already very lengthy, and this list has only one verified entry, I would be worried I was merging unhelpful and inaccurate information, unnecessarily increasing the length. That's just personally my opinion though, I can see there's arguments for it. Boleyn (talk) 12:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Ubiquitous computing. If the list is expanded significantly it could be split back into a separate article WP:CLN, but I doubt that will happen.   // Timothy :: talk  14:49, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Ubiquitous computing. The short list here would be of due weight in the parent article, and would be better vetted by page watchers of that article. Note that the list was much longer in 2014, before Hipal vetted entries to clean it up. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 17:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Love the signature Mark viking   // Timothy :: talk  17:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Ubiquitous computing, because that seems like the correct thing to do. Since this isn't notable enough for a separate article, but is still worth mentioning somewhere IMO. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I like this list as well, but I have to agree with those that say if fails LISTN. Black Kite (talk) 23:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of lakes named after people[edit]

List of lakes named after people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:LISTN or WP:GNG; I don't think it is useful either. This has been in CAT:NN for over 8 years; hopefully we can now get it resolved one way or the other. Boleyn (talk) 10:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:36, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't think this nomination is useful as it utterly fails to understand that this is part of a set – see List of places named after people; List of countries named after people; List of eponymous roads in London; List of railway stations named after people, etc. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:32, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Meets the criteria for a list article. I love wonky lists like this. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:LISTN as it relates to WP:LISTPURP ie. "a valuable information source" and "Lists which contain internally linked terms (i.e., wikilinks) serve, in aggregate, as natural tables of contents and indexes of Wikipedia.", and whats with all the citation needed tags against each unrefed entry? why not just a "more refs needed" tag at the top of the article? Coolabahapple (talk) 15:00, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, mainly because it must be a very small subset of all the lakes that would qualify for inclusion. It is not comparable with a list of countries because lakes tend to be a lot more numerous and (in most cases) less notable than countries.---Ehrenkater (talk) 15:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This list seems to have been invented by Wikipedia editors; do reliable sources treat namesake lakes as a distinct group? I'm unimpressed by the similar WP:OTHERSTUFF lists for the same reason; seems like these would make more sense as categories if we cover them at all. –dlthewave ☎ 21:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is easy to find sources which analyse the naming of lakes such as this or that. All you have to do is look but the nay-sayers don't seem to have done this. See WP:NEXIST. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:28, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nobody tabulates lakes this way. Andrew's first link merely discusses the naming of lakes in general, while the second is on a website of uncertain reliability. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:31, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is a grouping by shared name not by any actual shared inherent characteristic of the things involved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Meaningless collection based on useless characteristic. Glendoremus (talk) 21:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Glendoremus: I'm not sure what you mean by "meaningless collection" and "useless characteristic"? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom. Beyond that, for those believing this meets LISTN, where are the reliable sources giving this concept significant coverage, as opposed to casual mentions on some website somewhere? Ravenswing 14:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have already voted above to keep this article, and wanted to add a bit more detailed comment. A consensus of editors at WP:SALAT agreed that "The potential for creating lists is infinite. The number of possible lists is limited only by our collective imagination." This certainly seems an encouragement for this sort of article. WP:SALAT also cautions against list that are too broad or too narrow, which this list doesn't seem to be. Finally, this list doesn't seem to fall into WP:NOT, in that it list notable lakes, along with the person the lake is named after. I actually added two lakes to the list, Lake Simcoe and Elvis Presley Lake. There are dozens of similar eponymous geographic lists on Wikipedia, such as List of islands named after people, List of railway stations named after people, and List of chess openings named after people. I'd hate to open the door for the deletion of these sorts of lists. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:58, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"The potential for creating lists is infinite. The number of possible lists is limited only by our collective imagination." is immediately followed by "To keep the system of lists useful, we must limit the size and topic of lists." –dlthewave ☎ 15:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dlthewave: Thank you for mentioning that. As you can see in my comment above, I have summarized the criteria identified at WP:SALAT used to "limit the size and topic of lists". Again, those criteria fall into two categories, first, lists that are "too general or too broad in scope", and second, lists that transgress WP:NOT. Which of those two categories does this list fall under? Magnolia677 (talk) 20:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep fulfills the criteria of WP:LISTN aiding in navigation and providing information. Serves our readers to keep. Lightburst (talk) 20:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep fulfills the criteria of WP:LISTN. Have add template:
    This is a dynamic list and may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness. You can help by adding missing items with reliable sources.
    Djflem (talk) 05:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:LISTN; I see no evidence of reliable sources discussing this subject. I also fail to see what useful information this provides. This would be better suited as a category. TheAwesomeHwyh 14:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: While poorly-sourced, there's nothing wrong with the list conceptually and it would probably be fine with some improvement. Julius177 (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because it fails WP:LISTN. Since no reliable sources seem to discuss the subject. It's also not valid IMO to just to keep it because it's part of a navigation thing. There's no guideline that lists in navigation boxes are exempt from being deleted if they aren't notable and plenty of them have been then. That seems to be the main argument of the keep voters though. That and "other stuff exists." --Adamant1 (talk) 09:04, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails LISTN for lack of coverage of this subset of lakes, and also not an interesting or important categorization of items. Sandstein 06:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:LC items 1-3, 6, 8, and 12. Stifle (talk) 15:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Karisma Kapoor. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 20:49, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by Karisma Kapoor[edit]

List of awards and nominations received by Karisma Kapoor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are not enough awards to justify its own page. Doesn't meet WP:LISTN or WP:GNG. Systematic bias was, fairly, discussed at the last AfD in 2007. Wikipedia has changed a lot since 2007, and so have its guidelines, so as it has been tagged again for notability, I feel a 2nd AfD should help resolve this once and for all. Boleyn (talk) 10:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, I see that there is talk of a previous AfD but the nominator can't be bothered to provide a link. Please note that WP:DELAFD states that "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." Blocking the nominator in this case would perhaps be too severe but we should perhaps consider restricting their use of AfD as there are over 60,000 more articles to go in this backlog baloney, right? Andrew🐉(talk) 11:07, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
user:Andrew Davidson, can you please not speak to other editors in this way? 'I see that there is talk...the nominator can't be bothered to...' I was the one raising the 'talk', mention of a previous AfD, and I assumed it would link here as normal automatically. I'm quite happy to add it now you've pointed out this error. 'Disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome...' I haven't nominated this page before, and as I raised, the last discussion on it was 2007, before I started on Wikipedia and when guidelines were very different. Here is the link to the 2007 AfD: [8] It was part of a large bundle. Bundling can be useful but I'm usually wary of it, as each page often deserves their own consideration, and I am not sure in this AfD how much this individal page was looked at. Boleyn (talk) 11:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Probably frustrated by just how many pointless deletion discussions you keep starting. Next time just merge it over. All articles for people have a list of notable awards they've won in their own article, or if too big to fit its tossed into a spinout article. Dream Focus 14:16, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Karisma Kapoor, independent page not needed.--Hippeus (talk) 11:35, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Karisma Kapoor --Devokewater @ 11:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Karisma Kapoor per above.   // Timothy :: talk  14:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to to Karisma Kapoor per above. This is obviously a WP:SPLIT from the parent article so LISTN and GNG are not helpful here (unless the individual failed GNG, or there were no notable awards listed). Deleting this yet not covering notable awards a notable individual has been nominated for or won at their own page is not an acceptable result; please read WP:ATD and WP:BEFORE prior to nominating anything. postdlf (talk) 20:07, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Unclear what is disruptive about two nominations thirteen years apart, someone just likes to complain about process. Reywas92Talk 05:55, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • MERGE It'll fit in the person's main article, then merge it. Dream Focus 14:16, 6 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rhenish nationalism[edit]

AfDs for this article:
    Rhenish nationalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Why the page should be deleted TizStriz (talk) 00:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC) That page mention as sources only James Minahan books, nowadays i have not heard about any Rhenish nationalist party TizStriz (talk) 02:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is poorly sourced, but Rhenish separatism was a thing. ImTheIP (talk) 02:42, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There have been long debates over the years over Minahan's encyclopedias. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 281#Encyclopedias_of_James_B._Minahan and Talk:Stateless nation#James_Minahan's_books_as_sources_and_references and the pages those pages refer to. For example, he defines Californians, Texans and Mormons as "stateless nations" within the US. It is WP:FRINGE but because his work is approachable it gets cited all the time on Wikipedia. ImTheIP (talk) 18:52, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks @ImTheIP:. @TizStriz:, it is useful to explain the background because not all AfD participants will be familiar with it. TSventon (talk) 20:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:28, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Minahan seems to be the only person calling Adenauer a "Rhenish nationalist". The German terms "rheinischer Nationalismus" or "rheinländischer Nationalismus" give 1/0 and 0/0 results on Google Books and Google Scholar, respectively. While Rhineland separatism (often based in anti-Prussian and anti-Protestant sentiment in the deeply catholic areas) existed, the notion of Rhinelanders as a nation is a bit absurd. Given that Minahan claims Wiesbaden (which was always in Nassau or Hesse, even while Prussian) to be a cultural centre of the Rhineland gives me little reason to believe anything in this book. —Kusma (t·c) 21:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as Minahan is not a reliable source as explained by ImTheIP. TSventon (talk) 22:15, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete since this doesn't seem to actually be a thing. Due to lacking coverage as a concept outside of an unreliable source. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:07, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Evolution of motorway construction in Asia[edit]

    Evolution of motorway construction in Asia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    This doesn't meet WP:LISTN or WP:GNG. Vague topic. Was de-prodded by user:Andrew Davidson. Andrew, thanks for looking it over, could you explain a bit more about your reason 'per WP:DEPROD'? Thanks. Boleyn (talk) 10:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Vague topic? You want me to explain what a motorway is? Or the history of the motorway network in Asia -- the world largest continent? Sorry, the nominator is the one who has to make a case per WP:BEFORE but I'm not seeing any specifics about the topic here. It's just another drive-by, geddit? Andrew🐉(talk) 10:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The 'evolution' of motorway construction I feel is vague and potentially confusing. Also as Asia is such a large continent, I feel it is too wide a concept. I can see this as a category more than an article, and if kept, would benefit from re-wording of article title and clarity of concept. Boleyn (talk) 12:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. The only two sources don't work and there is a lot of incomplete columns and barely any context other than stats. Ultimately fails WP:GNG. Ajf773 (talk) 10:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: per nom. I note, with interest, that the sole keep proponent has not actually advanced a valid rationale to keep the article, never mind come up with significant coverage in reliable sources explicitly covering the topic. Ravenswing 14:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete since it fails WP:GNG as a topic. Plus, as Boleyn states it's an extremely vague concept that could be confusing. Along with being to wide a concept. Outside of that, I see good rational to keep it. Hopefully Boleyn will not be discouraged by Andrew's attitude and will open AfDs for the articles that are similar to this one. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep with no prejudice towards a subsequent merge discussion for which consensus (or not) can be established outside of AfD. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    List of countries by number of Fields Medalists[edit]

