Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 August 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 19 August	21 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hassanikhel[edit]

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

Not a notable tribe per WP:GNG. Also couldn't find much during WP:BEFORE. Seems like a minor, non-notable sub-tribe. Might be appropriate to merge with Pashtuns.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Iitianeditor (talk • contribs) 11:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Seagull123 Φ 09:52, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Seagull123 Φ 09:52, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find info on this tribe, and if it can be found, I think it would be better as a section of Pashtuns than as its own article. Noahfgodard (talk) 17:44, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 21:44, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All that I could find were geneological entries, which show different tribes/clans under the name Hassan Khel. The one interesting bit I found was referring to a clan that is part of Adamkhel. --Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 17:35, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Per nom. Can’t find any sign of notability.Alex-h (talk) 07:11, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Per nom. Couldn't find any info on the tribe but maybe that's because I searched only for English sources. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 12:24, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pattees Ranch, California[edit]

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

Another place only attested to as a post office, but everything implies that it was, well, a ranch where there was a 4^th class post office. Mangoe (talk) 23:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:52, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:52, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete No evidence that this is a notable place. Reywas92^Talk 05:45, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not uncommon to have a fourth-class post office set up on a private ranch. Nothing else to indicate it was ever more than a ranch. Glendoremus (talk) 21:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Calaveras County, California. Not likely to be more than a ranch, but still a valid search term. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:16, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is a good idea. Nobody is going to get more information about the place that they don't already have. Mangoe (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic media[edit]

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

This article feels unfocused. I'm not quite sure what the topic is supposed to be. ImTheIP (talk) 22:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ImTheIP (talk) 22:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article is a combination of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH // Timothy :: talk 00:11, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs used on Takeshi's Castle[edit]

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

Fails policies on lists and original research Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable list with no sources. lullabying (talk) 22:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:FANCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 22:46, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Complete failure of WP:LISTN, and even if it wasn't, it would still be deletable on the grounds that it is entirely WP:OR. Rorshacma (talk) 23:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:51, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - How this article has stood for so long baffles me. Unsoirced, trivia, fancruft... so many reasons to delete. A redirect to Takeshi's Castle could be a reasonable alternative. Foxnpichu (talk) 19:58, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing of value worth keeping Spiderone 14:26, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:FANCRUFT. Pahiy (talk) 18:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 18:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 18:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Takeshi's Castle: Definitely WP:FANCRUFT. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:OR and WP:LISTN. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 02:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Alabama Congressional Districts by HDI[edit]

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

Fails policies on lists, original research and raw data Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating:
- List of Missouri Congressional Districts by HDI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of Arizona Congressional Districts by HDI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of Mississippi Congressional Districts by HDI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Reywas92^Talk 05:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Not even accurate raw data, this is for last decade's districts. Cardiffbear88, I added related articles by same author to nom. Reywas92^Talk 05:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Reywas92 for adding these in - happy to support these additional nominations. I didn’t notice them originally because they weren’t tagged for notability - just the Alabama one was. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 07:56, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom, WP:OR data should not exist on Wikipedia. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 06:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: I couldn't get to a lot of the data, the link gave me "The Wayback Machine has not archived that URL." The material I did get to was 10+ yrs old and the list didn't match in some cases and in other cases was incomplete. I'm not sure these lists would ever be kept up to date. Data that is a couple years out of date would be okay but not great, but 10yrs is simply misinformation. This is more like List of districts by HDI in 2009 and published in 2010. Just because a list can exist, doesn't mean it should exist and in this case WP:TNT is what I think. Statistics and demographics can go into lists such as Alabama's congressional districts if there is a consensus to add it. This is where it has a better chance of remaining updated. // Timothy :: talk 03:01, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to be WP:SYNTH. pburka (talk) 20:19, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if this were accurate and sourceable and useful, it would be a merge to the per-state congressional district page. As far as I can tell, it's neither sourceable nor useful, and a decade out of date. A clear delete. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RAWDATA. Ajf773 (talk) 21:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sonoran municipalities by Human Development Index[edit]

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

Fails policy on original research and lists. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:05, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:05, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:05, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone really wants to merge with Municipalities of Sonora: Data like this should go into the main list if it can be referenced. If it can't be referenced its WP:OR, or if no one thinks its important enough to reference and merge, then it should be deleted. // Timothy :: talk 03:13, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced and out-of-date. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Library event planning[edit]

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

Fails WP:NEO as a non notable neologism and concept Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:56, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:56, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; the intersection of "event planning" and "libraries" is not notable, this is essentially a how-to guide. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:46, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: A combo of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH // Timothy :: talk 00:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Shore[edit]

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

Non notable BLP - zero evidence of reliable, secondary sources that could indicate notability Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:44, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:44, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:44, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:44, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Falls far short of WP:ENTERTAINER. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 08:39, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough coverage to warrant an article. Fails WP:NACTOR or WP:ENTERTAINER. EverybodyEdits (talk) 22:19, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication of notability, either in the article or elsewhere online. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Olive Baptist Church[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. I can't find any verifiable information besides the three sentences in the single source. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:47, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable church.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I was hoping this would be a keep, but I found nothing // Timothy :: talk 00:57, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Jimmy Kimmel Live!. Sandstein 06:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jimmy Kimmel Live! episodes[edit]

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

The article is messy, has little to no info, and has minimal references. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 18:26, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DRAFTIFY This is a valid topic for an article, but the state it is currently in is obviously far from satisfactory. TompaDompa (talk) 19:12, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT Article started a year ago by an editor who then stopped editing. List of Jimmy Kimmel Live! episodes (2009) is just a redirect. Draft:List of Jimmy Kimmel Live! episodes (2019) exist. The 2020 one only has one episode listed in it. Dream Focus 00:19, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jimmy Kimmel Live! per Dream Focus; changed from ~~Speedy delete~~. There is nothing here. This is as close to CSD A3 as you can be without crossing the line. This list is simply a list of redlinks, plus one real link to 2009 and a transclusion from April 2020. So its basically a title with a link to 2009 Jimmy Kimmel. // Timothy :: talk 03:25, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a rather tedious list of cruft. (arguments to avoid) WP:IDONTLIKEIT Lightburst (talk) 17:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
REDIRECT to Jimmy Kimmel Live!. It is a valid article and someone might make one day, and a likely search term. Dream Focus 17:38, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 06:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coming Home Tour[edit]

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

Non-notable, undersourced concert tour fails both WP:GNG and WP:CONCERT TOUR that has been tagged as needing additional references for four years and having only one reference. Aspects (talk) 04:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 19:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 19:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 19:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:40, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Passes WP:GNG and WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 02:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kunio Nakamura[edit]

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

Questionable notability. Also the article speaks more of the plasma TV technology than the subject (person) himself. ~~Take note also of the insight by @Dakarias: at its talk page way back 2015.~~ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:06, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:54, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:54, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:54, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:33, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sourcing is entirely insufficient to establish notability, and my own Googling came up with nothing. Jediting1 (talk) 13:53, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He was the CEO of Panasonic, a component of the Nikkei 225; was profiled in Bloomberg Businessweek; and this article in a business encyclopedia is expansive and cites a number of sources in the reputable business press if you don't think it's an RS on its own. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources presented above.Citing (talk) 17:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per substantial coverage in the sources above. Google also gave me this, which looks like a short but decent article about the subject. I would also assume that there is a lot more in Japanese, so someone could make the effort and look for it. Nevertheless, I believe that the three sources we have are enough to clear the bar. wikitigresito (talk) 19:59, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a quick note that the source wikitigresito cites is in the EE Times, which looks like an electronics trade journal. Seems reliable (although the URL behaved a bit oddly for me). AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE and sources listed in this discussion. ~Kvng (talk) 21:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE and WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 16:33, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Bill Myers. Sandstein 06:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bloodhounds Inc.[edit]

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

I originally PRODded this article but a user contested, saying I should try merging or redirecting instead. After a few weeks of having a merger proposal up I decided there wasn’t actually any content worth merging, and am now in favor of deleting and redirecting to the page on the author. Dronebogus (talk) 20:38, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 20:38, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 20:38, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:53, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Can't find any reviews or such :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I looked at Contemporary Authors for Myers; none of the many listed reviews are for these books. That isn't to say they don't exist, but as there are so many books in the series, I'm not going go search them one by one at the major review sites. In terms of merging, retain titles with ISBNs (this section of the author's article is weak and having these entries would strengthen it a bit), the single reference to Billboard and info on the video/dvd series, perhaps the list of episodes. the character and cast info can go, though one could mention that Richard Thomas is in the series (John Boy's still kind of a big deal.) I'd also add a link to IMDb for the series if that exists. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 09:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done referenced material and titles with ISBNs added to author’s article. Dronebogus (talk) 15:04, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per DiamondRemley39. There's almost nothing to source here, but we can WP:PRESERVE some of the content or at least the edit history. Archrogue (talk) 17:33, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Djay Adx[edit]

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

This article is completely a piece of Promotion, all the Rs which are there in the article are not at all about him, like the BILLBOARD and BBC rest all he have on his name is just the IMDB Dtt1^Talk 03:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dtt1^Talk 03:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - zero evidence of notability and the sources used have passing mentions and, in some cases, even less than that! Spiderone 11:19, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I voted 'keep' on the previous AfD as the article was nominated for an invalid reason, not because I thought that the subject was notable. Spiderone 11:20, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 06:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sony Ericsson T700[edit]

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

3 years ago the AfD was closed due to two votes, each clearly WP:GOOGLEHITS (I double checked as I thought it was 2007, but no, those votes came from 2017). Ok, let's try it again. I don't see any reliable reviews, just some user reviews and reviews at some minor sites which don't inspire confidence (remember, many reviews on the Internet are paid-for promos...). [1] is one of the 'best', and frankly, the only Englsh-language review that is more than few sentences/not clearly user written - but what makes Phonearena reliable? What makes anyone assume they don't take payments for their reviews? (And even if we conclude it is acceptable, we need more than one source for GNG). PS. Ping the nominator of the prior AfD User:Rædwald. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:52, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:37, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Ritchie333's Google news search turns up a lot of reviews. Nom has no basis for their assumption that all are unreliable. I assume the previous positions were based on more than WP:GOOGLEHITS. ~Kvng (talk) 21:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GOOGLEHIT is not very useful, indeed, but isn't this what you are doing by linking a generic Google search? Which of those reviews are reliable? Did you control for user-written reviews, forums, blogs and pages which just have that keyword but don't contain any content except advertising? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Piotrus, no, I'm not counting hits just noting that Google points to enough information about the product to write a competent article. ~Kvng (talk) 14:14, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous AfD Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:37, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~ Keep - can someone point me to a reliable review for this product? - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, here is the first one on that list. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 04:55, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GizzyCatBella and Ritchie333: Computer Bild is a WP:RS, but a 90-word text is hardly in-depth coverage (it would be one-third of a WP:STUB... and in other words, it is WP:TRIVIAL). Can you point to at least two texts that are both reliable and in-depth? (GNG requires non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, here, here and here. I haven't expanded the article with these because they're not English. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 07:39, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: The first one is from Focus (German magazine) and appears in-depth, good find! Second one [2] seems however to be also very short and I can't find much about the site, do you think it is reliable? I have similar concerns re [3] (too short, does not appear reliable). So so far we have one good review. Well, we are halfway there - if someone can present one more, I'd be happy to withdraw this nom :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:12, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose if we're totally stuck we could redirect to Sony Mobile#Sony Ericsson smartphones. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:32, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333, Why do you think we're stuck? There are no delete votes here. What we're dealing with here is a nom with WP:ZEAL. ~Kvng (talk) 19:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What zeal? I am asking for a second reliable review, to satisfy GNG. The only zeal I see is in personal attacks directed against people who are trying to reduce the flood of spam and enforce some minimum standards here :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A beg your pardon Kvng!? WP:ZEAL? It's unfortunate that I have to remind you about our rules. You know what they are, I hope, so please stop or even better cross that silly comment of yours. Coming back to the SUBJECT, I'm reading more on Piotr's arguments.. I was trying to dig deeper and find more as far as that particular phone model, but I can't locate anything else, specially in English. I'm beginning to consider revising my vote again. Sorry folks, but this one is tricky...- GizzyCatBella🍁 06:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Non-English sources are fine, but I don't see anything in Polish that's in-depth, the best (most repliable) is a paragraph-long entry at wp.pl [4]. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:19, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, please don't take my comment as a personal attack. It is just that renominating articles that previously survived AfD and confronting Keep !voters in discussion are behaviors indicative of WP:ZEAL. ~Kvng (talk) 15:03, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kvng, please don't take my comment as a personal attack, but criticizing people who respond to arguments seems like one of the most pathetic way of saying "la la la I don't hear that" that I can think of. If someone can't take constructive criticism, than a collaborative project is probably not a good place for them. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, don't worry. I'll be fine. I can clarify by saying that I'm picking up some WP:BLUDGEONing behavior here. To your credit, you're focused on policy and you're dismissive but not hostile about it. But, as the linked essay says, confronting everyone who disagrees with you isn't likely to get what you want. A good delete nomination doesn't need an advocate to reach a delete consensus. Discussion is good but criticism just feeds the divisiveness that already is doing quite well here at AfD. I appreciate that I'm not following my own advice in this regard at the moment. So it is. ~Kvng (talk) 14:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm holding my view on keeping this article..[5] - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rusty (fictional locomotive)[edit]

