Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 August 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 20 August	22 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 15th (short film)[edit]

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

Non-notable short film. Single-purpose account removed prod. Award listed are extremely minor, and the vast majority of short films are not notable. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:01, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like two WP:SPA are trying to promote the film. Yes, it's won alot of awards, but none of those awards are notable in their own right. Simply, it's a short non-notable film. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:30, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:03, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FILMOUTCOMES: shorts need especially comprehensive coverage—severly lacking in this case—to pass NFILM. ——Serial 16:22, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indus travel[edit]

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

Not a notable travel agency. References are to review directories or are PR pieces. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:58, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:58, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:58, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Some links are primary, others are reviews. Non-notable travel agency, as per nom. Whiteguru (talk) 12:08, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Less Unless (talk) 20:01, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added valid primary references to this page and deleted review links. Rishab1989 (talk) 10:59, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as a WP:NCORP failure. Nom is correct that the references used in the article are either press releases (or in the case of the Dailyhive article "branded content"), listings, or trivial mentions. A WP:BEFORE search turns up no quality, independent sources that cover the subject in any depth. SamHolt6 (talk) 13:59, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: None of the sources in article show notability and WP:BEFORE showed nothing to help. // Timothy :: talk 01:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spamcruft; policy applies. ——Serial 16:23, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Juliano Schmeling[edit]

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

Managing the Solomon Islands futsal team is not enough to be notable, and they do not pass WP:NFOOTY (which is about football, not applicable to futsal) or WP:GNG. A football manager of a team in a minor league is not notable Joseph2302 (talk) 23:44, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - @Joseph2302:, Your are right that WP:NFOOTBALL does not apply to futsal. Am I allowed to blank the page with db-author? Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 03:38, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:44, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:44, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:47, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable per any of the guidelines.Less Unless (talk) 20:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:57, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:BASIC. ——Serial 16:24, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Massimo Carello[edit]

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

Procedural nom, as this was previously prodded. Unsourced BLP of a non-notable wealthy person. Hits I can find are [1] (namedrop) and in the deprecated Daily Mail. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Less Unless (talk) 20:08, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not meant to list every business executive ever.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Effectively a resumé; we are not LinkedIn. ——Serial 16:26, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Wells[edit]

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

Promotional BLP. Relevant SNGs seem to be WP:NSOLDIER and WP:NAUTHOR, and the subject of this article seems to fail both, as well as WP:BASIC. The sole claim to notability I can pull out is that he was the "only living person to have worked for British Intelligence as a British citizen and for US Intelligence as an American citizen" and it is "sourced" incredibly vaguely to "The Navy Lists (UK) 1964-1983 (Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, London)." Appears to be the same person as listed in his publisher's capsule bio([2]) which does not mention this distinction. The book is Between Five Eyes (ISBN 9781612009001), and I haven't had any luck finding reviews. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional BLP. Doesn't meet SOLDIER, and many of the sources are not independent of the subject, and in some cases of questionable reliability. There is also quite a lot of listing of "works" with no links or any way to verify they even exist. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:14, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG lots of big claims with questionable sourcing. Mztourist (talk) 08:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:SOLDIER. Wikipedia is not a place to boost your online profile. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:50, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks impressive: at first glance. A closer analysis of the sources shows them to be majoritively WP:PRIMARY, and none sufficiently independent of the subject to pass BASIC. For the rest, policy applies. ——Serial 16:30, 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 redirect to George Marshall-Hall#Family. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:22, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elsa Marshall-Hall[edit]

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

The subject did some minor things, but I can't find anything that would constitute sufficient notability for WP:GNG or WP:COMPOSER, including searching for coverage in Trove. If not delete then WP:REDIRECT to her father George Marshall-Hall which already mentions her. Boneymau (talk) 23:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 23:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 23:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 23:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, let me say that I started the Elsa Marshall-Hall page and, prior to that, I added the "Family" section to the George Marshall-Hall page. This section does include some details that I later transferred to the Elsa Marshall-Hall page.

I am most surprised that this page is being considered for deletion! There are many, many Wikipedia pages that deal with people (and other subjects) of much less importance than Elsa Marshall-Hall. 29 of her compositions have been preserved, most at the Percy Grainger Museum at the University of Melbourne.^[1] There are seven Trove references to her, and 55 Google references.

I strongly recommend that this page be retained! I look forward to hearing other views.