    List of countries by number of Fields Medalists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Doesn't meet WP:LISTN or WP:GNG. Has been in CAT:NN for over 3 years; hopefully we can now resolve it one way or the other. Boleyn (talk) 10:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep This is rather like List of countries by number of Nobel laureates. It's just nationalist bragging but that's what people do. The worst case would be merger into Fields Medal per WP:ATD-M. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:51, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Personally, I find this list, along with most lists, to be too long to add into the main article, and in this case, as it is not even a very helpful list, I don't consider it a good ATD. Boleyn (talk) 12:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge into the main Fields Medal article; that would also resolve the issues flagged (refimprove and dupe). Or if it's considered too long for merging (per previous comment), then keep as is. I don't think we need to worry about WP:GNG etc. considerations as the information already exists and is supported in other articles. And 'nationalist bragging' or not, I think this sort of ranking does add value. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:36, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:36, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The number of field medals by countries is a notable subject, as being refered to in many studies of educational systems. More specifically US and France have almost the same number of Field medals despite their dramatically different population size. There are many studies (I have no reference under hand) that have considered this phenomenon in relation with educational systems. D.Lazard (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Redundant with information in the Fields Medal article. If anyone wants to make nationalist noise about mathematics, then they can demonstrate how much they truly care about it by counting. If there's legitimate academic work on the geographic distribution of Fields Medals, it can be summarized at Fields Medal without using any content from this list. XOR'easter (talk) 18:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The nom claims this fails WP:LISTN, which states "a list topic is considered notable...if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." Such discussions are easily found, e.g. The Routledge International Companion to Gifted Education, The Nobel-prize Awards in Science as a Measure of National Strength in Science, The Mathematical Intelligencer, Mathematics — The Music of Reason. pburka (talk) 18:31, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge Easily contained or summarized at Fields Medal, which already has the primary information. Reywas92Talk 05:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • delete frivolous, and does not contain any information not already on the article for the Fields medal. If there's serious work on the impact of educational systems (or whatever else) on the number of Fields medals then it probably belongs on a more serious page. jraimbau (talk) 15:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 13:50, 4 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. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Andrew🐉(talk) 20:33, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    United Nations in popular culture[edit]

    United Nations in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Trivia. Doesn't meet WP:LISTN or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 08:52, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, per topic notability of the United Nations. As one of the iconic buildings and organizations in civilization its use in popular culture is immediately recognizable. It's a fine and interesting popular culture page which enhances the understanding of the topic and its place in history. The main existing problem is that the television and literature sections need some editorial trimming and defined years and chronological reordering, although that's unrelated to this nom. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:49, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh dear god, KEEP! The United Nations as an institution is simply iconic. When a movie shows the UN building and then pans away, it instantly places the movie viewer in time and space. When an author has their character at the UN, it shows the gravity and globalness of the story - instantly. Some individual items may be cruft, but the topic and use of the UN in pop culture is inherently notable. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 06:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, plenty of notable examples to merit this as a WP:SPLIT from the parent article, this and that are far too long to be merged back together. postdlf (talk) 15:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per WP:GNG - plenty of sources to show it's influenced TV, film, and novels. Some of the cruft needs to be removed, but nothing that ordinary editing can't find and fix. Bearian (talk) 01:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • withdraw nom you have all convinced me, thanks for your contributions to this. Boleyn (talk) 05:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Denver RTD bus routes[edit]

    List of Denver RTD bus routes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Doesn't meet WP:LISTN or WP:GNG. Has been in CAT:NN for over 7 years; hopefully we can now resolve it one way or the other. WP is not a timetable. Boleyn (talk) 08:45, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:47, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:47, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:47, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per WP:NOTDIR. No indication anywhere that these are notable routes. Ajf773 (talk) 09:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per above Spiderone 21:47, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete since there's no indication these are notable. So it fails WP:LISTN. Wikipedia isn't a directory. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:38, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me! episodes (2007)[edit]

    List of Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me! episodes (2007) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Doesn't meet WP:LISTN or WP:GNG. Has been in CAT:NN for over 11 years; hopefully we can now resolve it one way or the other. Boleyn (talk) 08:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment/Delete There are lists of WWDTM for every year 1998–2020 so I don't think it's appropriate to nominate just this one without the rest. But WWDTM maintains an archive here of episodes, and I don't think it's appropriate to just copy-and-paste this content here from only the primary source. Reywas92Talk 06:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • delete Much as I find the show entertaining, this is ephemeral trivia. Mangoe (talk) 14:49, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete unsourced and non-notable trivia. Ajf773 (talk) 20:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me!: Definitely WP:LISTCRUFT. It's not necessary to have an annual list of guests. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 13:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Delete since this is clearly WP:LISTCRUFT that fails the notability guidelines. I don't think a redirect is necessary. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:41, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    List of tallest buildings in Sandy Springs, Georgia[edit]

    List of tallest buildings in Sandy Springs, Georgia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Doesn't meet WP:LISTN or WP:GNG. Has been in CAT:NN for 9 years; hopefully we can now resolve it one way or the other. Boleyn (talk) 08:42, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom.   // Timothy :: talk  14:53, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete; zero indication that Sandy Springs has such notably tall buildings or is of such importance that it would warrant having a separate list of tall buildings. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:43, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete this fails WP:LISTN and WP:GNG. There's also no indication that there's anything notable more generally about building heights in Sandy Springs that it would warrant a list. Although, it would be cool information to add to Wikidata. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:43, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 18:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    List of eponymous medical treatments[edit]

    List of eponymous medical treatments (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Doesn't meet WP:LISTN or WP:GNG. Has been in CAT:NN for over 8 years; hopefully we can now resolve it one way or the other. Boleyn (talk) 08:41, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:49, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:49, 2 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. (non-admin closure) —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 09:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Equatorial Guinean immigration to Spain[edit]

    Equatorial Guinean immigration to Spain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    The article does not meet WP:GNG and does not present WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC CONTENT. Some content might be merged into Immigration to Spain   // Timothy :: talk  07:59, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  07:59, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  07:59, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  07:59, 2 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) 15:17, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Mqondisi Moyo[edit]

    Mqondisi Moyo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    The article does not meet WP:GNG, WP:BASIC. WP:BEFORE revealed no additional WP:RS to meet GNG or BASIC   // Timothy :: talk  07:31, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  07:31, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  07:31, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - This person is leader of a political party never elected to office. Sources cited are primary source press releases. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 10:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 17:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete being the leader of a small party is not a default sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Being organizational leader of a minor political party is not a notability freebie in and of itself, but the depth and quality of the sourcing here is not good enough to actually get him over WP:GNG for it. Bearcat (talk) 19:23, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Serving as the leader of a minor political party does not warrant notability. LefcentrerightDiscuss 12:03, 8 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. There is some consensus to do so, and also this behaviour should not be rewarded in any way. Black Kite (talk) 23:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Copa Sudamericana clubs performance comparison[edit]

    Copa Sudamericana clubs performance comparison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    clubs performance comparison are not notable according: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EHF Champions League clubs performance comparison Malo95 (talk) 14:14, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Malo95 (talk) 14:14, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 21:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep - The deletion request seems to be based purely on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, with several Wikipedia policies linked often without a coherent narrative as to why it should be deleted. This leaves the onus on those wishing to keep the article without having a clear objection to discuss. This article, and similar articles should remain. Wikipedia policy cited included:
    WP:SYNTH - This is totally inapplicable here. The page does not reach any conclusion of any kind, and just summarises facts.
    MOS:COLOR, WP:ACCESS - This is not a reason for deletion and any access issues (which seem minor), can easily be addressed.
    WP:GNG - The information set out in the page is covered in multiple reliable sources in multiple countries.
    WP:OR - The information is factual and direct from sources. There is nothing resembling WP:OR here.
    WP:NOSTATS - This aligns directly with NOSTATS which says statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability (exactly what this does). It also says where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article (which is exactly the point of pages like this). This presentation of results is common among many sports as it is seen as a good way to present results e.g. Roger Federer career statistics#Performance timelines.
    Jopal22 (talk) 15:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 07:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. The nominator should have used the bundle function. -The Gnome (talk) 08:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep purely on basis of consensus at a recent related AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UEFA Champions League clubs performance comparison, which was kept. GiantSnowman 16:53, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep This nomination appears to be made in bad-faith as a WP:POINTY nomination in retaliation for the (somewhat questionable) result - the threat to disrupt Wikipedia is made by User:Malo95 here. Nfitz (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - You can't just compare this performance comparison with this one as the UEFA Champion League has sources (only to the main page for that team but still its a source) compared to this performance stat where the only reference is to a RSSSF which shows only the winners and runner-ups. So I am basically calling it a fail by WP:GNG standards. HawkAussie (talk) 06:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Hello everyone, i vote to keep the article, i am the autor, obviously everyone can edit, but i made it in comparison to the UEFA articles, its true it has no comparison, as the UEFA has all sources for the teams and CONMEBOL does not have. If the UEFA articles and all articles of this nature (Performance comparison) are kept, this should be kept too. Thanks, open for dialogue Cabj94 (talk) 15:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Cool list. This seems to fail WP:GNG though. Plus, I think it can be deleted on WP:NOSTATS and WP:NOTEVERYTHING grounds also. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:49, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: Bad faith nomination. Ravenswing 23:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep this is a WP:REVENGE nomination. As seen in this exchange here as Nfitz has stated above. Wm335td (talk) 14:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Whilst there is an argument that the nomination was made in bad-faith, that should not rule out dealing with articles which should not be included – Wikipedia is not a sports almanac and this may be synthesis. Stifle (talk) 15:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was no consensus. There is no consensus to delete this, plus this behaviour is not acceptable. Black Kite (talk) 23:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Performance record of clubs in the Premier League[edit]