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

I'm not finding anything that indicates a WP:GNG pass. The two citations in the article are to a primary source fiction book in the series itself, and to a fansite that looks unreliable. A BEFORE search brings up fansites, blogs, wikis, sales sites, and other unreliable sources. I'm finding a lot of primary source books, and this does not appear to constitute significant coverage for this character. Previously PRODded by Piotrus and then deprodded by Andrew Davidson with a rationale that provides nothing helpful in determining notability. I'm not seeing a WP:GNG pass here. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:33, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:33, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:33, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:33, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:33, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Turns out Wikipedia had loads of TtTE content sourced mainly to the books and TV series themselves. Who knew? But yeah, I've also done a search and can't find anything beyond primary sources and passing mentions in press releases. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 17:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of alternatives to deletion, btw, I'd suggest merging to List of Thomas & Friends narrow-gauge engines but there's really nothing to merge: the only bit that's not there is the "Prototype" section, and while in the recent AfD for Terence the Tractor the equivalent section was sourced, here it isn't. A redirect to List of Thomas & Friends narrow-gauge engines might be reasonable, though. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 17:56, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for above reasons, and a list of characters of TtTe should cover this. Balle010 (talk) 17:57, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Thomas & Friends narrow-gauge engines (and also maybe rename that article, surely there has to be a better title than something so ridiculously technical), this character fails WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. And also support renaming the target. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:44, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- This sort of content would be more at home at a TtTE wiki, not here. I don't see any content that could be merged and I do not think the title would be a useful redirect. Reyk _YO! 07:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reyk, Actually that's a fair point: nobody's likely to type that in, and there's already a mention on the dab page. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 09:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Inverted roller coaster. Sandstein 06:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inverted Coaster (B&M model)[edit]

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

There is already an article named Inverted roller coaster that covers the broad topic of this "type" of coaster. Information about the B&M model (Inverted Coaster) is already in that existing article where it belongs. There is a redirect for "Inverted Coaster" that points to that older article. Anything here in the new article would be unnecessary duplication, and on top of that, this article contains no sources. GoneIn60 (talk) 21:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Amusement parks-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 04:45, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is another page called Suspended Looping Coaster for the Vekoma counterpart. Why can’t the original (and the best version) have its own page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaacwshearer (talk • contribs)

That's actually a good point. However, the article text in the SLC article should probably be merged into Inverted roller coaster. There's plenty space in one article to cover the various models. Splitting everything out into separate articles isn't really justified in either case. Better to have one decently-sized article that feels complete, rather than several small articles that feel incomplete. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:42, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What’s the harm in having different models from different manufacturers? Each series of a well known TV Series aren’t merged into one article, they have their own article. The “Inverted Coaster” page could be used as a summary contents page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaacwshearer (talk • contribs) 09:20, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If there is enough coverage in reliable sources to justify notability as Girth Summit mentions below, and there is enough content that justifies splitting off from the main inverted coaster article, then there is no harm in having a dedicated article to the model. I question that we pass both tests here, but if secondary sources can be found that cover the model in detail, then perhaps there would be a good argument to keep. RCDB.com lists the model of each coaster, but we really need more than that. We need sources that really go into detail of the design, talk about the impact on the industry, mention its legacy, etc. Are you aware of any sources that do that? I didn't find any in a quick search. --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I found this source in the main inverted roller coaster article, and it's the only secondary source cited there. That's an example of what we need more of. Sometimes one is enough, but in this case, I think we need more than that. --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question Isaacwshearer are you familiar with the concept of notability? The article currently has no sources apart from the website of its manufacturer, which is obviously not independent and so cannot contribute to notability. To convince people that this article should be retained, we will need to establish that the subject passes the general notability guideline - in other words, we'll need to find multiple sources which discuss it in depth, and which are independent, reliable and secondary. I know approximately zero about roller coasters, but they seem to be an area of interest for you - if you can identify suitable sources and mention them here, you might be able to persuade people than an article is warranted. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:23, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or merge More than half the information in this page is already covered in Inverted roller coaster. If the SLC page is any indication there won't be enough secondary sources to allow this page to stand on its own. Delete or merge the Suspended Looping Coaster also. Although I hate to see all that work undone, every single source points back to RCDB.com. These pages lack the secondary sources and notability to stand on their own.—JlACEer (talk) 15:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Could I have an example? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaacwshearer (talk • contribs)
Merge to Inverted roller coaster. I think the editor's content forking of Bolliger & Mabillard articles as a whole are somewhat counterproductive, as in the case of this article, but information specifically about this type of model can suffice in the larger space for the roller coaster content so long as it's properly cited. Adog (Talk・Cont) 17:12, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:33, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Inverted roller coaster. Balle010 (talk) 17:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 02:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vikram Kolmannskog[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR scope_creep^Talk 22:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DeletePretty flimsy references, has published some works - seems not notable to me. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, you see "flimsy", I see multiple independent non-trivial coverage. Geschichte (talk) 07:20, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first three reference should validate the WP:BLP per WP:THREE. Instead there is an interview style ref and that is it. Nothing else. Where is the coverage per WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 09:56, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:31, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep multiple coverage examples from independent sources. Balle010 (talk) 17:59, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is 1 reference, an interview, in a queer magazine that is so skint that it can't even a new SSL certificate. A very good indication of readership numbers. The rest are passing mentions and not sufficiently independent, in-depth or secondary.scope_creep^Talk 18:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep multiple independent sources to show notability. Wm335td (talk) 02:30, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Surprised to hear that independent, reliable sources are judged based on their SSL certificate, or even their readership numbers. Also, that is not what WP:THREE means at all. — Toughpigs (talk) 03:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your right, it is wrong. I've been doing too many Afd's and I think I got mixed up. scope_creep^Talk 06:04, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive Reconstructionism[edit]

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

This article has been tagged as having no sources since 2018. Google scholar search gives no indication that the movement described exists outside of this article. Daask (talk) 17:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Daask (talk) 17:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sources just don't exist for this Balle010 (talk) 18:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only reference I can find to this outside of Wikipedia is this (emphasis mine):

These forms of Reconstructionism are unconnected to Christian Reconstructionism (aka Dominion Theology), which is an attempt to establish theocratic government, and to Progressive Reconstructionism, which is a movement bringing together Reconstructionist Jews, liberal Christians, and progressive adherents to other faiths. See also CHRISTIANITY; JUDAISM.
— Chryssides, George D. (2011). Historical Dictionary of New Religious Movements. Scarecrow Press.

However, since that's the only mention in the source, I can't entirely rule out citogenesis, as the book was published in 2011, several years after the article was created, and that's the sole mention of the term in that source (so no way it meets WP:GNG). Vahurzpu (talk) 17:54, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 06:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manzano Group[edit]

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

Group has long been abandonded; no single article appropriate to redirect to. Kent G. Budge (talk) 01:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:57, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:57, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:57, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question This article is about a geologic formation. What "group has long been abandoned"? Have topics been confused? LadyofShalott 02:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Manzano Group has long been abandoned as a stratigraphic unit; that is, as the name of a group of geologic formations. One of the formations within the original, very old, definition has itself been promoted to group rank (Yeso Group). --Kent G. Budge (talk) 02:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. LadyofShalott 02:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Manzano Group is an abandoned stratigraphic group name.[6].The strata originally assigned to it have been reassigned to a number of geological formations and a currently accepted stratigraphic group, the Yeso Group. As an abandoned group name, it lacks notability. Such historical significance as it has is addressed in the "history of investigations" sections of some of the articles for the modern accepted formations and the Yeso Group. Since its beds have been assigned to so many currently accepted formations, there is no one article we can sensibly redirect to, or that would be preferable to deletion (and I would already have done it, frankly.) --Kent G. Budge (talk) 15:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Salvio

17:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for above reasons. Balle010 (talk) 18:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It may be outdated now, but at one time it was extensively covered. Here's 100+ pages on geology and paleontology of the Manzano Group. [7] I understand it can't be easily redirected, so why not simply re-write to explain that it is an abandoned stratigraphic group. Glendoremus (talk) 19:11, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although the Manzano Group has "no current usage" according to USGS' Geolex, the article should kept because of its historical usage in paleontology. As suggested above, the article can be rewritten to explain it historical significance, current status, and modern equivalents. It is impossible for a simple redirect to handle this unit.Paul H. (talk) 03:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 21:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

220 Volt (band)[edit]

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

I don't think this is a notable band. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 12:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish heavy metal/hard rock band. I am doubtful of their notability. The article is sourced entirely to databases and social media pages which is never a good sign. I also did a Google search and couldn't find anything besides the standard unreliable sites. (Results on Google) They have released albums on notable, major labels (according to the article) so it's strange I haven't found any reliable source (well, aside from Metal Storm and Sputnikmusic at least). The Allmusic page is blank which makes it unreliable. There may be reliable sources in Swedish but I don't speak the language. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 12:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 12:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 12:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - they arguably pass NBAND since they apparently have releases on CBS Records (though I'm not convinced we have an RS saying this, and from what I can tell (Amazon) it's a subsidiary of CBS that actually released their music). But the sourcing we have now is MySpace and FB.. there is no reliable sourcing in the article. I could not find anything in my search. I would not be surprised if there are sources somewhere (ie print sources), and I'll gladly change my vote if these are revealed. But until then, this is an essentially unsourced article about a band who opened up for AC/DC. We cannot just take these claims at their word. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 13:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes point 5 of WP:BAND, with albums on Epic and CBS. The Allmusic link at the foot of the article confirms this too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Okay, they released albums on Epic and CBS who are major labels, I know. But guys! What about the sources? The Allmusic biography page is blank. Allmusic is not a reliable source when the biography page is blank as this makes it similar to a database. And I couldn't find reliable sources, just the same old unreliable stuff like databases, streaming service entries, social media pages, Wikipedia mirrors, retail sites, blogs and sites where the words are separated. I can only hope there are some print sources (I can't track them down) which are reliable and then I gladly change my vote too. I actually find this very strange since they have been around for a long time and they released albums on major labels. Then how on earth did they not make it to reliable sources...? GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:05, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Salvio

17:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because of WP:BAND. I think we should let this exist longer and see if more sources come up through this discussion. Balle010 (talk) 18:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As well as the album releases, there is reliable source coverage around, and it confirms their importance when it comes to 1980s Scandinavian metal, e.g. [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], and the band also appears to be covered in The Encyclopedia of Swedish Hard Rock and Heavy Metal. No doubt there is plenty of 1980s Scandinavian coverage that isn't online. --Michig (talk) 20:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:BAND.BabbaQ (talk) 15:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Weather Underground. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Ashley[edit]