    Performance record of clubs in the Premier League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    clubs performance comparison are not notable according: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EHF Champions League clubs performance comparison Malo95 (talk) 14:13, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Malo95 (talk) 14:13, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    This discussion is being duplicated on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UEFA Champions League clubs performance comparison. The outcome of that decision is likely to be repeated here Jopal22 (talk) 13:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 21:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete WP:NOSTATS. I find that really annoying to navigate, reading can be tough if you don't understand the statistical concept. This information is around in lots of other articles, this is pointless for wikipedia in my opinion. Govvy (talk) 11:48, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not 100% sure you understand the meaning of WP:NOTSTATS (and it is NOTSTATS, not NOSTATS). It doesn't say we shouldn't have statistics at all, just that they should be accompanied by text giving them proper context and that they should be presented appropriately. How does this article fall foul of that directive? – PeeJay 20:28, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep - The deletion request seems to be based purely on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, with several Wikipedia policies linked often without a coherent narrative as to why it should be deleted. This leaves the onus on those wishing to keep the article without having a clear objection to discuss. This article, and similar articles should remain. Wikipedia policy cited included:
    WP:SYNTH - This is totally inapplicable here. The page does not reach any conclusion of any kind, and just summarises facts.
    MOS:COLOR, WP:ACCESS - This is not a reason for deletion and any access issues (which seem minor), can easily be addressed.
    WP:GNG - The information set out in the page is covered in multiple reliable sources in multiple countries.
    WP:OR - The information is factual and direct from sources. There is nothing resembling WP:OR here.
    WP:NOSTATS - This aligns directly with NOSTATS which says statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability (exactly what this does). It also says where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article (which is exactly the point of pages like this). This presentation of results is common among many sports as it is seen as a good way to present results e.g. Roger Federer career statistics#Performance timelines.
    Jopal22 (talk) 15:26, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - The rationale for deleting the article mentioned in the nomination was spurious. To address Govvy's concerns, design issues are not a reason to delete an article, and I have yet to see this information collated in such a way anywhere else on Wikipedia, so I would appreciate a link to wherever such a table exists. – PeeJay 06:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. In line with the decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EHF Champions League clubs performance comparison manipulating sports data like this constitutes OR and SYNTH, unless the charts themselves can be sourced to a reliable 3rd party. How could I verify the accuracy of these charts? Also, despite claims above about sources, this lists absolutely no sources. (For links to six more of these see this discussion) --Lockley (talk) 00:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply. Lockley, please substantiate your SYNTH conclusion via wikipedia policy. There is a whole supplementary section WP:SYNTHNOT and I cannot find anything. There is link to the premier league final league tables under the table. Jopal22 (talk) 10:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello @Jopal22:. In good faith, I understand SYNTH to mean the re-assembly or collation or juxtaposition of data within wikipedia that doesn't exist outside wikipedia. In this case it's just statistics being synthesized, quantitative data in a table, so I'd rule out any accusations of bias or unfair conclusions. It's just numbers. Presumably they're checkable and correct. But SYNTH is a subset of WP:OR which requires a reliable 3rd party source for the table as it appears here. The first link provided is a list of clubs, no stats at all, no help. The second link goes to a page that dynamically generates tables. Okay. If I go an extra step (I shouldn't have to) & try to re-create this by creating a table for [premier league - all seasons - all matches], then I get results that show the Gunners at #2 and Chelsea at #3. The top rankings don't even match up & there's no year-by-year data in the columns. Checking the accuracy and completeness and underlying assumptions of the charted data as presented here would involve re-creating the entire thing, which is not my job as an encyclopedia user. That's what makes it unverifiable. If there's a reliable 3rd-party source for the chart, all these concerns vanish. Are these rankings not published anywhere else? --Lockley (talk) 19:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lockley: I don't think SYNTH reaches the same conclusion as you think it does. I honestly can't see how you think it backs up the idea that information has to be presented this exact way somewhere else before we can present it this way here. The information is not inaccurate, and while the presentation style may be fairly novel, I don't see how it falls foul of SYNTH. – PeeJay 18:15, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @PeeJay: I'll be more plain then. The chart is wrong. That doesn't take much research to discover. It's wrong in its most basic 1st-2nd-3rd rankings when compared to this list published by the Premier League and listed as a source here, which shows Man United / Arsenal / Chelsea as one two and three overall. If you can prove the chart is wholly accurate using a source outside wikipedia, I'm sincerely happy to be corrected, this whole discussion dries up, you win the day. If you can't show the chart is correct, it's original research, it's inaccurate to boot, it shows exactly why synthesizing data from multiple sources is bad practice, and it doesn't belong here. --Lockley (talk) 20:42, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You're comparing apples with oranges. The table you've linked to is the all-time table based on every club's number of points accrued over their entire PL history. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that the table in this article is ordered by each club's best position (since the table is intended to compare the season-by-season positions of each club). I agree that the ranks are OR, since the ordering is just what we've chosen as the way to present the data, and so I have removed them, but other than that I still don't see how the table is inaccurate. All of the season-by-season positions are right, but you have to pick an order to display the data row-by-row; alphabetical order adds little, but ordering teams by decreasing levels of success (i.e. teams that have won the competition at the top, with a secondary rank by the number of times they've done so, followed by all the rest in order of their best position) is at least informative. – PeeJay 11:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Lockley:. Sorry didn't not reply to this originally. It came just before KEEP was decided on the Champs League equivalent and I was waiting to see what the rationale was for not doing the same here before having a longer debate than necessary. PeeJay has summed up exactly what I would have said. The central point of this page is to record every finishing position for each premier league club. The ordering of the teams is secondary, but there has to be some ordering and the order it has been done makes intuitive sense. I am not precious about the rank column remaining as there is an argument for OR which I think is trivial and you could destroy most of wikipedia if you forensically attack every article to that level of detail. I know I will be accused of WP:OTHER but I note that the table you refer to can be found here in wikipedia: Premier League records and statistics#All-time Premier League table. It has a "best position" column with a filter so you can order by that (although lots of this table has no valid reference). I suppose a similar example of factual information which is ordered would be Premier League#Managers, which has been ordered by longest serving - What is the rationale for that? Why not alphabetically etc? - but really that isn't that important - its the content of the table that is the core point there (as here). I suppose I just don't understand why there is a push to get pages like this deleted on small technicalities even though it is objective and sourced and people know how to verify the info when lots of other pages really to fall foul of wiki policy e.g. List_of_football_clubs_in_England_by_competitive_honours_won, which I would have no idea who to check, and I would suggest the choice of competitive honours to rank is arbitrary Jopal22 (talk) 16:06, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. It should be noted as well, this is more a less an expansion of tables used in the main Premier League page in the "Top Four" dominance (2000s), and Emergence of the "Big Six" (2010s) sections. Jopal22 (talk) 10:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Jopel, You created this article, yet you haven't addressed the main issue. You haven't added any 3rd party sources, you haven't really added any sources. This effectively is a contribution of WP:OR you've created. It seems you have set a dangerous precedent on the article and you haven't addressed these concerns in two years. Govvy (talk) 19:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 07:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. This is as encyclopaedically soft and prone to enthusiastic creations a subject as it gets. The attempt at inclusion collides with WP:NOTSTATS since the content here "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make it suitable for inclusion", in combination with the WP:NOTEVERYTHING guideline, i.e. "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject". (Emphasis in the original.) We do not have independent sources busying themselves with the subject as presented and created. Kudos for the effort undertaken for the text's birth. But Wikipedia is not a collection of randomly put-together information. -The Gnome (talk) 08:09, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedily close down AfD per justification detailed below. -The Gnome (talk) 10:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nfitz's point is evidently correct in view of this. Since we must value good faith highly enoug, it's better to speedily terminate this AfD and allow someone else, as the case might be, to re-submit the article for deletion. WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS is quite explicit on this: If a rough consensus holds that the nomination was made in bad faith, the page may be speedily kept. I'm changing my Delete sugestion accordingly. -The Gnome (talk) 10:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with that. This whole AfD saga has been a mess
    First Govvy decides he doesn't like think these sort of articles should exist in principle. Instead of raising his concerns on the most active page of the type within football, he chooses a handball page which has low interactions and he is not a member of the project. The low engagement makes it easier to be deleted, and therefore that principle can be snowballed to delete other pages.
    Govvy indentifys he doesn't like think these sort of articles should exist in Wikipedia based on seeing a handball article. In hindsight it might had made more sense to raise the AfD on a more active page that had similar issues. The low engagement means some users may not feel the issue has been adequately discussed, and therefore when it snowballs to delete other pages the discussion has to be reopened.
    Malo retaliatesresponds by raising AfD on similar pages based upon the principle that if the handball page is deleted for SYTNTH all similar pages should (which is not an illogical position but has not been done in a constructive way)
    We end up with multiple articles with similar AfD's making it really hard to engage and have a constructive dialogue. There are various scattergun concerns raised with no real attempt for constructive engagement, and some with constructive and clearly explained concerns. No one really knows if we are debating the AfD as a collective and the principle is being discussed (further confused by the fact the handball article seems to have been deleted in a way that challenges the existence of such pages, but the Champions League verdict contradicts that), or whether each individual article should be viewed separately. Jopal22 (talk) 10:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would be interested in User:Spartaz's feedback (who approved the deletion of the handball page). In hindsight I would suggest that as the principle of such tables is being challenged that the engagement in the original handball AfD was not wide enough? Jopal22 (talk) 10:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is your problem, I don't like your tone and rudeness against me, please leave me alone or I will raise an ANI against you. Govvy (talk) 15:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nfitz: I don't see any rebuttal from other keep votes, Jopal has tried, the rest, well... And the inconsistency in closes doesn't help. This AfD for this article, WP:GNG is still not satisfied on the article. You could argue against WP:OR and (WP:SYNTH). Regardless of what is said above, design is important for an article, people could employ WP:TNT saying it needs to start again. List of English football champions has the performance of clubs, making this kind of redundant in one way, yet not one person has pointed that out. Govvy (talk) 18:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you suggesting that one wouldn't be able to find significant in-depth sources about the performance of various clubs in the Premier League, User:Govvy? There may be issues here ... but that's definitely not one of them! Nfitz (talk) 19:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Govvy in the similar champions league deletion discussion :"I don't see GNG much a problem". How can CL be ok for GNG, but not PL!!! Jopal22 (talk) 19:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: @Nfitz: This has nothing to to with WP:POINTY or bad-faith. The text which I wrote at the EHF AfD was maybe not so good, but I'm not native in English. I tried to inform the other participants that the EHF AfD will also affect other lists.
    But there was a conses that such pages are not notable. I believe that if the EHF Article is not notable the other are also not notable. Therefore I created this AfD's. Personally I would like that this Lists will not be deleted, but I respect if there is an other conses. My only wish is that all such lists are treated equally. --Malo95 (talk) 13:12, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Nominating an article that you'd like not to be deleted, because another article was deleted, is literally the first example listed at WP:POINTY. I don't see a clear consensus at that hockey AFD, and I'd think a DRV would be in order - and surely the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UEFA Champions League clubs performance comparison suggests otherwise. Nfitz (talk) 14:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment @PeeJay: Firstly all the information is already found in each season article for the Premier League, then again all the same information is in Premier League records and statistics. What is this article, a third or forth in displaying all the same information in a different way? Yes you can source numbers and statistics but that is not enough. You must provide sources where this same style is matched somewhere else. Unless that is done, this technically is in breach of WP:OR. To everyone else simply throwing an article together and saying it passes GNG because it's a widely covered subject, you still need to add citations to show that the subject in its form has been represented in independent sources. I do not see that here. Govvy (talk) 07:08, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment @Govvy:. The same information is not in Premier League records and statistics as has been mentioned before e.g. if I wanted to know West Ham's performance record season to season, where would I find that in Premier League records and statistics? "You must provide sources where this same style is matched somewhere else." Please provide a direct link to where this is stated in Wikipedia policy, as it seems you are making up your own definitions of OR. These questions have been asked of you before but you seem to ignore them, which makes it very difficult to assume good faith. Jopal22 (talk) 08:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Govvy: The information appears for each season in those seasons' articles, sure, and it even appears for each club in the list of each club's seasons, but it doesn't appear anywhere else in this format. If you want to argue that information is being replicated, I agree that we shouldn't be replicating data unnecessarily, but this surely isn't a case of unnecessary replication. Nowhere else on Wikipedia can you find the information in a grid form like this. You're saying it's OR to present the info in a way that isn't done by any other source, but that only applies if the article or list reaches a conclusion unsupported by evidence. This article offers no conclusions from the data, it is just an alternative way of presenting data that can easily be sourced. I think it could be presented better, but poor design is not a reason for deletion. This table is not meant to be a way people can just check on one club's progress, or even the positions for one particular season, it's meant to be a way to show the finishing positions of all clubs in all seasons of the Premier League, and it does that in an easy to understand way. – PeeJay 17:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was curious why this needed deleting and was really struggling to read this on my iPhone but, LOL, Gov is right on that accessibility, this is a terrible article for mobiles, some of the comments here are fantastic and that last dude is not even reading what that Gov wrote, he said you can see the same info on each prem league article, and surely you would go to the West Ham articles anyway! I don’t know, but the peeps wanting to delete make more sense than those wanting to keep, cheers, James — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4C8:62:EA18:C99A:1649:62C8:D0A8 (talk) 09:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure, yep, definitely going to give due weight to this comment from an anonymous editor who has no prior experience on Wikipedia, yep, sure. – PeeJay 17:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge - List of English football champions or Premier League records and statistics probably covers the subject adequately so probably best to merge into one of those instead. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 21:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete since it fails WP:GNG. Plus, a good case could be made for it also failing WP:NOSTATS and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Normally I'd be down for a merge, but it's generally weak sauce IMO to merge stuff that fails WP:GNG. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: Bad faith nomination. Ravenswing 23:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep This is a WP:REVENGE nomination - the threat to disrupt Wikipedia is made by User:Malo95 here. Wm335td (talk) 14:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, Wikipedia is not a sports almanac. Stifle (talk) 15:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. Seems broad consensus to keep, the style of the page should probably be reviewed though. Fenix down (talk) 23:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    UEFA Europa League clubs performance comparison[edit]

    UEFA Europa League clubs performance comparison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    clubs performance comparison are not notable according: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EHF Champions League clubs performance comparison Malo95 (talk) 14:12, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Malo95 (talk) 14:12, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Arguments of WP:SYNTH in the AfD mentioned in the nomination are moot, as this article does not use the information to form a new conclusion, it is simply an at-a-glance record of every club that has entered the Europa League. Sourcing is lacking, but it does exist and it will just take a bit of effort to put them all in. As the source for Manchester United I added to the Champions League article shows, a year-by-year record of how each team does in the competition already exists, this article just puts them all together in one place so people can compare. Also, I am a professional football statistician and I have found this article (and the Champions League one) extremely useful in the last few years. – PeeJay 14:26, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Even leaving aside the weird "humblebrag", this amounts to WP:ILIKEIT. Maybe start your own blog and put this indiscriminate mass of zany coloured stats there? Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 17:39, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a humblebrag. It's not even a brag. I'm telling you this table has been incredibly useful for my job. Your disparaging comments aside, would you care to actually bring anything constructive to the discussion? – PeeJay 23:12, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - I think this kind of articles are useful and should continue to be on Wikipedia--Baronedimare (talk) 14:41, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 15:41, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment From what I see article violates MOS:COLOR, WP:ACCESS, fails WP:GNG and also appears to be WP:OR. Saying that, I also feel this article title is completely miss-labelled. As it's not truly a comparison article. On all of that I would say at current Delete WP:NOSTATS! Govvy (talk) 15:44, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Due to WP:NOTSTATS and the others mentioned by Govvy. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 17:39, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Accessibility issues are not a reason to delete. Also, it's not original research as all the info can be sourced. – PeeJay 13:15, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep - The deletion request seems to be based purely on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, with several Wikipedia policies linked often without a coherent narrative as to why it should be deleted. This leaves the onus on those wishing to keep the article without having a clear objection to discuss. This article, and similar articles should remain. Wikipedia policy cited included:
    WP:SYNTH - This is totally inapplicable here. The page does not reach any conclusion of any kind, and just summarises facts.
    MOS:COLOR, WP:ACCESS - This is not a reason for deletion and any access issues (which seem minor), can easily be addressed.
    WP:GNG - The information set out in the page is covered in multiple reliable sources in multiple countries.
    WP:OR - The information is factual and direct from sources. There is nothing resembling WP:OR here.
    WP:NOSTATS - This aligns directly with NOSTATS which says statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability (exactly what this does). It also says where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article (which is exactly the point of pages like this). This presentation of results is common among many sports as it is seen as a good way to present results e.g. Roger Federer career statistics#Performance timelines.
    Jopal22 (talk) 15:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 07:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep purely on basis of consensus at a recent related AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UEFA Champions League clubs performance comparison, which was kept. GiantSnowman 16:53, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep This nomination appears to be made in bad-faith as a WP:POINTY nomination in retaliation for the (somewhat questionable) result - the threat to disrupt Wikipedia is made by User:Malo95 here. Nfitz (talk) 18:21, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I find it very concerning these keep votes, I am not sure the editors are truly reviewing the article under strict guidelines. WP:NOSTATS is a primary key concern, WP:OR can be an issue and this off-shoot from UEFA Cup and Europa League records and statistics. We already have all the information on the other page, so why on earth do we need all the same information in another format? Govvy (talk) 19:07, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • The information is not all on that other page. You’re simply making things up to suit your agenda now. I’m embarrassed for you. – PeeJay 12:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Completely WP:OR. WP:OSE is not an valid reason to keep. Accessibility issues are huge here.   // Timothy :: talk  15:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • OSE may not be a valid reason to keep, but ACCESS is not a valid reason to delete. – PeeJay 19:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep - the article clearly needs cleaning up in relation to to accessibility and verifiability, but is probably a useful article. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 21:26, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep – in its present form, sourcing and access are definite issues, but I will have those sorted by Tuesday if someone else doesn't beat me to it. OR claim is a fallacy, each of these clubs has a seasonal performance summary at the UEFA website which the article simply collates into one page, and it's not SYNTH as there is no other claim made by the collation of the stats. This is a useful resource for the reader if presented in an acceptable format. Crowsus (talk) 16:43, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Crowsus, I would suggest we should follow a similar colour scheme that has already been established across wikipedia sports articles, and can been seen in Ronnie O'Sullivan#Performance and rankings timeline, Phil Taylor career statistics#Performance timelines, and Roger Federer career statistics#Performance timelines Jopal22 (talk) 17:01, 9 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:49, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Ace Day Jobs[edit]

    Ace Day Jobs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY, it doesn't the coverage or long-term significance. Looked at Rollercoaster or ABC as WP:ATDs, but neither mention this term. Boleyn (talk) 07:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 07:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 07:39, 2 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 presidents of the Philippines. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    List of presidents of the Philippines by date of birth[edit]

    List of presidents of the Philippines by date of birth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Trivia. Not a WP:NOTABLE topic. Has been in CAT:NN for 10 years, so hopefully we can now resolve it one way or the other. Boleyn (talk) 07:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 07:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 07:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Added comment: it seems that this was mentioned as not notable way back 2010 by User:Lihaas. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge or redirect I saw this when it was prodded. I originally deprodded and then reconsidered and reverted myself. Now as I consider this list, a WP:ATD-M to List of presidents of the Philippines. Extremely narrow and unnecessary topic for a list, and not relevant for an encyclopedia. Easy enough to make the chart which is already at List of presidents of the Philippines, sortable. Lightburst (talk) 16:19, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge into the main Phil presidents article, or just delete. Someone has really bent over backwards to come up with an article out of approaching-nil contents. This seems to me about as useful as a list of presidents alphabetically by their mothers' maiden names! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge per most of the above. A sortable table is almost always better on most browsers. Bearian (talk) 01:54, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete/Merge per WP:DEL-REASON 5: Content forks (unless a merger or redirect is appropriate). There is no need to have separate versions of List of presidents of the Philippines that are sorted by every conceivable parameter (quite a large number exist already, see Template:Philippine Presidents and Vice Presidents Lists). TompaDompa (talk) 03:01, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge While notable, the particular subject in question still violates WP:TRIVIA. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 05:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to one of the merge targets that have already been suggested. I don't really have a preference, but there's zero reason to have this fork when there's other lists that are just as suitable to contain the information. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:59, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    List of commencement speakers at Rice University[edit]

    List of commencement speakers at Rice University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Not a WP:NOTABLE topic. It has been in CAT:NN for 8 years; hopefully we can now resolve it one way or the other. Boleyn (talk) 07:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 07:41, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 07:41, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nomination since no encyclopaedic purpose is served by such a list. Another dinosaur from the days of everything-goes Wikipedia, put together by a kamikaze account. -The Gnome (talk) 08:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I believe we deleted another list of commencement speakers for another university about eight weeks ago. Mccapra (talk) 08:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete This is not something worth having an article on. Giving a speech is just not important enough to justify a seperate list article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete They've clearly had many notable speakers, but I don't think listing them is notable per se. If Rice want to maintain (and for all I know, perhaps they do?) on their website such a list, the main article can then easily link to that. And if they don't, I don't see why we should. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:04, 4 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 Folk dance forms of Odisha. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Laudi Khela[edit]