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

This may be a BLP. It is referenced to FBI investigation reports of J. Edgar Hoover era, which are of dubious reliability and do not establish notability. My search for reliable sources verify her involvement in SDS and the Weathermen, but they are trivial passing mentions. I was unable to find any significant coverage of her as a person rather than a name on a list. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 15:32, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 15:32, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She was one of the core group. The article is not based directly on thwe fbi reportss. It is , rather, based on the secondary sources, which are reliable and appropriate references--and a good deal else has been written about the SDS that can be added. To be sure the primary sources are listed also, but all historical research is ultimately based upon primary sources We use them not directly but as they were interpreted secondary sources writing about the period and the people. It is the secondary sources who do the interpretation and we report their interpretation. And, as with all historical topics we do include quotations from primary sources for readers to interpret. Fortunately the FBI is not the only source for this subject. DGG ( talk ) 22:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, I will be happy to withdraw my nomination if you can identify even two independent, reliable sources that devote significant coverage to Karen Ashley as a person instead of a name on a list. I just checked my physical copy of "SDS" by Kirkpatrick Sale, which is a major 752 page book about the organization. Ashley is mentioned four times, three of which are mentions in foonotes. All four mentions are passing mentions in the context of lists of people that do not devote significant coverage to Ashley. Maybe significant coverage exists somewhere but I have not been able to find it so far. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just did an online search of "Outlaws of America: The Weather Underground and the Politics of Solidarity" a 2006 book by Dan Berger. Ashley is mentioned in passing three times in footnotes, in the form of "Ashley, et al" because she was alphabetically the first of many who signed the Weatherman manifesto. Not a single word about who she was as a person. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

it will be quite difficult to check at this time, unfortunately, as will be many other things from this period that still depend upon physical libraries. I'll see what I can find. (And I do recognize the possible alphabetic effect.) DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 5 August 2020 (UTC) .[reply]

I do appreciate your response, DGG, and will be happy to see the article kept if it can be referenced properly. But I am very uncomfortable with a likely BLP referenced primarily to FBI investigations of that era. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

that's where we continue to disagree--the only thing really sourced only to the fbi is the fingerprint. DGG ( talk ) 05:40, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All I am asking you to do, DGG, is to point to references to reliable, independent sources that devote significant coverage to this person. Just link those sources here, and I will both add them to the article, summarize them, and withdraw this AfD nomination. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, this has biographical information.--User:Namiba 12:54, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not supposed to be based on primary sourcing, FBI reports are primary sourcing, and when you are using that as your actual sources it clearly is an article based on primary sourcing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:32, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:58, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree given the importance of the subject this page should be kept. Balle010 (talk) 18:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Support DGG. Priyanjali singh (talk) 13:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and the two keep !votes previously to mine^^^ should be discounted: one is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions, while the other is based on supporting another editor who (no offence) asserts that there are sources, but has been unable to present any in over three weeks (incidentally, I'm also finding it hard to swallow that the only thing really sourced only to the fbi is the fingerprint, when literally six out of seven references are to the somewhat obviously-titled "FBI Surveillance Files"...). Ultimately, this is still a BLP and as such it must be sourced to the highest quality third-party, independent reliable sources per WP:BLPSOURCES. Also fails WP:ANYBIO and BASIC for similar reasons. ——Serial 16:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment somewhat on a lark, and partly because this is an interesting discussion, I decided to see if I could find anything. There is absolutely nothing in newspapers.com (a little surprising) or Google News (not surprising at all). At Google Books I found casual mentions at [14], [15], and [16]. At least three sources use what appears to be the same quote regarding the topic [17], [18], [19], but I can't see past the snippet provided in the preview. The source with the most mentions is [20], which by all appearances is because of the alphabetical effect mentioned earlier. It is somewhat telling that [21] mentions her only once, and as author of the oft-mentioned publication with multiple authors, while [22] and [23] make no mention of the topic whatsoever. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Weather Underground, which mentions the subject. BD2412 T 02:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Weather Underground. I don't see independent notability 78.26's analysis is very good, it largely confirmed the results of my own search. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hamza Sufyan[edit]

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

An autobiography which fails WP:GNG, Sufyan has only received passing mentions in the sources where he is covered. Sufyan could possibly be considered notable in the context of his arrest, but that would fail WP:BLP1E. W 42 16:46, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. W 42 16:46, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. W 42 16:46, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. W 42 16:46, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mr. Sufyan or a close associate is persistent in efforts to promote himself politically with a Wikipedia article. May be using multiple IPs to that end, as well. No substantial coverage. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. DMySon 00:56, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a place to put up autobiographies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:50, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails WP:BLP1E and WP:NBIO. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 22:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive Reconstructionism[edit]

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

This article has been tagged as having no sources since 2018. Google scholar search gives no indication that the movement described exists outside of this article. Daask (talk) 17:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Daask (talk) 17:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sources just don't exist for this Balle010 (talk) 18:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only reference I can find to this outside of Wikipedia is this (emphasis mine):

These forms of Reconstructionism are unconnected to Christian Reconstructionism (aka Dominion Theology), which is an attempt to establish theocratic government, and to Progressive Reconstructionism, which is a movement bringing together Reconstructionist Jews, liberal Christians, and progressive adherents to other faiths. See also CHRISTIANITY; JUDAISM.
— Chryssides, George D. (2011). Historical Dictionary of New Religious Movements. Scarecrow Press.

However, since that's the only mention in the source, I can't entirely rule out citogenesis, as the book was published in 2011, several years after the article was created, and that's the sole mention of the term in that source (so no way it meets WP:GNG). Vahurzpu (talk) 17:54, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 15:27, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Archduchess Maria Immakulata of Austria[edit]

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

The subject is an obscure Austrian archduchess, a second cousin of the last Austrian emperor. As there is no indication of significant coverage in reliable sources, the article fails WP:BASIC and WP:GNG notability guidelines. There is no reason for Wikipedia to have an article about her. Surtsicna (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 15:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Smeat75 (talk) 18:39, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein ^talk 11:26, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chandra Kalindi Roy Henriksen[edit]

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

Apparent fail of ~~at least WP:V and apparently~~ WP:NAUTHOR and WP:BASIC. I find this one very puzzling, since I was expecting it to be a slam dunk for notability. Her title—Chief of the Secretariat of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues—seems impressive, but it is at least currently not accurate (see [24]). Of the two sources for that claim in the article, the first ([25]) does not seem especially reliable, and the second ([26]) is a primary source on a now-dead website. Confirmed that she has served as the chief of the Secretariat of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues.

I think the best argument for notability is actually WP:NAUTHOR, since her book Land Rights of the Indigenous Peoples of the Chittagong Hill Tracts has 100+ cites on Google Scholar. I was only able to find one review of it ([27]), however. The articles in other Wikipedias do not help with sourcing. It was created by a sock, but I don't think that's relevant for notability purposes. NB: Searching for "Rajkumari Chandra Roy" as opposed to the current article title was more fruitful for me.

The article was kept in 2014; automated process did not pick up the old link. It's sat in CAT:NN for six more years without a substantial change, so it probably deserves fresh consideration. Arguments at the old AfD relied mainly on WP:NPOL, which I'm also sympathetic to, but the sourcing on this BLP is still quite weak. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Striking the claim about verification per PainProf's sources below. If this is kept, I suggest that closer move it back to Chandra Roy-Henriksen. It previously had that title, and it's unclear why it was moved. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've withdrawn this nom per the consensus below. Thanks, everyone. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment France24 says she's the Head of the secretariat here, the UN says so here and here. I think searching without Kalindi helps a lot. PainProf (talk) 16:06, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:NPOL is still valid in this case as the person still holds an important office, also verified by the newer sources. Note, I also !voted the same in the old AfD. --Zayeem ^(talk) 15:33, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Kmzayeem. I agree that NPOL applies here, but I don't think it's transparently clear—leaving this open to gain renewed consensus, so we can clearly resolve the notability issue. As there are a lot of unsourced biographical details in this BLP which I was unable to verify, I would also suggest a stubbify if this is kept. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have not yet checked all of the variations on her name, yet based on what I have found and the links in the comments above, she meets notability criteria. She holds an important, international position for years WP:POL and probably also WP:AUTHOR. Netherzone (talk) 17:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - holds a position that meets WP:NPOL --Enos733 (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Enos733 (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 15:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Franziska of Hohenlohe-Waldenburg-Schillingsfürst[edit]

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

The subject is an obscure Austrian noblewoman who married into the House of Habsburg-Lorraine. She appears to have led a very private life as I can find no significant coverage in reliable sources, meaning that the topic does not pass WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. Wikipedia should not have articles on people solely for the sake of genealogy; see WP:NOTGENEALOGY policy. Surtsicna (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 15:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, purely genealogical article. Smeat75 (talk) 19:28, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DELREASON 8 (Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, and so forth)) and WP:DELREASON 14 (Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia). The only coverage I am able to find is genealogical meaning the subject does not meet the notability guidelines (genealogy is not WP:Significant coverage) and the article is pure genealogy which violates WP:NOTGENEALOGY (and based on the lack of sources this does not seem to be a fixable problem). TompaDompa (talk) 23:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scotland Probables[edit]

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

Difficult to research, but this amateur series does not appear to meet the standards of GNG. Same with its partner article, Scotland Possibles (which will join this afd momentarily). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:21, 20 August 2020 (UTC) I am also nominating the following articles, since they are the companion articles to this one:[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:21, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:21, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or at least Merge into a single article. --Slashme (talk) 07:02, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These Trial teams were part of the international selection process before international 'A' teams were introduced. Obviously not all players in these Trial teams went on to have full international caps but they were a notable distinction. I am struck by the number of obituaries that mention player X never achieved international honours but played for the Probables/Possibles side etc. Some players went on to have international honours and the articles meet GNG for that reason. The Trial sides should be classed in the same way as today's 'A' sides and they were held in that regard. Most international sides used Trial sides for selection (see http://www.rugbyrelics.com/Pages/programmes-special/trials-international.htm for example). They are a vital part of rugby union history. --Aedis1 (talk) 08:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All 4 articles are identical apart from changing the team names and the notable players. There are no references about the possibles and probables. As the only purpose of the teams is a trial for selection to the national team, a short section in that article or in History of rugby union in Scotland is all that is warranted. noq (talk) 11:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above, not enough sources or notability to qualify it for GNG. None of the arguments put forward by Aedis1 would qualify it for GNG as they seem to be just passing mentions. Players going on to play in full tests do not qualify these articles for GNG. A section on the History of rugby union in Scotland or similar as suggested by Nog would be better/suffice. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:36, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sonia Sharma[edit]