    Laudi Khela (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Merge to Folk dance forms of Odisha. Stand alone article does not meet WP:GNG   // Timothy :: talk  06:52, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  06:52, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  06:52, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Logs: 2020-07 ✍️ create
    • Comment: I'd be willing to do the Merge and redirect if there is a consensus or if the closer finds that appropriate.   // Timothy :: talk  01:48, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge as suggested above Spiderone 08:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to Folk dance forms of Odisha. Which seems like a compromise since this has notability problems, but would still worth mentioning somewhere and that seems like the best place for it. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:04, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn per sources discovered by Matt91486. (non-admin closure)   // Timothy :: talk  20:10, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Monkey Magic (UK TV series)[edit]

    Monkey Magic (UK TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    The article does not meet WP:GNG. WP:BEFORE revealed no additional WP:RS to indicate it meets WP:TVSHOW   // Timothy :: talk  06:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  06:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  06:38, 2 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Guy Beckers[edit]

    Guy Beckers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  06:32, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  06:32, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. This is not a totally ambiguous case, because his position as Chairman and CEO of Delhaize Group probably would have made him one of the most important businessmen in Belgium in the 1990s (see here). There are plenty of glancing references (ie. this) but I still don't think that means he passes WP:GNG. There is more on his son Pierre-Olivier Beckers-Vieujant into which some of the material in this article might be merged? —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:34, 4 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) 12:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Brunswick Academy[edit]

    Brunswick Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Article does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NSCHOOL or WP:ORGCRIT. WP:BEFORE reveals no additional WP:RS   // Timothy :: talk  06:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  06:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  06:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  06:29, 2 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) 15:19, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Days of Rage (film)[edit]

    Days of Rage (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Distinctly non-notable film made by a director whose Wikipedia page has been deleted for lack of notability. The text has been created and curated by sockpuppets, such as this one, who have been identified as related to the director. A clear case of self promotion. -The Gnome (talk) 06:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I am also nominating the following related pages because they are about equally non-notable films made by the same, non-notable director:

    Words and Sins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Remembrance (2002 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Guilt (2009 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    The Triumph of Time (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete all Agree with nom. Searches showed nothing substantial for any of these films. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Per nomination. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 18:45, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as it seems to be promotion for films lacking coverage in reliable sources. For example the Days of Rage external reviews page at IMDb has no entries and Rotten Tomatoes has no page for the film at all, so it does not pass WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:59, 3 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. Fenix down (talk) 06:32, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Zeljko Susa[edit]

    Zeljko Susa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    The article does not meet WP:GNG, WP:BASIC or WP:NFOOTBALL. Article was previously deleted.   // Timothy :: talk  06:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep - He meets WP:NFOOTBALL by playing two matches for Hajduk Split, which is in the Croatian Legue, which is in the list of fully pro leagues. As the criteria states that the player has to play in a competitive match between two teams in fully pro leagues, one of the matches was a Cup match against another team in the same league, Varteks Varaždin in 2001/02. See his hrnogomet.com Profile. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 06:34, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  06:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  06:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Das osmnezz, the player has played (and scored) in a professional league. Meets WP:NFOOTY. Bingobro (Chat) 08:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:59, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - meets NFOOTBALL as above; needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 17:03, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Keep I don't understand why User:TimothyBlue keeps nominating players that meet NFOOTBALL and claiming that they don't. If these are erroneous, why not withdraw the nominations? Nfitz (talk) 21:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nfitz: yes I've noticed a few where at best WP:BEFORE has not been complied with, and at worst there has been a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts. If you can collate examples we could raise at ANI and seek a topic ban? GiantSnowman 15:12, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    To save some work, here are the three players I have nominated: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robbert Barendse, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miguel Gómez Palapa, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeljko Susa.
    If someone wants to open a thread on ANI, fine but there is no conduct issue here, just a difference of opinion about notability guidelines. There won't be a topic ban because I will accept the consensus if I'm incorrectly applying notability guidelines and bans are preventative, not punitive. There may be a mild boomerang though based on the lack of AGF and using ANI as a threat to scare off an editor or as a red card to falsely thwart discussion (I used a soccer metaphor there, was it a good one?).
    On the other side, if my interpretation is upheld at ANI, it will open up discussing deleting a number of non-notable stubs.
    I don't believe Wikipedia should be a repository of non-notable stubs because they are presumed to be notable. Wikipedia is not a biographical dictionary. It's an encyclopedia and these stubs provide no WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC CONTENT.
    I think how notability should be applied in these cases is a good conversation to have. Maybe I am wrong, but maybe I'm correct.
    To address issues:
    • WP:BEFORE has been done. It has turned up no WP:RS to establish notability. I don't see anyone that has added a RS to indicate my BEFORE was faulty (perhaps they did and I haven't seen it since I last looked). See below regarding NFOOTBALL and as I stated above I should not have been using NFOOTBALL and NSPORT interchangeably.
    • The core question here is if a person meets WP:NFOOTBALL, does that mean there notability is automatically established and cannot be questioned based on the lack of RS? or I am interpreting WP:N, WP:SNG, and WP:NSPORT and presumption correctly and it's valid to bring up the question of notability here.
    • WP:N states "A topic is presumed to merit an article..." Presumed is defined in the link as "a rebuttable presumption ... is an assumption made by a court that is taken to be true unless someone comes forward to contest it and prove otherwise". I am coming forward to contest the notability of these articles based on a lack of WP:RS showing notability.
    • From WP:N (WP:NRV) (a guideline that applies to all subjects) "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition". The evidence (WP:RS) must show the individual is notable. I don't believe that evidence exists and the presumption, in this case, is incorrect.
    • Just because WP:NFOOTBALL says someone can be "presumed notable" does not guarantee they are notable, nor does it say that editors cannot question this presumption of notability. A presumption is an assumption that is taken to be true unless someone comes forward to contest it. WP:NFOOTBALL is not a trump card that automatically overrules all other guidelines and makes article notability immune from scrutiny.
    • From WP:SNG "a presumption is neither a guarantee that sources can be found" and therefore it is not a guarantee the topic is notable, "nor a mandate for a separate page." A separate page is not mandatory for a topic just because of a presumption.
    "If the article does meet the criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria". "it is likely" does not mean there always are sufficient sources. It is also possible that sufficient sources do not exist to establish notability. Therefore if someone comes forward to question the presumption of notability, it can be discussed and the article deleted if the presumption is found to be wrong due to the lack of WP:RS establishing notability.
    • Per WP:NSPORT "Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept." Even if an article meets WP:NFOOTBALL that does not mean it must be kept. If there are reasons, such as a lack of RS, then an article can be deleted.
    • I was thinking about writing an RFC to ask about clarifying that a presumption of notability can be questioned based on the lack of RS showing notability so that this is no longer a matter for debate. If the RFC is written (I'm not sure I want to be pummeled by the football team), this might be a good opening comment. I was also thinking about writing an RFC to ask about revising the exceedingly low standard set in WP:NFOOTBALL since I believe its standard is allowing too many non-notable articles to exist. Together these two RFCs might be a good starting point for removing a good number of non-notable articles.
    Johnpacklambert, Vmavanti, Barkeep49, Vexations, AleatoryPonderings: I'd be interested if you have any comments, not on the delete discussion (I'm not canvassing), but on the notability thoughts above (other than why are you kicking a hornet's nest)? If anyone else has anyone that might provide good feedback, please ping them.   // Timothy :: talk  18:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (Nfitz, GiantSnowman, Bingobro I assumed you were watching, but decided to ping you just in case.   // Timothy :: talk  19:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC))[reply]
    TimothyBlue, sorry, this particular AfD isn't something I want to get involved in. Ultimately, all the notability guidelines are not rules to be followed but an approximation what we have learned through experience; that if subjects that meet a certain criterion, it likely has received enough attention that an article can be written from reliable secondary sources and the subject is something we ought to have an article on. I don't think we should interpret guidelines as rules. Read the sources, consider them. An SNG should be the start of a discussion, not the end. I'm not a huge fan of "meets guideline; end of discussion". Vexations (talk) 21:40, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @TimothyBlue: Agree it would be helpful to clarify globally just what "presume" means in this context. Lawyers sometimes distinguish between rebuttable and irrebuttable presumptions. Rebuttable presumptions, as their name suggests, can be rebutted by presenting evidence to defeat the presumption; irrebuttable presumptions can't. WP:NFOOTY states [a]ssociation football (soccer) figures are presumed notable if …. This seems ambiguous to me between rebuttable and irrebuttable. No thoughts on this nom, but agree it would help to clarify, generally, what "presumed" means in notability guidelines. I've been operating with the assumption that it means "rebuttable"—so presenting evidence of RS would still be necessary, even if the guideline applies—but I'm not a policy expert. (Your note above re: WP:N suggests that this is the appropriate interpretation, at least in some notability contexts.) Would defer to those who are. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:57, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. The standard is having reliable, 3rd party sources. The football guidelines suggest the type of articles that will have such sources, but if such sources are not found when sought for, we should delete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I'm not sure why you mentioned me. I don't know anything about notability in football, and I've never worked on any football articles. When I was much younger, I loved sports and followed them closely. Those days are gone.
      Vmavanti (talk) 21:10, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep passes WP:NFOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep – as per multiple users above, meets WP:NFOOTY through appearances for Hajduk Split. Needs improving, not deleting. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 15:22, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Salvio 10:04, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Chantal (film)[edit]

    Chantal (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Soft porn direct-to-video flick that fails WP:NFILM. No reviews or any other notice. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete nothing substantial found during search to support notability. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as there is a lack of coverage in reliable sources, for example there are no reliable sources reviews in the external reviews page at IMDb and there are no critics reviews at Rotten Tomatoes. Does not pass WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Salvio 10:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Abbas Fakhruddin[edit]

    Abbas Fakhruddin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    The article does not meet WP:GNG, WP:BASIC   // Timothy :: talk  06:00, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  06:00, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  06:00, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  06:00, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


    • Delete existing sources are all primary sources and don't support meeting WP:GNG. Ravensfire (talk) 13:44, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - I can't see how he is notable Spiderone 16:43, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Sri Sri Aniruddhadeva Sports University[edit]

    Sri Sri Aniruddhadeva Sports University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Article does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NSCHOOL or WP:ORGCRIT. WP:BEFORE reveals no additional WP:RS   // Timothy :: talk  05:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Please consider not to delete this article because it is very important and one of it's kind university of the region. It has recently started functioning from a temporary campus and due to ongoing Covid-19 pandemic the media coverage is comparatively very low.-Ajay Das (অজয় দাস) (Talk(বাৰ্তা)) 04:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  05:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  05:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  05:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - See too soon for a university that is not yet in operation. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom and above; this can always be created again if and when it does pass GNG Spiderone 13:11, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete since this seems to fail WP:GNG, WP:NSCHOOL and WP:ORGCRIT. It's not like it can't be recreated if or when it every does pass them though. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn per deletion discussion to give creator time to further develop the article. (non-admin closure)   // Timothy :: talk  15:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Muhammad VI Awards for the Holy Quran[edit]

    Muhammad VI Awards for the Holy Quran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Merge and Redirect to Mohammed VI of Morocco. The article does not meet WP:GNG.   // Timothy :: talk  05:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  05:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  05:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  05:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep: "General notability" is good for this article in the Islamic & the Arab World, if you didn't hear about it, this doesn't mean it's not notable. I think we need to expand it. And your suggestion to merge it with (article about a person) is not in the safe side, b/c theses awards belong to a Moroccan Ministry not for a person, these awards are 5 awards, and later for each award we need a separate article and the lists of winners -Imad_J (talk) 13:59, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply Hi عماد الدين المقدسي. Please AGF, I did look at the sources and did a before regarding GNG. I believe from your comments you intend to actively work on developing this article, so I will gladly withdraw my nomination and change it to Draftify to give it time to develop. I don't want to stop the development of what could really be a good article. Greetings and best wishes from Los Angeles.   // Timothy :: talk  15:45, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Keep Nomination withdrawn per above.   // Timothy :: talk  15:46, 2 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) 15:23, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Dawko[edit]

    Dawko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Only references are their own Twitter and Youtube. Just enough to rescue it from a BLP PROD but not an indication of any notability. There is an unsourced, an dubious, claim of a high number of subscribers and views that are not matched by a look at his YouTube page. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 04:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:56, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    BRD PG COLLEGE DEORIA[edit]

    BRD PG COLLEGE DEORIA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    The article does not meet WP:GNG, WP:ORGCRIT/WP:SIRS. WP:BEFORE turned up nothing, but if others can find WP:RS I will happily withraw or change my vote to keep.   // Timothy :: talk  04:35, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  04:35, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  04:35, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  04:35, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Care to share some of these sources? Spiderone 12:38, 3 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Noble Lady Shun[edit]

    Noble Lady Shun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Merge and Redirect to Jiaqing Emperor. WP:NOTEVERYTHING and article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. My WP:BEFORE turned up nothing. Similar article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concubine En was recently redirected.   // Timothy :: talk  04:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    *Merge to Concubines of the Jiaqing Emperor. I expect there will be some more information about at least some of these women. The material as it stands isn’t enough to support a series of stand-alone articles but there is enough for a single article with a couple of paras in each of them.Mccapra (talk) 08:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep nooo she was a former consort (fei). She was demoted from her rank of Consort in 1788. Fei is the fourth highest rank in Imperial Chinese harem system, see also Ranks of Imperial Consorts in China#Qing. Fei (consort) of China are equated with "Queen of third rank" were known as "Shweye Hsaungya Mibaya" (ရွှေရေးဆောင်ရ မိဖုရား, lit. 'Queens who Possess the Gilded Chambers') of Burma. She was also a member of two prominent powerful Chinese families, one by birth - the "House of Niuhuru", one by marriage the "House of Aisin-Gioro" (Ruling house). Do note, Consort or Queen or Princess consort or Princess are forever notable. No one can delete them on Wikipedia. I did not vote on your deletion requests for other concubines, but this one is different. Cape Diamond MM (talk) 20:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I think her rank and position is high and important enough in the harem hierarchy for her to stay, but her and many other similar articles are nonetheless problematic, because they are very thin on personal information: they consists of names, dates, titles and genealogy, but no personal information. What was she like as a person, did she participate in any known political act, plot, conflict, memorable event? What was her relationship like to other influential people at court, her sympathies, enemies and views? As the article stands now, she appear to be a blank sheat of a person, so it's no wonder the article is nominated; she appears to be just a genealogical footnote. The article really should be developed and expanded with more personal information which confirms her relevance, otherwise a nomination would always appear reasonable even if I don't support it. The Chinese language wikip-article appears to have plenty information of the kind that should be included in this one, so it is possible to expand the article, and it really should be.--Aciram (talk) 13:40, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep There are more sources and details in the zh.wiki article so I think notability is established. 05:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC) Mccapra (talk)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was move to Draft:Concubine An. BD2412 T 00:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Concubine An[edit]

    Concubine An (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Merge and Redirect to Jiaqing Emperor. WP:NOTEVERYTHING and article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. My WP:BEFORE turned up nothing. Similar article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concubine En was recently redirected.   // Timothy :: talk  04:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  04:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  04:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    *Merge to Concubines of the Jiaqing Emperor. I expect there will be some more information about at least some of these women. The material as it stands isn’t enough to support a series of stand-alone articles but there is enough for a single article with a couple of paras in each of them.Mccapra (talk) 08:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Creator requests the article be moved to Draftspace to continue development — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deidonata (talk • contribs) 09:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Draft so it can be worked on. Per the request of the article creator. With the caveat that it has to go through the AfC process before going back to the main article space. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:32, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Draftify since the creator believes that with more work, notability can be shown. Mccapra (talk) 05:17, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was redirect to Jiaqing Emperor. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Concubine Rong, of the Liang clan[edit]

    Creator suggests this article to be moved to draftspace

    Concubine Rong, of the Liang clan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

    *Merge to Concubines of the Jiaqing Emperor. I expect there will be some more information about at least some of these women. The material as it stands isn’t enough to support a series of stand-alone articles but there is enough for a single article with a couple of paras in each of them.Mccapra (talk) 08:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:06, 2 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 Draftify. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Concubine Xun[edit]

    Concubine Xun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Merge and Redirect to Jiaqing Emperor. WP:NOTEVERYTHING and article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. My WP:BEFORE turned up nothing. Similar article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concubine En was recently redirected.   // Timothy :: talk  04:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  04:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  04:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Creator requests the article be moved to Draftspace to continue development — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deidonata (talk • contribs) 09:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep or DRAFTIFY She was different from other concubines of Jiaqing Emperor. She give birth to five daughters for the emperor. Her fifth daughter Princess Hui'an (慧安和碩公主) was awarded the Second Rank royal title by her father. but needs some improvements on article. Cape Diamond MM (talk) 19:03, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Draftify per the request of the article creator. With the caveat that it has to successfully go through the AfC process to be restored to the main article space. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Draftify since the creator believes that with more work, notability can be shown. Mccapra (talk) 05:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Draftify. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:56, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Concubine Jian[edit]

    Concubine Jian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Merge and Redirect to Jiaqing Emperor. WP:NOTEVERYTHING and article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. My WP:BEFORE turned up nothing. Similar article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concubine En was recently redirected.   // Timothy :: talk  04:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  04:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  04:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    *Merge to Concubines of the Jiaqing Emperor. I expect there will be some more information about at least some of these women. The material as it stands isn’t enough to support a series of stand-alone articles but there is enough for a single article with a couple of paras in each of them.Mccapra (talk) 08:46, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    reator requests the article be moved to Draftspace to continue development — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deidonata (talk • contribs) 09:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Draft per the request of the article creator. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Draftify since the creator believes that with more work, notability can be shown. Mccapra (talk) 05:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was no consensus. – Joe (talk) 12:13, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Ramani Durvasula[edit]

    Ramani Durvasula (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Purely a promotional article WP:PROMO. Can't identify her nor see why she is notable. Fails WP:BIO as no credible citations are available that talks about her at the first place. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. Hatchens (talk) 11:40, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 11:40, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 11:40, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:09, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep WP:AUTHOR WP:GNG Dr. Ramani is an author, a well known expert on NPD, and popular and influential youtuber with over 300k followers and millions of views. She has been featured on a number of other shows and publications as an expert in narcissism. I came to wikipedia to learn about her history and personal life, surprised that her page is marked for possible deletion. Definitely keep. I agree that the article appears very rough, reads like promo material, and should be improved, however. Metaldev (talk) 05:26, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 21:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete despite the promotional refbombing, no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. The sources that are independent or reliable are not significant and vice-versa. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    *Keep. Lots of sources in the article. Apple731a (talk) 08:37, 1 August 2020 (UTC) Struck !vote from blocked disruption-only account editing here to WP:GAME autoconfirmed. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:52, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:22, 2 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. New sources came into light during the course of the discussion. (non-admin closure) —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 08:58, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Sharh-e Esm (book)[edit]

    Sharh-e Esm (book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    WP:N. The references all are unreliable and dependent sources (they all are government news agencies). It's also deleted in fawiki for WP:N. Ladsgroupoverleg 18:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 20:47, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep, Apart from the point that it is an important/known biography book concerning the highest-ranking position in Iran (supreme-leader) (written by a known writer, i.e. Hedayatollah Behboudi); I added more reliable references --among 2 related references from BBC NEWS, to cover its notability/reliability more), i.e. BBC, and that (BBC); Good luck. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 07:38, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Non-notable. It's also deleted in fawiki. Nika2020 (talk) 18:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:07, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As I mentioned above, a part from the available reliable references in the article, I added some other reliable sources (among BBC, such as: this BBC NEWS and that (BBC)) which have mentioned/surveyed the book directly; meanwhile, there are more other reliable references that have engaged in the book, such as: Radiofarda and this Radiofarda; etc. which explicitly shows its notability. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 07:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I wonder why it was deleted in fa.wiki but it looks to me to pass GNG. Mccapra (talk) 16:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Based on what I can read with google translate, the two BBC sources look sufficient for WP:BOOKCRIT. ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 17:45, 5 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    List of coastal islands of the Californias[edit]