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

Moved after being declined at AFC to main namespace

The references all fail WP:RS. The actress obviously has a fanbase, but this is just fancruft. She may have an article when her career allows it. WP:TOOSOON Fiddle Faddle 14:04, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 14:04, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 14:04, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Google Translate says that Sonia Sharma is a transliteration of सोनिया शर्मा in Devanagari script, and I can't find reliable sources from either spelling online. All of the roles listed in the article (mostly unsourced) appear to have been minor per WP:NACTOR. Captain Calm (talk) 14:25, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Sonia Sharma (2) where there is another identical or near identical version queue up behind this one Fiddle Faddle 16:18, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - If the actress has a fanbase, that is a form of notability. This article does appear to be fancruft, but a better article can be developed. The best approach may be soft deletion to allow a neutral editor, or a fan who is familiar with what a Wikipedia article is, to write the article. The article shows at most one significant role, not multiple roles. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. This one is in between keep and redirect. I am closing as keep (as opposed to delete), but a merge can be discussed on the talkpage. There are several issues with the article, such as unreferenced sections. Tone 16:45, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mother Box[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. I don't see anything that goes beyond a pure WP:PLOT-level summary. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - This is a complicated MacGuffin that's been significant to several characters/storylines across multiple media, so having a brief explanation of it on a list somewhere would be helpful. I think merging a minimum of detail to List of fictional computers would be the best option. List of objects in the DC Universe is another option, but that list is horrid. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:17, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They occur in so many contexts that it's best to keep the page as it is. There's coverage in sources such as the Jack Kirby Collector and CBR. WP:ATD and WP:SPLIT apply. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete. Trivial news articles do not qualify as "non-trivial coverage." The article is lacking in real world context. TTN (talk) 21:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete per TTN. The article is lacking in real world context to meet the WP:NOT#PLOT, and needs more than trivial coverage to meet the WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:39, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP The CBR source is significant coverage in a reliable source. I found another reliable source giving significant coverage to it at https://screenrant.com/justice-league-mother-boxes-explained/ as well as at https://collider.com/justice-league-mother-boxes-explained/#steppenwolf Dream Focus 03:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a note that those two sources seem to overlap significantly, I am not sure which one is original (based on dates, Collider's?), but the other one likely plagiarized from the second. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Significant coverage exists, and this topic is valuable to both the topic of comics and Jack Kirby's highly influential Fourth World. Dark knight 2149 05:58, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I added three sources in a Reception section from the New York Review of Books, Den of Geek and Entertainment Weekly. As others have said, the Mother Box is an important and well-recognized element of Kirby's Fourth World stories. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the sources are enough to pass GNG. An important element of the Fourth World mythos. Rhino131 (talk) 18:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Let this page stay. It is a major element in the comic books talking about the New Gods. Plus, @Andrew Davidson:, @Dream Focus:, @Darkknight2149:, @Toughpigs:, and @Rhino131: are right about their claims. --Rtkat3 (talk) 19:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:SIGCOV exists - Toughpigs has added more reliable sources: New York Review of Books, Den of Geek and Entertainment Weekly Wm335td (talk) 17:52, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Those sources don't discuss this besides summarizing the plot... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:02, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge per User:Piotrus as there are no reliable sources to offer real world impact. The reception section isn't a reception section, and using that heading is misleading. It's currently a rehash of WP:PLOT details, which is something Wikipedia articles are not. There are only passion mentions of this in reliable sources, which isn't enough to be WP:NOTABLE. Jontesta (talk) 14:37, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jontesta, Good point about the misleading reception section. Would you care to rename it in the article? If I did so some people could argue I am trying to 'damage' the article I am trying to delete... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to "Interpretation," if that helps. It's three writers interpreting what the Mother Box symbolizes. — Toughpigs (talk) 14:54, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject is definitely notable. Improve the article rather than delete. Enjoyer of World (talk) 07:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete per TTN. Coverage of this fictional device is largely trivial and it lacks sufficient significant mentions. A number of trivial mentions does not a standalone article make. Anyone who believes this is notable may be confusing Wikipedia with FANDOM._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also found the journal article "How Can I Refuse You, Mother Box?!" Abjection and Objectification of Motherhood in Jack Kirby's Fourth World. For those who may not have access, the article contains analysis of the Mother Box as a symbol of motherhood in Kirby's fourth would, and is not plot based. It appears to be from an academic journal published by the University of Florida, so I would say it counts towards GNG. Rhino131 (talk) 16:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Good find. The journal is reliable, but as those things go, it is very low tier (in Wikipedia terms, it is non-notable, and in professional scholarly terms, it is not a journal in which you publish to advance your career, as it has very low impact). The author is, unspripsingly, a PhD candidate: [28]. That said, I don't disagree that the coverage of the topic in this source is in-depth, and that it is reliable for such an uncontroversial topic. If we can find one more source which discuss the concept of a mother box in such a fashion (in-depth analysis), I'd consider withdrawing my nom. As it is, I think we could merge the non-plot 'Interpretation' written by User:Toughpigs to Kirby's article, and expand it with the source you found. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:15, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect insufficient coverage in independent, third party reliable sources—which discuss more than just the plot—to warrant a standalone article. ——Serial 17:07, 28 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. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Kalichuk[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSOLDIER as a sergeant (see Sergeant#Canada), which is not a flag, general or air officer. Fails WP:NCRIME as merely a murder suspect without clear RS coverage. Fails GNG because there's nothing besides his military service and criminal allegations. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources only have a passing mention of the person, or name him as a suspect in the case. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NSOLDIER and WP:NCRIME, as mentioned by nom. Z1720 (talk) 13:59, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:NCRIME and WP:GNG W 42 14:57, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SOLDIER, WP:NCRIME and WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 05:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Jerry Aidoo[edit]

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

Subject of article is a politician & businessman but fails to satisfy either WP:NPOL or WP:ANYBIO. A before search mostly discusses a football club he owns & not him. Every article is notable by its own merit & not by proximity to a notable entity. I observed this source but that doesn’t do much for WP:GNG. Celestina007 12:28, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 12:28, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 12:28, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 12:28, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 12:28, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I agree. However I sourced the politician from this article published on [[29]] which states that he is the Greater Accra Regional Youth Organiser of the Convention People's Party and parliamentary Aspirant of the industrial city Tema Central constituency. The Convention People's Party is one of the political parties in Ghana which was founded by Dr Kwame Nkrumah. However if I would have to improve the article to avoid deletion I would do that. But also take note that because the party has experienced a sharp decline in the political landscape of Ghana there is less media coverage for its officials as attention is geared towards the main political parties that is the NPP and NDC beside his position is a regional level ElTrans (talk) 15:04, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Below sources also verify the political profile of Mr Eric Jerry Aidoo. ^[1] ^[2] and this article dated June 20, 2020 says he is the Tema Central Constituency Chairman of the CPP. ^[3] ElTrans (talk) 6:57:04, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Hmanburg (talk) 14:59, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ANYBIO. ——Serial 17:09, 28 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.

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 15:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pradeep Ranganathan[edit]

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

The references are, in the main, for a film, not the person. Two editors have separately redirected this to the film. The film seems to be notable. The director? I think he does not qualify, at least with these references.

It has been greatly expanded with film fan style references since I accepted it at AFC and not, I think, for the better. Some form of consensus is needed here Fiddle Faddle 12:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 12:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:23, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All the information is correct and supported with documents. Need not be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.97.22.108 (talk) 12:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC) — 115.97.22.108 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Note that the AfD banner has been removed just now by 115.97.22.108. This IP editor has made no edits outside this deletion discussion and removing the banner. I have replaced the banner in order to lead others to the discussion Fiddle Faddle 16:28, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In case you don't revert these temp removals, they get reverted by a bot anyways. - hako9 (talk) 16:43, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hako9, Indeed they do, but it is well that participants in the discussion are made aware Fiddle Faddle 16:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not independently notable. Doesn't have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. The sources cited are focused on the movie that the subject directed, not the subject himself. - hako9 (talk) 12:46, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The page has all the vital informations and the references are accurate. If deletion discussion is inevitable,if the page has no sufficient references, the former editor of the page can be assisted to complete it perfect, or the page can be put up for public to edit so that the available information and work put in to create this page will not be wasted. In addition stoping this page from deletion encourages the editor to edit more post in futre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.62.141.147 (talk) 17:12, 20 August 2020 (UTC) — 27.62.141.147 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete per above deletion rationales. The drive-by IP opposers to deletion make weak cases at best.--Quisqualis (talk) 03:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't think the subject of the article has notability at this point. Possibly WP:TOOSOON. EverybodyEdits (talk) 16:10, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 15:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Subhuman (film)[edit]

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

Non notable film Theroadislong (talk) 10:48, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 10:48, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no references, fails all notability criteria Fiddle Faddle 11:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As mentioned by Tim. It's like any film to me. Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 11:33, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, we do not just indiscriminately accept every film as "inherently" notable just because it exists — we look for markers of its significance. According to IMDb it won Best Film at a non-notable minor film festival — but that's not a "notable because award" clincher in and of itself, because what we're looking for on that score is notable awards (Oscars, CSAs, the major elite tier of film festivals like TIFF and Berlin and Cannes and Sundance) that get media coverage, and not just any film award that exists — and for critical attention, all I can find is one WordPress blog which is so unreliable that the last time somebody tried to use it as a source for Wikipedia content they tagged National Film Board of Canada documentaries and the Canadian film classic Goin' Down the Road as B-movies. There are sources out there that can be used to show "notability because critical attention" for a horror film, but Canuxploitation is not one of them, and I literally can't find any better quality sources to salvage this with at all. Bearcat (talk) 13:34, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sources. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 15:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Munhiin rap[edit]

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

Non notable rapper who doesn’t satisfy any criterion from WP:MUSICBIO & generally lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Celestina007 10:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 10:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 10:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 10:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 10:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I checked the cited sources. I don't know if these are considered reliable sources in Mongolia, but they definitely don't qualify for significant coverage (per google translate). A websearch didn't turn up anything to the contrary. Maybe there are reliable and significant local sources. I'll reconsider then. - hako9 (talk) 17:16, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:G5. See SPI. I've also salted at sysop level due to repeated re-creation by sockpuppets. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 12:52, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vaibhav Palhade[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable author and filmmaker. Fails WP:NAUTHOR, WP:FILMMAKER. WP:GNG. Almost all the references are merely regurgitated press releases on various news aggregator platforms with no editorial insight or WP:SECONDARY coverage. Repeatedly created. Moved from draftspace by the author - I thought the title was salted? Presumed autobiographical. I expect this will be WP:SNOW. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 15:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

M.R. Venkatesh[edit]

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

He doesn't meet WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:AUTHOR. His collective works have a total 5 reviews on Amazon. He hasn't written more than 1 column each in notable business newspapers or magazines in India. Also the creator of the page had clear WP:COI conflict as he hasn't created or edited anything else. Roller26 (talk) 09:44, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 09:44, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's UK-based orthopaedic surgeon with the same name, but I can't find anything to demonstrate that the subject of this article has achieved notability. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:37, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to being notable as a writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:44, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 10:38, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Helen McNulty[edit]

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

Non-notable artist. No indication that WP:ANYBIO, WP:NARTIST or WP:GNG are met. In terms of:

WP:ANYBIO, I can find no sources to suggest that the subject has been the recipient of a major award, has been recognised for specific contributions to any given field, or been covered in any biographical works.
WP:NARTIST, I can find no sources which suggest that the subject is widely cited by peers, has contributed to significant body of works (or a well-known work), or similar.
WP:GNG, I can find no evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. For example, as the subject is based in the Republic of Ireland, I searched the main national newspaper of record, the Irish Times and can find nothing at all. Searching in the Independent News & Media stable of national and regional papers, I find only trivial passing mentions and this one short ROTM piece in a regional weekly which is just a notice on a single exhibition. Which confirms that the subject exists, and is an artist, but doesn't establish notability. As the subject is originally from Northern Ireland, I searched the Belfast Telegraph, and found nothing related to the subject. A similar search in the Fermanagh Herald (the local paper where the subject is from), I found just two pieces (subscription required). One, titled "Irvinestown artist takes on Ireland" (7 Oct 2009) and one titled "Irvinestown artist in Dublin Christmas exhibition" (2 Dec 2009). Neither of which span more than a few paragraphs. Three short pieces in regional papers (1x Bray People, 2x Fermanagh Herald) isn't what I would consider "significant coverage".