    List of coastal islands of the Californias (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Page is a WP:REDUNDANT WP:DUPLICATE of List of islands of California and List of islands of Mexico and is not necessary. Merely sharing a name such as in the original list title "Coastal islands of Alta and Baja California" does not warrant the duplicative listings. Reywas92Talk 19:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 19:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 19:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 19:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:02, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Those other lists are based on political boundaries which are comparatively recent (1848). A regional geographical basis seems better for most purposes -- ecology, geology, navigation, history, &c. For a similar article on the other side of North America, see List of Caribbean islands, which are ruled by many states. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:02, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, we have a wide swath of articles based on political boundaries: Category:Lists of islands by country; unclear why "recent" has anything to with this. Not only are those in the Caribbean naturally listed together in a sea among many more entities, there are not separate list articles for most of those countries, so it's not a duplicate – if the California and Mexico lists didn't exist separately, then no, I wouldn't be nominating this, so you're simply making a strawman argument! This does not justify duplication nor does (or should) the list even discuss such ecology and geology. Reywas92Talk 20:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is quite common for our lists and other navigational structures to overlap or present the same information in different ways or sequences. The general guidance of WP:CLN is that such parallel structures are fine because they complement each other, enable cross-checking and provide the reader with choice. There is no one true way. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:40, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          That says the parallel structures of categories, lists, and navigation templates complement each other, which still does not explain why the content in List of islands of California and List of islands of Mexico should be duplicated in bulk. At best this should be a disambiguation page. Reywas92Talk 21:05, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep (edit conflict) this is comprehensive and focussed list of coastal islands of California serves the purposes outlined in WP:LISTN Lightburst (talk) 20:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The list intro does not (but should) make this clear, but we do have The Californias covering the region as a whole, so that's the logical parent for this list. postdlf (talk) 22:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, that's fixed now, so it's no longer starting with the useless "this is a list..." (see WP:REDUNDANCY). postdlf (talk) 23:30, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 17#List of coastal islands of the Californias for a recent related discussion. Narky Blert (talk) 11:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • delete I am not seeing the purpose of this list other than making WP bigger. I just don't see the juxtaposition of California and a somewhat arbitrary subset of Mexican islands as meaningful. Why specifically c"coastal"? What about the islands in the Gulf of California, or those further off-shore? I also have to suspect there's an element of anachronism here, in that the Spanish were likely not aware of all these places; indeed, the top illo of Baja California as an island itself would suggest that. Mangoe (talk) 21:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I totally agree the reasons given by Mangoe as to why. It seems to be a semi-indiscriminate list and figuring out what exactly is worth including would probably be impossible because it's to broad. Also, the islands are already covered in more specific lists that don't have this ones problems. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:27, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep until this list has been brought up to the standards of the other two. It encompasses a natural grouping. It might then be worth considering whether the other two lists could become redirects. Thincat (talk) 04:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Why in the world would List of islands of California and List of islands of Mexico be redirects??? Redirect to what and why? Those are the most natural groupings and contain more than just the coastal islands this article duplicates, as this does regardless of what it's "brought up to". Reywas92Talk 04:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • KEEP put any islands considered north of Baja California that belong to USA into the List of islands of California. What remains should be islands that fall under Mexico jurisdiction. Call it the List of islands of Baja, California .Goldenrowley (talk) 20:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh ... Never mind my ideas to split it up. I can see the value in this list, just as it is after I read it again.Goldenrowley (talk) 20:47, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete As per nom, this list is a duplicate of the other two. Cxbrx (talk) 00:54, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to California or any other as page seems to contain valuable info.MissiYasında&& (talk) 19:13, 9 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. Stifle (talk) 15:21, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Seetu Kohli[edit]

    Seetu Kohli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Speedy deletion per WP:A7 and WP:G11 was declined by here by an editor with barely 200 edits. Disagree on A7; there is a credible claim of significance, but concur with the nominator on G11; Wikipedia is not means of promotion. Vexations (talk) 21:00, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 21:00, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 21:00, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I got the notification for this discussion a while ago. Seetu Kohil clearly passes the notability standards as seen in WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. This is also clearly seen in Google news here. Even the nominator agrees on this. Most of the sources cited also support the above.
    The bone of contention here is that the nominator claims the page sounded promotional. Well, I did my best to focus on factual info while keeping the write-up neutral as much as possible. I have no conflict of interest as alleged by the nominator. I only wrote on Seetu because I discovered she's notable and meets the wiki notability standards.
    I guess removing the seemingly promotional tones should have been done by the nominator or any other editor since the topic actually meets the basic WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV guidelines. This should be encouraging rather than going this way.Μεταφερθείσα (talk) 05:32, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete As per nom. Completely an advertisement.DMySon 06:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment
    Ad hominem. AFD doesn't discuss users. Take it WP:ANI if you must. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    I have been wondering wny this same "User:DMySon" is bent on seeing this page Seetu Kohli removed. First he quickly tagged the page for speedy deletion few minutes after it was created depsite the fact that the topic meets WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. This was declined by another editor who removed the advert claims and made the page look a bit neutral.

    Now, "User:DMySon" has come back to vote "delete" citing "completely an advertisement" as reason despite the fact that another editor has edited the page and removed the advert claims he pointed out. Currently, this page has factual info backed up by 3rd party references. Even the AFD nominator agrees on this.

    I took sometine to check "User:DMySon" contributions. I discovered he's trying to get NPR rights here

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions#New_page_reviewer

    He has tried in the past and got declined. He has gone about tagging pages for Speedy deletion and AFD on regular basis, keeping a speedy deletion log on his userspace just to secure access at the NPR. See this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DMySon#Deletion_Log

    He even asked an admin at the NPR to check his deletion log https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions#New_page_reviewer

    Again, the admin declined giving him the right saying among other things 

    ...However, their CSD log, which they presented here, is filled with an awful lot of blue. Their DRAFTIFY log also has a few question marks for me. Their AfD log does, however, seem strong...

    I discovered that "User:DMySon" has even tried to seek same NPR admission help through a senior editor here on 19th July 2020

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rosguill#NPP_Admission_Request

    His desperation to get NPR rights has led him to engage in continuous tagging of pages for CDS and AFD even when those pages meet WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV.

    He tagged Dev Mohan for AFD and then cavassed for help from another editor like in this case here

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Robert_McClenon#Dev_Mohan

    This is quite disheartening. I am worried at this to be sincere. This is certainly not what English wikipedia is meant for.

    A look at this page shows that the topic meets WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. The advert issue he pointed is unclear. It has been taken care of.Μεταφερθείσα (talk) 18:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: Sources have been provided, but there is precious little discussion of their reliability or substantiveness.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 16:22, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The above are from reputable sources and it's clear they are organic not paid stuff. I have to add them to the appropriate areas on the page.

    I also looked at these two existing references on the page

    These are also substantive. By the above I agree with the AFD nominator that there are significant coverage in the news regarding the topic. Hence WP:SIGCOV is fully met. I strongly go for a keep here. Jokejust1000 (talk) 19:57, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    First, second-The Hindu, Hindustan Times and some others are reliable independent secondary sources, so we can keep it, but article must be rewritten from a neutral point of view. Lkomdis (talk) 07:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Lkomdis, that second source, [12] has ONE sentence that mentions Kohli: "And launched Manish Malhotra Home in partnership with luxury architect, Seetu Kohli." Stuff like "With his unrelenting energy and interminable spirit, Manish Malhotra still continues to win more acknowledgments and million hearts in this magnificent journey." doesn't exactly sound NPOV, either. More importantly, that it would be intellectually independent, as you assert, is contradicted by the fact that it was authored by "htlsspeakersbio". That's not editorial content; it's promotion Vexations (talk) 11:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and wikify. Besides the sources present in the article and provided above in the AFD, the search with the Hindi keywords "सीटू कोहली" also brought up a good amount of news articles that are covering the subject and its activities in detail. I believe it's enough to meet WP:BASIC. Israell (talk) 14:50, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Israell, what are those sources please? I noticed that this is only one of two AfD's that you participated in that is not related to Michael Jackson. In the other AfD, you suggested that for a Dutch subject, the search with the Russian keywords "Бен Дронкерс" and "Дронкерс, Бен" brought up a good amount of news articles that cover the subject in detail, but also failed to mention which sources those were. It should be noted that online searches can yield wildly different results, so we should not use search results as indications of notability but the sources themselves. In my case, that query yields ONE result that had nothing to do with Kohli. As for wikify, the article has already been formatted using Wiki markup, so there's not much that remains to be done there. Vexations (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep as refs indicate enough notability in line with WP:BIO.MissiYasında&& (talk) 19:12, 9 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. New sources were added to the article. (non-admin closure) —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 03:15, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Haitian Swiss[edit]

    Haitian Swiss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Small community, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 12:11, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haiti-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:34, 25 July 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 July 25. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 12:38, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete no significant coverage (only sources I can find just say X is Haitian Swiss) Danski454 (talk) 13:28, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep The added sources demonstrate notability. Danski454 (talk) 13:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per all of the above; no evidence of WP:GNG Spiderone 14:24, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Topic doesn’t lack sources, the article does. “Small communities” do not effect WP:GNG. Are these small communities at all influential in some way? (Should be the focus; Roma communities for eg., even though coverage and populations are small). Significant coverage is more readily available in French-related sources (Switzerland is a small non-English speaking country), thus a redirect in one’s approach at research is needed. Will introduce these sources later on in the day. Savvyjack23 (talk) 18:11, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: In fact "Haitians in Switzerland" inevitably may be best suited for the naming of this article, rather than Haitian Swiss if these sources should prove one terminology over the other. TBD shortly in my follow-up. Cheers. Savvyjack23 (talk) 20:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Updated changes: @Störm, Spiderone, Danski454 I've included some additional content in favor of. After reviewing, if this article remains, I would definitely recommend a move to Haitians in Switzerland. The dual-faction identity is rather benign in the country in general, especially amongst smaller ethnic groups. Savvyjack23 (talk) 04:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The population being small doesn't impact notability.★Trekker (talk) 16:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The sources in the article are enough to prove notability. Zoozaz1 (talk) 23:03, 2 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 WGC-HSBC Champions. Should the event run, the article may certainly be recreated. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:01, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    2020 WGC-HSBC Champions[edit]

    2020 WGC-HSBC Champions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    WP:TOOSOON. Doesn't meet NEVENT/GNG and won't unless it happens. China has cancelled all international sporting event for the year, so there's a very real possibility this event will not happen: [13]. Content is a copy of previous events; 2020 qualification criteria have not been confirmed, so also contravenes WP:OR, WP:V & WP:CRYSTAL. wjematherplease leave a message... 07:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. wjematherplease leave a message... 08:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. wjematherplease leave a message... 08:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Logs: 2020-07 ✍️ create
    • Keep Had this article been made in the early part of this year, as it would have been in previous years, this deletion discussion would never have even happened. And as it is, there is currently nothing in the news to suggest that the tournament referred to in the article isn't going to go on as planned. Therefore, there never was, nor is there now, a valid reason to remove the article. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 06:25, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 08:05, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Even though this event is still listed in the published event schedules of both the PGA Tour and the European Tour, there is strong evidence that the event will not occur as scheduled. Even if the event were to occur, specific details would likely be distinct from prior years due to the current state of the world. There is no need for this page at this time, as any information about cancellation would properly belong in WGC-HSBC Champions. BillyPilgrim5 (talk) 01:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Having hidden the field section (as unsourced OR) permalink, we can more easily see what content there is – scheduled dates, venue, and possible/probable cancellation (all with extremely limited coverage) – i.e. not enough to meet our guidelines for events (WP:NEVENT, WP:NSPORTSEVENT) , which is why these articles are routinely deleted or redirected to the main article. wjematherplease leave a message... 09:46, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to WGC-HSBC Champions. An event that likely isn't going to happen and there is minimal coverage for should be redirected to parent article. If necessary, one sentence about the "in doubt" status of the 2020 version can be added to that article. The argument that there is "nothing...to suggest that...[it] isn't going to go on as planned" is myopic, at best. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:17, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 11:27, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Isla Calavera[edit]