Otherwise, in honesty, that the article was created by a SPA account (with a username that implies COI), that the subject's website describes them as a "marketer and artist", and that the original incarnation was promotional in tone, all contribute to additional PROMO and COI concerns... Guliolopez (talk) 09:27, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 09:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 09:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't see any significant WP:RS coverage that would support notability. ww2censor (talk) 16:16, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A search did not find significant coverage. The article appears to be a self-marketing attempt: subject's official site says "If you are interested in starting a Make Your Message beginners course in content and story driven marketing that will drive sales from your activity"... and so on.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:12, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This page has been in the works for 10 years and there's one reference?! That says it all. MaskedSinger (talk) 12:06, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG, PR --Devokewater (talk) 17:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is nothing to substantiate that this artist meets any of WP's criteria for notability. Netherzone (talk) 13:43, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 10:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vaidy S.[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. This cinematographer has worked on a handful of films, and there are no independent, reliable sources about him. Only passing mentions exist. TamilMirchi (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CREATIVE - he's gotten coverage in the India Times and has won two South Indian International Movie Awards. Bearian (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has won notable awards from working on notable productions, passes WP:Creative and twenty two films is a lot more than a handful, in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Enough work done to show that the concept is relevant. A change of the title is possible. Tone 16:48, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pandemic Pods[edit]

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

This article fails WP:NEO about a non-notable buzzword. Its content is heavily WP:SYNTH and encompasses several related but distinct topics and reads more like a blog than an encyclopedia article. Unsure why it was approved for WP:AFC by User:DGG. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Pandemic Pods article was meant to address the current situation where families need to find alternatives to regular schools to keep themselves safe. The buzz word is good criticism -- "pandemic pods" is a trending phrase -- but the concept of an alternative educational setting that functions under a strict set of rules is not novel. Educational Family Co-op (or Homeschool Co-op) is a better term to describe these arrangements; it's just not the term that was picked up by the news ^[4]. "Zutors" is an obvious neologism.

References

^ https://www.gna.org.gh/1.18458040
^ https://newsghana.com.gh/tema-central-cpp-wishes-npp-a-successful-primaries/?amp
^ https://mobile.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/NewsArchive/Tema-Central-CPP-wishes-NPP-a-successful-primaries-985171
^ Spiller, Penny (2020-08-04). "Coronavirus: How pandemic pods and zutors are changing home-schooling". BBC News. Retrieved 2020-08-04.

Family co-ops have been in existence for many decades ^[1], addressing the needs of families who didn't have extended families to mind their children and who didn't have the means to hire child-minding help. These were also good solutions for kids with special needs -- health issues or developmental issues. A pandemic pod is a way to describe an educational arrangement between several families that focuses on education and health safety.

References

^ Faulconer, Jeanne. "What Is a Homeschool Co-op?". The Home School Mom. Retrieved 2020-08-05.

Perhaps this article can be given a different name? Would "Educational Family Co-ops" be a better title? It describes all forms of alternative homeschooling arraignments; Pandemic Pods is but one form of Educational Family Co-op with strict rules for pandemic rules adherence. "Pandemic Pods" search term could be redirected to that entry?

Over the next few weeks, this article will grow in scope and its adherence to Wikipedia's writing style. There are a lot of news discussions that use this term (and others), finding references wouldn't be a problem.

Here are but a few scholarly articles on this topic:

Coontz, E. K. (1996). Best kept secrets: Co-op preschool models need to be spread. Rural Cooperatives, 63(1).

Coontz, E. K. (2003). Bringing families together: A guide to parent cooperatives. Davis, CA: University of California.

Dunlap, K. (1997). Family empowerment: one outcome of cooperative preschool education.Child Welfare, 76(4), 501-518.

Hewes, D. W. (1998). “It’s the camaraderie”: A history of parent cooperative preschools. Davis, CA: University of California.

Oostdam, R. & Hooge, E. (2013). Making the difference with active parenting; forming educational partnerships between parents and schools. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 28(2), 337-351.

Ali, M. A. (2014). Learning Together: A Case Study for a Cooperative School's Approach to Education. The University of San Francisco.

Owerby (talk) 22:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree with the nominator that the article is in poor shape at present; if I had seen this at AfC, I would have declined it as being improperly sourced and reading like an essay. However a basic search turns up plenty of WP:RS sources that are specifically about pandemic pods: [30] I believe the topic is notable and could make a decent article if someone is willing to trim the WP:SYNTH and essay-like content. I can understand the decision to put a sub-par draft on a notable topic into mainspace, where it will be seen by other editors and hopefully improved, rather than leave it in draftspace where it will be ignored and eventually deleted. Spicy (talk) 22:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is in bad shape and redundant in relation to Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on education.--Hippeus (talk) 11:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an unjustified POV-fork of the COVID-19 and education article. There may be need to split it, it is hard to imagine the article could easily cover in an encyclopedic way the world-wide impact of the disease. The way to address the large scope is to create articles on impact in smaller areas.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:05, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge either to Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on education as a new section entitled 'Homeschooling' or merge to homeschooling, as a new section entitled 'During the COVID-19 pandemic'. Add a 'see also' entry from one article to the other. There are enough sources to support that these terms are real and in use. It is more about where to place the material for best effect. Another alternative is to keep the article but rename it 'Homeschooling during the COVID-19 pandemic' but in that case it would need more specific references about what actually happened on the ground, rather than academic references. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 07:57, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is quite enough in the way of references. some of them substantial and specific. It has to do with more than education. But for the educational aspects only, besides the references given above, see:

Clara T. Green, "The Latest in School Segregation: Private Pandemic ‘Pods’" New York Times July 22, 2020 [31]

Wyatte Grantham-Philips, "As school starts online, parents need to study up on 'pandemic pods' – and what they mean for equity" USA TODAY July 28, 2020[32]

For other aspects of the concept of living within a small closed group to avoid infections, see:

Melinda Warner, "The Do's and Don'ts of 'Quarantine Pods'" New York Times June 12, 2020 [33]

Jennifer Weiner, "The Quarantine Bubbles Are Coming and I, for One, Am Stressed" New York Times May 26, 2020 [34]

Scott Cacciola and Kevin Draper, "We Went Inside a Sports ‘Bubble.’ Here’s What We Saw."New York Times June 14, 2020 [35]

(I am only aware of the US situation; and I've only listed what I happened to come across in reading;; I' haven't done a real search--there is presumably more elsewhere) ' With all the references that are in the article, I'm surprised this was even challenged; supplemented by those in this discussion, I'm even more surprised there's further question. I don't often invoke GNG explicitly, but I think it applies here. DGG' ( talk ) 04:30, 15 August 2020 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this is to be kept (and I'm not convinced it should, the multiple RS references notwithstanding), the article name should surely be changed to something better matching the contents; for one thing, the article name is 'Pandemic Pods', with the first section titled 'Pandemic pod', which is confusing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another excellent refernece: Dani, Blum; Miller, Farah (August 18, 2020). "What Parents Need to Know About Learning Pods". The New York Times. Retrieved August 22, 2020. [36] .(quote from the lede:These arrangements have quickly become a popular and, sometimes, divisive topic. A Pandemic Pods Facebook group was set up by families in San Francisco on July 7 and it already has almost 40,000 members. Google search traffic for “learning pods” has swelled since the start of August.: I don't really see how anyone can say " I'm not convinced it should [be kept], the multiple RS references notwithstanding) and still thing the GNG has any relevance. Myself, I think it has only a limited relevance when things don'tt fit in neat pigeon-holes, and this is a prime example.. DGG ( talk ) 05:41, 22 August 2020 (UTC)`[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:25, 20 August 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Keep: DGG has demonstrated that there are lots of sources talking about this concept. — Toughpigs (talk) 17:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

...and another, CBC News, Why the idea of social bubbles might need to be re-evaluated [37] quote to show relevance : "The challenge to maintain an "exclusive" bubble will be particularly difficult with schools opening in the fall, " DGG ( talk ) 18:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Classic example of hitting the 'Delete' button too early. Pods, bubbles haven't established a vocabulary yet- this is where we perform a role in explaining the context etc- yes acting like an encyclopedia. In context in September, in the land of U-turns, parents are forced to send their precious back to a school that they believe is disease ridden.They are looking for alternatives and will look here first. Keep, add information, remove false facts, and continually review scope and the name. A browser refresh is a long time in current politics. --ClemRutter (talk) 09:11, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 10:50, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deadly Whispers[edit]

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

Made-for-TV movie with 27% Rotten Tomatoes score; only ref is the RT page. Slashme (talk) 08:46, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 08:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep References found at [[38]], [[39]] and Variety [[40]]. Did you perform a WP:BEFORE? Donaldd23 (talk) 17:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A TV Guide entry isn't in-depth coverage and Letterboxd is user-generated content. Variety counts, but so far that's only one notability-relevant reliable source. --Slashme (talk) 08:14, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

People Magazine [[41]] and [[42]] Donaldd23 (talk) 10:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it also features relatively prominently in this Orlando Sentinel profile of Danza [43]. matt91486 (talk) 16:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it has reviews in multiple reliable sources such as Variety and People magazine together with other courage so passes WP:GNG in my view so that deletion is unnecessary, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:47, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per multiple 3rd-party references listed above. --Lockley (talk) 03:31, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. To me, this just seems like an "it's notable!" "no it isn't!" "yes it is!" shouting match. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping malls in Angola[edit]

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

No notable entries, fails WP:LISTN Ajf773 (talk) 08:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Contains notable entries, nomination fails WP:BEFORE, WP:IGNORINGATD, &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You literally just added those five entries after I created the AfD. Only one has an article and even that has questionable notability. The rest are just bare mentions in another source. Ajf773 (talk) 10:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in the similar AFD recently, we need a List of shopping malls in Africa to merge these to where the countries have a small number of notable entries. Those countries that have enough to merit standalone lists can just be linked to from that continent-wide list. postdlf (talk) 22:06, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:LISTN Wm335td (talk) 02:08, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VAGUEWAVE. Explain HOW it passes WP:LISTN please. Ajf773 (talk) 02:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. My reading of LISTN (Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. In my opinion the list fulfills the purposes of aiding reader's navigation, and providing information. Wm335td (talk) 17:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One blue-link is not doing a lot for aiding navigation. Ajf773 (talk) 20:04, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Lists that fulfill recognized informational ...purposes Wm335td (talk) 19:05, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a platform for free advertising non-notable businesses. Ajf773 (talk) 22:02, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see any reliable source that covers such a list outside tourist guides, which are low quality, and anyway, that's Wikivoyage stuff. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that List of shopping malls in Poland has zero sources of any sort. And I expect that's the case for many or most countries, all of which have such a list. What the nay-sayers fail to explain is why we should single out African countries for systemic bias – see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls in Egypt. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:18, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And if you expect I will display some patriotic feelings and run to save the Polish list, you are mistaken. I'd be happy to vote delete on it too. Those lists are really getting out of hand, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The navigational template like Template:Shopping_malls_in_Poland plus categories are quite sufficient for me. Now, if there are sources to satisfy LISTN, maybe we could try to rescue some, but so far, as you say, most of those lists are woefully undersourced. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:41, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It can’t simultaneously be fine as a nav template and category yet indiscriminate as a list when they all have the same scope. I personally have little use for nav templates that you can’t annotate like lists, you don’t seem to like lists, to each their own. All of these methods of indexing coexist per WP:NOTDUP. postdlf (talk) 20:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, it's not the first time he's made this insinuation of racism. It shouldn't be necessary to make snide personal comments on any AfD. Reyk _YO! 07:12, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reyk Obviously, but what can we do about it? WP:CIV is a dead policy. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:51, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus, I wouldn't say it is completely dead, just enforced onesidedly. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that you wrote a bunch of articles that I thought were a load of crap. If I brought them to AfD with the same sort of thinly veiled implication that you're editing from a Polish nationalist viewpoint, I'd be raked over the coals at ANI and rightly so. Yet somehow "Keep- of course Poland McPolandface isn't nominating lists of malls in his country for deletion" is allowed to pass without raising an eyebrow. WP:NPA is for protecting pseudo-civil snark, not the likes of us. Reyk _YO! 15:48, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reyk I think you are right. If you ever decide to file an ANI complain or such don't hesitate to ping me and I'll add my two cents. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:31, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the same reasons as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls in Egypt. pburka (talk) 20:20, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A list of shopping malls in any country would undoubtedly meet WP:LISTN. Redundancy between navboxes/categories and lists isn't a bad thing and even encouraged by WP:NOTDUPE. SD0001 (talk) 16:19, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How do you figure that? For a list to pass WP:LISTN there needs to be a considerable number of notable entries or a list that is notable as a set. We're not seeing that in this article. Ajf773 (talk) 21:25, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, WP:LISTN says nothing about a "considerable number" or anything like it. What it expects is that it "has been discussed as a group or set". We have this in this case in sources such as New shopping malls: A sign of Angola's rising middle class. Q.E.D.. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are no mentions of any particular shopping malls in that article, there is a photograph of the Africa Mall, that's all. Ajf773 (talk) 20:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And the Africa Mall is a particular mall. The article mainly talks about the malls as a group or set but that's fine because that's exactly what LISTN expects. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:49, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A particular insignificant mall. Ajf773 (talk) 01:56, 29 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 Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. There is a split between keep and delete, but I will go with a redirect to her father, where all the sourced information are already included (she was born, got married, had children). Other things are not sourced. Tone 10:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Kalina of Bulgaria[edit]

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

The article is merely a genealogical entry. While her husband and father are notable individuals, I do not see significant coverage of her in reliable sources. I am having difficulty finding out what she even does in her life; all I come across are genealogy websites. If I am missing significant coverage, please point it out. Surtsicna (talk) 12:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 12:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 12:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 12:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 12:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete , no indication of notability. Smeat75 (talk) 16:12, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Devokewater @ 09:47, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Hello Magazine, People, Telegraph, Europost seems like significant coverage to me. Not to mention she is included on the Royal Family's Official Website. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 22:28, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, those are just birth announcements. The official website is not independent of the subject. The Telegraph article, something I would normally consider a very reputable source, gives her a "Disney score: 7/10" and sums her up as "more ballsy than a beauty". I just cannot see how something like that could point to a person's encyclopedic significance. Surtsicna (talk) 23:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 22:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Willthacheerleader18 --Richiepip (talk) 00:32, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not convinced the tabloid articles demonstrate encyclopedic notability. They're just blurbs (the People one is barely a paragraph and was written by "peoplestaff225") with little to indicate she attracts coverage by herself. JoelleJay (talk) 07:07, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV - in the 20th and 21st century, getting into tabloids is what they do; per my standards for nobility. Bearian (talk) 14:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a tabloid mirror. Members of deposed royal houses are not default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Passes WP:GNG and a cursory Google News result reveals additional sources [44] [45]. W 42 16:39, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- satisfies GNG Thepilipalasgirl (talk) 23:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Keep As said above, there is enough to meet WP:GNG. Cape Diamond MM (talk) 09:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:GNG applies. Sources looks good.BabbaQ (talk) 10:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just pro forma information about member of deposed royal family. PatGallacher (talk) 00:29, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Willthacheerleader18 -- Oleryhlolsson (talk) 08:31, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very little non-genealogical information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.217.186 (talk) 00:01, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - actual royalty, significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 22:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian, how is she "actual royalty"? Bulgaria has been a republic since before she was born. Surtsicna (talk) 22:35, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She didn't marry into royalty. Bearian (talk) 23:19, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She was not really born into it either. Surtsicna (talk) 08:57, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: You have !voted twice. Would you like to strike one of your !votes? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:53, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:12, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 15:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Service science, management and engineering[edit]

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

This buzzword salad has been nothing but a faintly promotional pedagogical essay since it was written. Most of the sources it contains are deadlinks or useless red herrings, and my own searches have come up with nothing. Largely this is because the subject is so vague and obscured by buzzwords that it is legitimately impossible to tell if a possible source is about the same subject. In any case, even if this article was about anything at all (it's not) it would still be necessary to rewrite it from scratch since the current content is irreparably unencyclopedic. Reyk _YO! 19:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is clearly notable as there are several books written about it including:

Service Science, Management, and Engineering: Theory and Applications
Handbook of Service Science
Service Science, Management and Engineering: Education for the 21st Century
Progressive Trends in Knowledge and System-Based Science for Service Innovation
Introduction to Service Engineering
The Science of Service Systems
Service Systems Science
Service Science: The Foundations of Service Engineering and Management

The title of the page in question – Service Science, Management, and Engineering (SSME) – is IBM's name for this discipline. IBM seems to have been quite influential and so it is a reasonable title for the topic. The nomination's claim that the topic is about nothing at all is absurd and its claim to have found no sources seems equally implausible. My impression is that it's just a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:IGNORINGATD and WP:RUBBISH. None of these are reasons to delete. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if the term is notable, and this is not likely, the current article is a WP:ESSAY mess in need of WP:TNT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable:

Ongoing citations in the scientific literature - leading journals of professional associations, books, conference proceedings
University courses and degree programs that use the name

Broken links are now removed. Most relevant content is being moved forward in sections. Authors of less relevant content being contacted. Spohrer (talk) 19:23:51 UTC Saturday, August 15, 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I take the nomination in good faith, thank you for it. It's undeniable that the article has near-fatal problems: it's an un-encyclopedic essay, written in dense corporate prose which makes many of us itch with impatience, and the article has an "in-universe" / promotional / uncritical quality. These problems would require major surgery to get straightened out, not just a light copyedit. However the topic is real, evidently notable, and therefore worth a good description. In English. --Lockley (talk) 00:33, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:17, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Medical Hypothesis, Discovery & Innovation in Ophthalmology[edit]

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

At first sight, this article appears to be well sourced. On closer inspection, though, this is not the case. There are no independent sources discussing the journal in depth, just some library indexes, which is rather trivial. Being a member of WAME and ICMJE is nothing contributing to notability either. Like any OA journal, it is listed in PubMed Central, but not in the more selective MEDLINE. The article claims that the journal is indexed by Scopus and the link provided does indeed show a few entries in this database. I'm not sure how this came about, because both a search on the ISSN or on the eISSN comes up empty. I'm not familiar with the "Dimensions website", but search on Google Scholar reveals only a handful of citations. Taken together this appears to fail both WP:GNG and WP:NJournals, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 16:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation and has been confirmed to be within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals after several steps of editing. I respect Randykitty comments however I do believe personally that Randykitty is interested to erasing rather than constructing!

Thanks to bring the case for discussion. I addressed each of the reviewers’ comments in the order they were received:

Most academic journals in Wikipedia focus on an overview of the Journal as well as indexing resources. For instance, please refer to the Swiss Medical Weekly.
WAME and ICMJE developed recommendations to review best practice and ethical standards in the conduct and reporting of research. Adherence to ethical principles of WAME and ICMJE is a mandatory issue in medical journalism. To include the Journal in well-known databases, the Journal should adhere to these ethical principles.
Not all open access medical journals indexed in PubMed Central (PMC). Some PMC journals are also MEDLINE journals. The National Library of Medicine (NLM) decides whether the scientific and editorial character and quality of a journal merit its inclusion in PMC. “Scientific and Editorial Quality Assessment” is the key factor in its assessment. The scientific quality assessment for PMC focuses on scientific rigor. Therefore, inclusion in PMC is a scientific achievement to journal. Please refer to the Journal Selection for PMC: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/pub/journalselect/
To search new titles in Scopus, you should login to the Scopus through university account. From the following URL, click documents and enter the journal title in search and choose the drop-down Source title and click on search (Medical Hypothesis, Discovery & Innovation in Ophthalmology): https://www.scopus.com/search/form.uri?zone=TopNavBar&origin=sbrowse&display=basic
The Journal is abbreviated to: "Med Hypothesis Discov Innov Ophthalmol". Once I searched the above-mentioned title, more than 1000 citations came from Google Scholar which is notable for a journal published around 230 papers.

Furthermore, Dimensions website is a new tool provides up-to-the online attention data via Altmetric, usually retrieve data from Scopus and PubMed. Thanks for your consideration. Maryhook97 (talk) 18:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC) Comment moved from talk; "keep" !vote inferred from contents. --Randykitty (talk) 18:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thank you very much for this lesson on how WP works. I gingerly disagree with your assertion that I'm more interested in deleting than constructing, pointing you to the list of articles that I have started on my userpage. That list, of course, does not include the many articles (mostly on academic journals) that I have expanded over the years. By the way, you may find it interesting to read WP:NPA and WP:ATA. As for your individual comments, here are some answers. 1/ Sure, no disagreement here. 2/ Nobody says that WAME and ICMJE don't do valuable work. The thing is, however, that being a member of these organizations does not contribute to notability in the WP sense. 3/ Indeed, not all OA journals are in PubMed Central, they exclude the most blatant predatory journals, for example. Apart from that it's not that difficult to get into PMC and we never accept inclusion in PMC as evidence of notability. MEDLINE is a different story, it's much more selective. 4/ To see whether a journal is included in Scopus, you don't need to have a university account, but you do have to search under "sources". See the links above in the nom. See this link for Nature, for example. If you click on the result, you get journal info stating which years are indexed. Whatever way I search, the present journal does not have such a page. 5/ You misinterpret the GScholar results. You get a thousand "hits" because every article that has ever appeared in the journal plus every article that ever mentioned it are listed. What is significant, however, is that citations to articles in the journal are very low (all I saw were in the lower single digits). This does not indicate a well-cited journal. Also, GScholar results have to interpreted with care, as they often include falls positives or double entries. 6/ I don't see how inclusion on the Dimensions website contributes to notability. Please familiarize yourself with WP:NJournals. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 19:19, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for clarification. At this journal, I found hundreds of citations in google scholar https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=B_4BElIAAAAJ&hl=en

Therefore I would recommend ~~Keep~~ the page and close discussion. I found that the journal is in Pubmed Central since 2012 and from the beginning of 2020 added to Scopus. To search the new added journals at Scopus, please: login to the Scopus account. From the below URL, click documents and enter the journal title in the search and choose the drop-down Source title and then click on search (Medical Hypothesis, Discovery & Innovation in Ophthalmology): https://www.scopus.com/search/form.uri?zone=TopNavBar&origin=sbrowse&display=basic

Maryhook97 (talk) 21:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Subject has a 'confirmed' status record by ISSN National Centre for Iran, in the global ISSN portal, but the publisher and country of publishing details are different (Reza Gharebaghi, Tehran). --Gpkp [u • t • c] 08:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thanks for all comments. I have contacted the Scopus: [email protected]. The Elsevier Helpdesk confirmed that the journal is indexed in Scopus and Embase database in 2020. The Source ID for the journal is still not created as the hyperlink for this source is still not set.

They said that this should appear in the next browser update of Scopus which is scheduled to happen end of September/October and we should be able to see the URL searchable for this journal. However, I managed to search 27 documents of this title in Scopus (issue 1-3 of 2020 by searching the title of paper or authors, separately). Furthermore, it seems that the title is indexed in Proquest however as Proquest products and services are accessible on a subscription basis, I am not sure how to offer a direct link to the content. I appreciate if you may clarify this. Moreover, The history of the journal and the former publisher(s) has been updated in Wikipedia.Maryhook97 (talk) 07:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge This is not a notable journal, but would make a fine section to International Virtual Ophthalmic Research Center. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Zombie Massacre (film). MBisanz ^talk 15:30, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zombie Massacre 2: Reich of the Dead[edit]

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

Merge and redirect into Zombie Massacre (film) into new Sequel section. Article does not meet WP:GNG or the WP:NFO additional criteria at WP:NFILM for a stand-alone article. WP:BEFORE revealed only blog reviews and entries on movie database and streaming sites. // Timothy :: talk 04:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 04:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 22:23, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:58, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:05, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge insufficient evidence of notabilty to sustain a standalone article. ——Serial 16:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 07:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Epidermal Radioisotope Therapy[edit]