    Isla Calavera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Notability not established for small rock. Reywas92Talk 01:38, 18 July 2020 (UTC) Reywas92Talk 01:38, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 01:38, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 01:38, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dps04 (talk) 07:04, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:44, 2 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. (non-admin closure) —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 03:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Arson attacks on asylum centres in Sweden[edit]

    Arson attacks on asylum centres in Sweden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    WP:NOTNEWS and WP:SYNTH. This is just an indiscriminate list of incidents involving arson attacks on asylum centers in Sweden. The very few examples provided in this article have not actually been proven to be perpetrated by Swedish nationalists, just suspected to be as such. There's a distinct difference. Outside of that, I'm not seeing anything in this article that indicates these attacks are an endemic problem. They simply feel like isolated incidents. Love of Corey (talk) 06:28, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 06:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 06:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, but rename to List of arson attacks on asylum seekers in Sweden, because there are sources not only about a number of specific incidents [14], but about the phenomenon "More than 90 arson attacks on asylum seekers' housing", this, this, etc. The subject was indeed described in RS as something worthy a page or a list. My very best wishes (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Undecided. The current sources are, honestly, not very good, and having an article on arson attacks on asylum centres in Sweden focus only on the last few years is deeply ahistorical, as this is hardly a new phenomenon but has a distinct echo of he 90s, when they were aimed largely at refugees from the Yugoslav Wars. It's probably possible to find better sources in Swedish, that might contextualise it. This radio documentary probably has some background (I haven't listened to it and am not going to), and there are better shorter news pieces in Swedish, like this one. Either way, I don't think it should be made into a list: the individual incidents aren't terribly interesting, many of them minor fires, but the phenomenon should be, could it be substantiated. This definitely has been an endemic problem, perhaps even more so in the 90s than recently, and that simple fact can be verified by the sources posted in this discussion. /Julle (talk) 00:26, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, no, some searching later, this is definitely something one can write about in with more context. More general articles: Sydsvenskan, SVT. And apparently this is one of the areas covered by sv:Heléne Lööw, Mattias Gardell and Michael Dahlberg-Grundberg in their book Den ensamme terroristen? : Om lone wolves, näthat och brinnande flyktingförläggningar (en: The Lone Terrorist? : On Lone Wolves, Online Hate and Burning Asylum Centres), which is probably one of the best sources available. /Julle (talk) 01:02, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Notable topic which is widely known in Sweden.★Trekker (talk) 16:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - article needs some work but is widely knowm in Sweden. And within WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 20:22, 3 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 03:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    DICE (band)[edit]

    DICE (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    NN band, fails the GNG and WP:BAND. No substantive coverage in reliable sources found. Notability tagged for over a decade. Created and built upon by a SPA for whom this is the sole Wikipedia activity (and, startlingly enough, stretched over eleven years, which leads to wondering about COI).

    (And before anyone asks, this is a mirror image of the article on the German Wikipedia, which is likewise source-free.) Ravenswing 06:19, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 06:19, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 06:19, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I dumped an incomplete list of links on Talk:DICE (band). I will take some time to integrate some into the article if the article isn't doomed to begin with, which I find difficult to determine. I'd also like to say that I'd rather see this discussion happening on dewiki first, because dewiki users will have an easier time examining the sources. - Alexis Jazz 06:37, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • (blinks) Err ... the other national Wikipedias tend to their own gardens, and more to the point, each have their own notions of notability. That being said, sorry: if eleven years was not enough to come up with reliable, independent sources satisfying the GNG and NBAND, and seven days of deletion discussion here is not enough to come up with reliable sources satisfying the GNG and NBAND, then that is really rather a clear sign that either no one cares enough to bother and/or the subject just does not qualify for an article on Wikipedia. Ravenswing 07:20, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • (blinks) PROD is not a discussion. Sorry but you just sound like a broken record. Repeating your points over and over doesn't make them any more meaningful. If ten years wasn't enough to PROD the article, you've had your chance. Anything that's not done within 10 years doesn't mean nobody cares. Some things actually take longer than 10 years on wiki. Counting numbers of users who care over some period doesn't establish notability. - Alexis Jazz 18:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're honestly implying that it takes over ten years to source an article? That does say it all, doesn't it. Ravenswing 18:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sure you've been told, but your attitude does not promote collegiality. And that's putting it mildly. - Alexis Jazz 13:34, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • If "Sorry but you just sound like a broken record" is your notion of displaying civility, well. Ravenswing 13:56, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete- This just doesn't have the independent sources necessary to support an article. Reyk YO! 10:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete no evidence of notability. Time lacking sources seems to indicate there aren't any to be found in either language. StarM 00:55, 4 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 03:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    DZBN[edit]

    DZBN (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Currently defunct station which is left unreferenced for more than 10 years. There's barely any source about it. The callsign is not listed in the 2011 listing and 2019 listing by the NTC. Fails WP:BCAST. Per mentioned listings, the frequency is owned by Trace College under the callsign DZTC. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 02:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 02:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 02:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Awbfiend (talk) 20:40, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Kai Røberg[edit]

    Kai Røberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Subject does not seem to be notable. The article has had only a handful of substantive edits in 13 years. In that time the team has even been relegated to 3. divisjon (which is actually only the fourth highest division in Norway). It is not clear that the subject still plays the sport or is with the team specified. The information in the article is totally inconsistent with what few online sources are available, such as this page. Awbfiend (talk) 01:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:53, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:53, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - multiple professional appearances means he meets WP:NFOOTBALL by some way. Needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 17:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Keep - I don't understand this nomination - article is clear that they spent 5 years in the top level of Norwegian football, easily meeting WP:NFOOTBALL. The stats are quite detailed in the Italian version. And it all matches the source that is questioned in the nomination. Nfitz (talk) 04:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, since the nomination, Geschichte has kindly made significant changes to reflect the source and improve the article. Acknowledge that I had not compared to the Italian version. Awbfiend (talk) 10:57, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Then why not withdraw your nomination User:Awbfiend? I'm changing to a speedy. Nfitz (talk) 14:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree I have done so on the basis that Geschichte has kindly rewritten the article and resolved the issues. Awbfiend (talk) 20:40, 5 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 09:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    ULesson Education Limited[edit]

    ULesson Education Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Non notable organization that falls short of WP:ORG as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. A before search only shows sponsored posts, press releases, mere announcements & passing mentions. Celestina007 01:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 01:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 01:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 01:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 01:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 01:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Salvio 09:55, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Glandular and epithelial neoplasm[edit]

    Glandular and epithelial neoplasm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Created and barely edited since 2009, this is an overly broad topic that is not helpful to readers. They can access Carcinoma (for epithelial) and Adenocarcinoma (for glandular), but what how is equivalent title Adenocarcinoma and carcinoma going to be useful to anyone? I propose deletion. Tom (LT) (talk) 00:47, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Tom (LT) (talk) 00:47, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete unless there's some reason we want an article for every MeSH term. I couldn't find any use of the phrase in pubmed, and looking up papers by the MeSH term only yields papers on more specific subtopics. I don't think the topic meets WP:GNG. The current article just restates the title as a sort of definition, so there's nothing to merge elsewhere. Ajpolino (talk) 17:47, 2 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 Laxdæla saga. – Joe (talk) 11:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Geirmund the Noisy[edit]

    Geirmund the Noisy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    A character in Laxdæla saga, mentioned nowhere else. I would redirect to Laxdæla saga but the character is so minor that even the very extensive synopsis there does not mention him. Haukur (talk) 00:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Haukur (talk) 00:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Haukur (talk) 00:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Haukur (talk) 00:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:46, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge rather than redirect. A person searching will be puzzled to find him/herself redirected to a page where there is no mention. Possibly we need People in Laxdæla saga as a means of dealing with people like this. Such mergers are common in film/TV/novels. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I like his name and find that he has a sword called Legbiter. Sounds like he'd fit right in here at AfD, eh? Anyway, how do I know this when I'd never heard of him before? That's because the character is covered in sources such as The Conflict of Law and Justice in the Icelandic Sagas, The Laxdœla Saga: Its Structural Patterns; Freeing Keiko: The Journey of a Killer Whale...; &c. See WP:NEXIST, WP:BITE; WP:QUIET; &c.

    Andrew🐉(talk) 20:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • I was puzzled by this too but then I figured he means that Geirmund himself, imaginatively seen here as an AfD participant, should take these to heart. Haukur (talk) 15:11, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps so! Me, I don't think I'd want to go out of my way to antagonize an armed warrior at my age, but it takes all kinds! Ravenswing 16:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge: per Peterkingiron. Ravenswing 14:58, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge: per Peterkingiron. Information will be preserved and editors wishing to expand it and add RS can do so.   // Timothy :: talk  16:23, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge I suggest to merge this with related page as already voted above by others.MissiYasında&& (talk) 18:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge as suggested originally by Peterkingiron and echoed by other voters. I think it's the reasonable thing to do here, but I don't feel like just repeating what everyone else has already said about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 11:24, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Muir, Contra Costa County, California[edit]

    Muir, Contra Costa County, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Another railroad station mistakenly identified as a community by GNIS. Durham calls it a locality on the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad. Other references call it a rail facility but no indication that it was ever a community. Except for the name, no evidence of basic notability (and recall, notability is not inherited. Glendoremus (talk) 00:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep This location is closely associated with the John Muir National Historic Site. Author and environmentalist John Muir was a successful commercial fruit farmer in the area, operating as a partner in the 2600 acre ranch begun by his father-in-law John Strentzel. This is the site of the 14 room family mansion that still stands today. In 1897, Muir donated the right of way to the railroads coming into the area to improve his access to markets, and one of his daughters was fascinated with the dramatic railroad trestle that was built there in 1899, and the trains and their crews that passed by. The station there was named for Muir, and this is the locale where he wrote most of his famous books, founded the Sierra Club and succeeded in bringing Yosemite National Park under federal control. Muir and his family lived in the mansion from his father-in-law's death in 1890 until his own death in 1914. It is discussed on this National Park Service web page. This article should be improved rather than being deleted. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:49, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    John Muir anf the Alhambra Valley Trestle is another publication of the National Park Service that discusses the location in even more detail. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cullen328: Is there anything to the location of Muir that's not associated with the historic site? If not, is there any reason not to merge? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The historic railroad facilities at Muir are adjacent to but outside the boundaries of the national historic site, Pi.1415926535. The station is gone but the tracks and the gigantic trestle are still in operation. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:03, 2 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.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2020_August_2&oldid=977175660"