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

The article does have issues (a few editors have conceded that) but the procedure itself is sound as a treatment for the condition. While it has issues as a how to guide at the moment, I feel the best option here is to list at afd for community input as see what the community wants to do with the page. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral As the AFC reviewer who accepted it I acknowledge that it has faults. Our role is not to review a draft to perfection but to accept it if we believe it has a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process. This is that immediate deletion process after a minimally contested speedy deletion. I believe the article is keepable, though requiring improvement. Participants in this discussion should note that the paid nature of the creating editor has been posted correctly at all stages. That status ought not to influence the discussion. I make it a practice not to !vote at discussions where I have accepted the draft, but sometimes comment. I have no feelings either way on this article, and thank the nom for the chance for the community to discuss it and potentially to improve the article. Fiddle Faddle 06:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 08:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 08:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral The crucial point is notability and coverage in reliable, secondary sources. I'm pretty deletionist, so I will abstain. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Infomercial for the company which makes the products used in this procedures. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:37, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We already have an article on Brachytherapy don't redirect or merge as this content is next to useless in terms of reliable sourcing and this is a neologism. PainProf (talk) 21:18, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Epidermal Radioisotope Therapy" is not a widely used or accepted terminology, but rather something related to specific treatment by specific company. Also a content fork, the content is covered in Skin_cancer#Treatment and Brachytherapy. My very best wishes (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 06:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Aldaraji[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. Repeatedly recreated and speedy-deleted before, but this time a user is removing speedy tag persistently. BlameRuiner (talk) 06:35, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 August 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 08:43, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 08:43, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 08:43, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:21, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT - nothing has changed since last AFD. Giant Snowman 14:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - still not notable Spiderone 20:38, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 07:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Robert Phillips[edit]

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

There is just barely enough information in the article to suggest that he may have some small claim of notability, so I'm listing here for community input. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Run-of-the-mill record producer. Nowhere close to satisfying general notability guidelines, musical notability guidelines, or entertainment notability guidelines. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:26, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the gentleman fails WP:GNG and needs to go. Fiddle Faddle 14:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No effective referencing. scope_creep^Talk 18:47, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show they pass WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:47, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of diplomatic missions in Ottawa. MBisanz ^talk 15:30, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Greece, Ottawa[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:ORG. Embassies are not inherently notable. This one lacks third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 06:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:46, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:46, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:46, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of diplomatic missions in Ottawa. Mind matrix 12:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Insufficient third-party coverage in reliable sources to warrant a standalone article. ——Serial 16:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 07:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Western Sonoma County Historical Society[edit]

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

Entirely unsourced stub on a non-notable local history society. I am not seeing WP:SIGCOV—[46] (p. 54) is the best I could do, and it's a capsule description. I thought about doing a WP:NPROF analog, by checking to see if it's been cited as a publisher or conservator of notable historical materials and/or influential in the field of history more broadly. By my reckoning, it hasn't. 23 hits on Google Scholar; 16 hits at the Internet Archive. It has also published a few local history books in collaboration with Arcadia Publishing, which seems to publish (good!) local histories on any community in the U.S. with someone willing to write one. Created by a sock but evidently wasn't G5'd (though maybe it still qualifies?) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:40, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:40, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:40, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It should have been G5 as it was created after the editor was blocked. No effective referencing. scope_creep^Talk 23:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:06, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, plausible {{db-org}} speedy. Western Sonoma County actually does have some significant history (see e.g. Fort Ross) but we have no evidence of independent in-depth publications about this organization that would give notability to it. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:21, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to China-India relations. Tone 16:48, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Consulate-General, Chennai[edit]

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

Embassies are not inherently notable, consulates even less so. This consulate does not even exist. Only statements 5 years ago saying it would be established. LibStar (talk) 04:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 08:44, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 08:44, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree as per nom. The consulate doesn't exist and hardly any substantial work has happened since 2015. in light of recent India-China conflicts it seems further unlikely that any progress will made in near-future.Roller26 (talk) 10:52, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. --Ab207 (talk) 14:06, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to China-India relations. If the consulate doesn't exist, then discussions about the possible establishment of one should go in the larger discussion of Sino-Indian relations. Bkissin (talk) 21:16, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to China-India relations. Johncdraper (talk) 09:37, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect per WP:ATD-M and WP:PRESERVE (Yes, Davidson, the irony isn't lost on me...) ——Serial 16:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 07:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Janghye of Gojoseon[edit]

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

I'm tagging this with deletion as a stand-in for all kings in Template:Gija Joseon monarchs except for Jizi, Bu, and Jun, which are kings attested in ancient Chinese sources. The articles in question are:

This should be all.

The issue is that virtually all these articles have only four primary sources as references. All primary sources amount to an identical genealogy which is quite literally a series of entries that only say "King XX, name Y. Ruled OO years." There is no mention about anything that these kings did, so that even a level of detail found in e.g. Rud Hud Hudibras is impossible. None of these kings have entered popular culture or such, so there is no avenue for expansion that way. In other words, these four-sentence Wikipedia articles say everything there is to say about these supposed kings; no further detail is possible.

More seriously, as the List of fictitious kings in Korean genealogies article now correctly states, all these supposedly Bronze and Iron Age kings are seventeenth-century fabrications. So I'm not really sure the current articles hold up to WP:NOTABILITY, when no expansion is possible and none of these kings are historical or even semi-historical. At least the Sumerian King List articles, if similarly terse, are genuinely from the Bronze Age.

If not deleted, the fact that these kings are fictitious at least needs to be mentioned in all these articles. Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 04:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 04:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NB: I would also like to add that unlike e.g. Historia Regum Britanniae, whose cultural importance justifies the notability of its monarchs, the genealogies in question were not considered very important by Koreans outside the relevant descent groups either in the seventeenth century or now in 2020, to the point that a search on DBPIA (an aggregator of Korean-language academic publications) yields only two relevant academic treatments of the topic.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 05:23, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we lack any sourcing that proves this was a real person, and we lack the level of sourcing to show a probably fictional individual still has notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom's convincing arguments. -TheseusHeLl (talk) 12:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note A large number of articles have been tagged as being nominated for deletion with this AfD. But those articles have not been identified here. @Karaeng Matoaya: all kings in Template:Gija Joseon monarchs except for Jizi, Bu, and Jun, is not enough, please list each article title here. SD0001 (talk) 15:04, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SD0001: Done, thank you for the note. There's quite a lot of these four-sentence articles, as you can see.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 15:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 08:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sruthi Singh[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable as per Wikipedia's criteria. The references given are an interview with a blog (unnamed author), and being mentioned in listicles. Google search does not unearth significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. ... discospinster _talk 04:14, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 04:14, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 04:14, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 04:14, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of notability. Websearch doesn't show anything to support notability. - hako9 (talk) 08:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable according to all criteria. The article is written in promotional style. The premise of the article reinforces that if she has 41k+ followers on Instragram, she must be notable. Roller26 (talk) 10:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not established. --Ab207 (talk) 14:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 14:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 14:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:21, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No coverage found in secondary, reliable sources.Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 10:28, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:50, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin M. Jones[edit]

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

Unclear notability. The article and references are mainly about the company that he heads, and the info solely about him is basically a resume. ... discospinster _talk 04:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 04:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 04:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 04:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This articles was recently tagged with a PROD and soon removed by the creator without improvements. Cheers Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 13:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Commment To be fair to the creator, they did add a few more refs at least. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:46, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject clearly fails notability guidelines. There's no in depth coverage in multiple reliable sources on him personally. Just being a CEO is not enough. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO.Less Unless (talk) 13:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Question I would think that the CEO of a company that has an article of its own would be notable. Unless of course, you want to merge this into the Rackspace article?BostonMensa (talk) 15:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Being CEO isn't sufficient, needs to pass at least WP:ANYBIO. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:43, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable, PR --Devokewater (talk) 15:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Nothing else to add. MaskedSinger (talk) 12:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another in a very long line of articles on non-notable businessmen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rackspace Technology or delete as the individual is less notable than the company he runs. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:43, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ 10:17, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saratoga Mall[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

An extinct mall. The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Subject does not have coverage that meets significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. WP:BEFORE revealed advertising, WP:ROUTINE coverage of events and directory style listings. // Timothy :: talk 03:52, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 03:52, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 03:52, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 03:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

Delete Run-of-the-mill place to buy things, no clear assertion of notability, with only routine local coverage. Reywas92^Talk 07:31, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:45, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 08:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Columbus Square Mall[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

An extinct mall. The article states it was "typical", which is saying not notable. The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Subject does not have coverage that meets significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. WP:BEFORE revealed advertising, WP:ROUTINE coverage of events and directory style listings. // Timothy :: talk 03:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 03:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 03:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 03:56, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Run-of-the-mill place to buy things, no clear assertion of notability. Reywas92^Talk 07:30, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. $Salvio$ 10:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harundale Mall[edit]

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

An extinct mall. The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Subject does not have coverage that meets significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. WP:BEFORE revealed advertising, WP:ROUTINE coverage of events and directory style listings. // Timothy :: talk 03:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 03:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 03:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 03:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Mostly routine coverage. LibStar (talk) 00:41, 28 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. Article meets WP:GNG and notability (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 02:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Mall[edit]

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

An extinct mall. The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Subject does not have coverage that meets significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. WP:BEFORE revealed advertising, WP:ROUTINE coverage of events and directory style listings. // Timothy :: talk 03:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 03:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 03:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 04:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded it/Keep: I expanded the article to include much historical info with reliiable sources (LAT +) -- this is notable in terms of Burbank history but actually also a key example of pedestrian malls in the US which is of interest to those studying or researching urban planning. This was the pedestrian mall at the heart of Downtown Burbank, and was supposed to be the beating heart of that city of 100,000, so a key element in urban renewal during that era.Keizers (talk) 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Keep Improved version of article demonstrates notability. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Real Housewives of Miami. $Salvio$ 10:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lea Black[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, insufficient significant coverage in reliable sources outside of the context of The Real Housewives of Miami; the sole such source currently cited is [47], a local publication of dubious reliability. I would suggest that we redirect to that article. Searching online, I wasn't able to find coverage other than trivial pieces in tabloids, although given the nature of the subject it's possible that something more useful may have been crowded out in search results. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did the best i can to find sources relating to Lea Black. I don't understand why the article Lea Black is about to be deleted? Tell me what do I have to do to improve this? Ceedub88 05:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some subjects just aren't notable, even if you did your best. At the end of the day, we have to depend on what's available in reliable, independent sources. If we don't have at least 3 or 4 solid examples of significant coverage of a subject in their own right, we have no business creating a standalone article for them. That having been said, reliable sources that collectively fall short of GNG may still be usable to expand The Real Housewives of Miami. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:52, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - as per Rosguill. Not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show she has any notability outside the show.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "Independent" you mean websites with real sources that you trust, not the ones that are filled with fake information and fake sites with tabloids? Ceedub88 02:50, 21 August 2020 2020 (UTC)

"WP:Independent sources" means that the source isn't written by the subject herself, or someone associated with her. Anything published by the producers of the show, for example, wouldn't be independent. Nor would her LinkedIn profile, because she writes that herself. Interviews generally aren't considered independent, either. A website like Pikastar might be independent (or it might just publish info from her publicist), but even if it is, it's probably not a "WP:Reliable source". Sources used to establish notability must be both independent and reliable. pburka (talk) 18:33, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So where could I find a reliable source that was written by her or her publicist? Perhaps maybe can we ask her herself? Ceedub88 16:38, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:02, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 08:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elements Mall[edit]

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Subject does not have coverage that meets significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. WP:BEFORE revealed advertising, WP:ROUTINE coverage of events and directory style listings. // Timothy :: talk 03:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 03:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 03:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No reliable sources available. Clearly not notable MaysinFourty (talk) 12:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero evidence of any notability Spiderone 13:56, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sources do not rise to the level of meeting WP:GNG. Opinions of new editors are given little weight, due to their likely inexperience with Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. BD2412 T 00:22, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jodi Livon[edit]

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

WP:FRINGEBLP of a probably non-notable subject. I just cut the WP:PROMO and unsourced material, but obviously feel free to revert partially or in full if you can verify the information. Tagged for notability for nine years. Analysis of sources below; don't think they combine to establish notability, and I couldn't find anything else.

[48] Apparently reliable (Minnesota Monthly), but it's an interview.
[49] Not reliable—archived version of her website.
[50] Not reliable—YouTube video posted on her own channel.
[51] Not reliable—YouTube video posted on her channel.
Dead link.
[52] Reliable (Star Tribune), but local coverage. All the other RS I could find ([53], [54]) are mirrors of this article, which was presumably from a syndicate.
Her own book; unreliable primary source.
Her own book; unreliable primary source. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:56, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:56, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:56, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:57, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:57, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable psychic. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a mirror of unrelaible youtube material.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A number of other sources have been added since this nom. I haven't had time to evaluate them yet, but at a quick glance I see more local coverage and some more cites to her books. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:33, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:PROMO - Reverted for some sourced material. Removed dead links and Youtube sources. Proposed for meeting WP:GNG criteria- Found significant coverage from reliable independent news sites, see references. Noted as a regular guest since 2009 on local Twin Cities news station KSTP-TV ABC for Twin Cities Live program.WikiBotEli (talk) 22:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC) — WikiBotEli (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment. @AleatoryPonderings: Any further discussion on this page? As this is my first edit, would love to hear feedback.WikiBotEli (talk) 19:51, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @WikiBotEli: Thanks for the ping, and for your revisions. I looked over the sources you added and, I'm sorry to say, they don't affect my opinion too much. ~~WP:AUD says that attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability,~~ and from what I can see the sources are largely local or of interest only to enthusiasts of the paranormal. In addition, a number of them are interviews, which are generally not a good sign of notability (although I have recently come to the opposite conclusion in another context). I did notice that one source you added ([55]) is from a North Dakota TV channel, which is not local to Minnesota. But it is also an interview, so of limited value in assessing notability. My opinion that this article should be deleted remains unchanged, but some of the sources you added do make it a somewhat closer call in my view. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - @AleatoryPonderings:. Correct me if I'm wrong but does the WP:AUD only apply to notability requirements for companies as it is under the WP:COMPANY or does it apply to people as well? If applicable, I have sourced at least 4 news articles that are produced by news organizations that have statewide coverage. Per WP:AUD, "at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary." More than one has been provided.

Review of select sources:

[56] reliable, independent, statewide coverage (Minnesota Monthly)
[57] reliable, independent, statewide coverage.
[58] reliable, independent, statewide coverage (Star Tribune).
[59] reliable, independent, local coverage.
[60] reliable, independent, local coverage.
[61] reliable, independent, local coverage.
[62] reliable, independent, statewide coverage.
[63] national podcast
[64] national radio show
[65] and [66] local radio show

As for this individual conforming to the WP:GNG I believe the sources provided support this. Let me know your thoughts on my response? WikiBotEli (talk) 22:57, 26 August 2020 (UTC) — WikiBotEli (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@WikiBotEli: You're correct that WP:AUD applies to corporations, not people; that was my mistake, and I have struck it. The links you provided above do indicate at least local interest, but again many of them are interviews and some of them (e.g., [67] and [68]) are the same article republished by different newspapers. I will leave it to the community to decide whether these sources are sufficient to demonstrate notability. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the additional sourcing adds nothing to the quality of those already identified as not satisfying WP:BLPSOURCES by AleatoryPonderings, unfortunately. ——Serial 16:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Reading through this discussion it appears that all of the general notability requirements have been met. Significant and continuous coverage for years (at least 11) from reliable sources, including: KSTP (Minnesota), KARE 11 (Minnesota), North Dakota Today (North Dakota) and numerous national featured articles and appearances in the news, radio shows and podcasts - per @WikiBotEli: previous edits. After the recent changes the article has 25 sources, many of which are from reputable, reliable, and independent news agencies. The primary criteria for General Notability Guidelines of “significant coverage,” “reliable,” and “independent” have clearly been met beyond the minimum requirements WP:GNG. @Serial Number 54129: referenced WP:BLPSOURCES which states “contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion.” I see all of the sources as being valid, reliable sources WP:RS. With the WP:PROMO having been deleted, what continues to be specific issues up for discussion? Is it just a matter of opinion for notability or is there specific reasoning that the original issues that we’re up for discussion have not been remediated?Info TIC (talk) 18:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC) — Info TIC (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 08:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neptune Magnet Mall[edit]

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Subject does not have coverage that meets significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. WP:BEFORE revealed advertising, WP:ROUTINE coverage of events and directory style listings. // Timothy :: talk 02:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 02:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 02:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. All the coverage is routine for a mall. LibStar (talk) 03:04, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero evidence of any notability Spiderone 13:56, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 02:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

La Mirada Mall[edit]

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Subject does not have coverage that meets significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. Mall has been closed for 30+ years but newspaper archive search for WP:BEFORE revealed advertising and WP:ROUTINE coverage of events. // Timothy :: talk 02:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:04, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:04, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: The statement that there is not significant coverage "only ads" is false: there already were three newspaper articles and I have added two which cover strategic changes in the mall. These articles tell a story; they were not promotional pieces. It was a *regional* mall. It was the first branch of Ohrbach's in suburban Los Angeles. This was the largest structure in a city of 50,000. It is notable. Keizers (talk) 03:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Did nominator mean to link to WP:BUILD? Caro7200 (talk) 16:05, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Keizers. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 08:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mid Sodor Railway[edit]

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

Well, as much as I liked TtTE as a child, I just don't think this is notable. The Awdry books are primary sources, so they do not establish notability. The pegnsean.net linked to in the article looks self-published and unreliable. I'd say [69] is almost certainly unreliable. This book is compiled from Wikia content. The various blogs and wikis I'm finding aren't reliable either. All the books I'm finding are either primary sources or are compiled from Wikipedia/Wikia. I can't access this [70], although I'm assuming the Sodor Railway popping up in the preview is maybe this. However, one possible hit does not a WP:GNG pass make. As popular as TtTE is, frankly, I don't think any of the survivors in Category:Railways of Sodor are notable. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:43, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:43, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:43, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:43, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:43, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sodor (fictional island)#Current system (passenger). I am amazed that one can write so much about the history of railways in the Thomas the Tank Engine universe, but per the detailed analysis of the nom, there is not enough coverage out there for this to pass WP:GNG, with all sources either being primary or unreliable. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Thime to derail this WP:OR/WP:FANCRUFT train. Redirecting to Sodor may work, but short term - nothing suggests that article should survive, either... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. As I noted in HF's previous nomination from Category:Railways of Sodor, I agree with their suspicion that nothing in it is salvageable. Possibly time for a batch nomination? (Which I considered doing, but wasn't brave enough.) YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 10:57, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- This stuff belongs on a dedicated TtTE wiki and I very strongly urge the fans to transwiki it there. Awdry sure was good at world building, but Wikipedia is really not the place for these extremely intricate and excessively lengthy descriptions of a fictional universe. Reyk _YO! 09:35, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify. $Salvio$ 10:25, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elmsleigh Centre[edit]

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." The subject does not have coverage that meets significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. WP:BEFORE revealed advertising, WP:ROUTINE coverage of events and directory style listings. // Timothy :: talk 02:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 02:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 02:38, 20 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) 00:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-08 ✍️ create

This article had just been created three days prior to nomination. Give the article creator, Taku20072019, time to build it out first. As WP:BEFORE C2 suggests, "If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article.". Keep for now with no prejudice against AfD in 6-12 months if the article has not improved enough. Raymie (t • c) 06:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: The article has existed long enough to add two sources demonstrating notability. No objection to Drafting. // Timothy :: talk 06:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

draftify - something being new isn't sufficient for it to stay in mainspace. Suggest moving to draft/userspace for incubation. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 08:02, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Lombard[edit]

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

Lombard fails WP:NPOL as she is only a candidate and has not yet been elected to the House of Representatives. Additionally, much of the sigcov about her is related to the election, which is WP:BLP1E. There is no sigcov not related to the election that I could find. Java Hurricane 02:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Java Hurricane 02:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Java Hurricane 02:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Java Hurricane 02:10, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that sigcov is more than one event. this is Lombard's third run for office. news coverage extends for years. Fordcat (talk) 02:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC) Lombard is the Democratic candidate for a US Congressional seat. seems like wp:gngFordcat (talk) 02:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES candidates, even repeat candidates, are not notable unless they receive an inordinate amount of national coverage. If she wins we can always re-create. Best, GPL93 (talk) 03:10, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as per WP:POLOUTCOMES. Using her own website as a reference is a clear violation of what's a legitimate source. MaskedSinger (talk) 12:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a free campaign literature posting service.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:41, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Established consensus is that candidates do not pass WP:NPOL unless they are much more notable than most (see Christine O'Donnell). --Enos733 (talk) 20:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as already discussed. Perhaps a case of WP:TOOSOON. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:47, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in Kansas#District 4, the best Wikipedia:ATD.Djflem (talk) 12:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ 10:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ProjectUSA[edit]

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

When the only source is the subject's own webpage we have a problem. A search for sources did not find any reliable sources that would lead to GNG coverage John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable organisation. According to GuideStar, it doesn't appear to exist anymore, and searching for refs I could only find this article and Wikipedia mirrors. Could even arguably qualify for WP:A7. Seagull123 Φ 22:40, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This was listed on the 2020 August 12 log, but the nom was on August 14.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 01:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Ureme (film series). A merge seems like an acceptable outcome here Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:42, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ureme 5[edit]

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

Non notable, nothing shows up in searches to establish notability except databases and other wikis. Tagged for notability for over a year. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:16, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:16, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:16, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 03:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Merge. There is at least one KCI-listed academic paper on this series of movies, and multiple recent discussions of the series within the past five years in RS like the The Chosun Ilbo here. I presume there are more RSs from back when these films were actually on screen.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 04:46, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- But that may serve to justify having an article on the franchise or the first movie, but doesn't make sequels notable per WP:NOTINHERITED. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:29, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmm, I see your point. Changing my vote to Merge and redirect.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 08:31, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Ureme (film series). Not seeing sources to satisfy WP:Notability (films). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Ureme (film series). MBisanz ^talk 15:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ureme 6[edit]

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

Non notable, nothing shows up in searches to establish notability except databases and other wikis. Tagged for notability for over a year. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 03:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Ureme (film series). Not seeing sources to satisfy WP:Notability (films). Koraen Wiki does not seem to have any reception, and I don't see anything, but it would be good to have someone who reads Korean comment here... PS. Ping User:Karaeng Matoaya whose comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ureme 5 seems relevant. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:28, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Ureme (film series) per the insufficient souring identified by Piotrus. ——Serial 16:18, 28 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 Ureme (film series). MBisanz ^talk 15:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ureme 7[edit]

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

Non notable, nothing shows up in searches to establish notability except databases and other wikis. Tagged for notability for over a year. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 03:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Ureme (film series). Not seeing sources to satisfy WP:Notability (films), but also ping User:Karaeng Matoaya who made a comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ureme 5 which is a bit relevant. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Full Life Christian Centre. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noah’s Ark Auditorium[edit]

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

The article is about an auditorium in a christian centre, and the christian church article was created by the same User. Both articles are rather short, and the Noah's Ark Auditorium article could be included into the Full Life Christian Centre article. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the church article. I am wondering why OP didn’t either propose merger or just do it rather than bringing this to AfD (which is not cleanup)? LadyofShalott 00:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the relevant info from the Noahs Ark article to the page about the christian centre. It was one phrase about the current capacity of the auditorium. An image I couldn't add as it would go against MOS:SANDWICHING. Sorry I didn't ask for merge, I hope to do it better next time.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per WP:ATD-M. Insufficient coverage in reliable sourcing to warrant a standalone article. ——Serial 16:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://www.gna.org.gh/1.18458040

[2] ttps://newsghana.com.gh/tema-central-cpp-wishes-npp-a-successful-primaries/?amp

[3] ttps://mobile.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/NewsArchive/Tema-Central-CPP-wishes-NPP-a-successful-primaries-985171

[4] Spiller, Penny (2020-08-04). "Coronavirus: How pandemic pods and zutors are changing home-schooling". BBC News. Retrieved 2020-08-04.

[5] Faulconer, Jeanne. "What Is a Homeschool Co-op?". The Home School Mom. Retrieved 2020-08-05.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]