Yours Albert Isaacs (talk) 00:19, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See the other stuff exists fallacy, as it is a matter of opinion whether this composer is more or less important than someone else. We don't use such opinions here; we use reliable sources that cover the person in a significant fashion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Ms. Marshall-Hall has historical notice but unfortunately I don't think she quite reaches the requirements at WP:COMPOSER necessary to qualify for a Wikipedia article, and simply having songs preserved by historians is not enough. Having died in 1980, she is unlikely to be covered in standard online sources, but she does come up many times in a Google Books search. Alas, she is almost always mentioned just briefly as the songwriter in much longer treatments of the performers or productions that used her songs. Through this process I am seeing no coverage to satisfy the specific requirements at WP:COMPOSER -- compositions that are themselves notable (#1), works performed in notable productions (#2), works covered by other notable composers (#3), composer winning notable awards (#4), composer cited as a major influence (#5), or composer covered at length in authoritative reference works (#6). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:56, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to George Marshall-Hall#Family, where some of her details currently exist.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:19, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the father's page, courtesy of Doomsdayer520's analysis, per WP:ATD-M. ——Serial 16:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to her father's page. Deus et lex (talk) 22:42, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SubscribeStar[edit]

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

Unimportant company that only got temporary coverage because of media drama, WP:ORG. Most of the references in this page had no relevance to SubscribeStar whatsoever and some did not mention Subscribestar once, and contained user-created content (Youtube videos as references). Christiaanp (talk) 22:09, 21 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 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:09, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

N*Delete or draftify. there is no apparent content worth an article. If it is suggested theremight be, it should be draftified until it is added. DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is a problem here. The nominator has deleted the irrelevant references, making it a wee bit difficult to validate the claims in the nomination. Prima facie, this article is a gossip piece, and as such, rubbish. Delete. Whiteguru (talk) 12:14, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there seems to be some coverage in third party sources. PeepleLikeYou (talk) 06:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify This seems WP:TOOSOON. This website doesn't seem like it has been around for long and it might end up not lasting very long, meaning that the coverage of its creation drama would fall under WP:ONEEVENT.★Trekker (talk) 18:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional United States presidential candidates[edit]

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

Fails WP:LISTN; 99.9% unsourced. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional vice presidents of the United States and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unnamed fictional presidents of the United States. The closure of the previous nomination was largely based on a lack of rationale by the nominator and cited no sources that prove notability. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 22:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 22:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 22:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per LISTN. Let them get fictionally elected first. :P Clarityfiend (talk) 22:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am increasingly worried about listcruft. This kind of ORish lists with next to no sources and very few blue linked entries (and getting fewer as we enforce NFICTION) are particularly bad. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:50, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:LISTN. Meets Listcruft. // Timothy :: talk 01:46, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Who comes up with this junk? There are so many millions of characters in books, TV, plays, and movies who hold so many types of jobs and do so many things. It is not Wikipedia's job to catalogue such non-notable often-minor charactors, source-free and nothing discussing the topic as a whole. Reywas92^Talk 07:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing of value worth keeping Spiderone 14:27, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as satisfying WP:LISTN. See Literary Hub, "Fictional Presidents", "Voters Versus the Corpus of fictional POTUS". pburka (talk) 20:14, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only the first article is about candidates; the other two are for the elect(ed). Clarityfiend (talk) 04:41, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unless this is a list of only unsuccessful candidates, there's a large overlap between presidents and presidential candidates, and campaigns are discussed in all three sources. pburka (talk) 12:01, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are already lists covering the successful ones, e.g. List of fictional presidents of the United States (A–B). Clarityfiend (talk) 05:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Clarityfiend. There is already coverage about fictional presidents, and this doesn't meet WP:LISTN. Archrogue (talk) 18:26, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a list of items that are often minor inicidental trivia. There is no reason to unite them in a list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:37, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Practically any fictional character can run for president, its not a notable characteriztic to list them after.★Trekker (talk) 17:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per mega-failure of LISTN and, er, WP:FICTIONALPOLITICALOUTCOMES...? ——Serial 16:38, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Wiggins[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Nearly every source cited was behind a paywall, but I was unable to locate any significant biographical details in secondary sources. No indication of awards. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NONE of the sources cited are behind a paywall! I accessed all of them through Googlebooks and the public library. Wiggins' award from the National Federation of Music Clubs is listed on p. 756 of the International Encyclopedia of Women Composers by Aaron I. Cohen which is a standard library reference work.T. E. Meeks (talk) 23:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Is the nominator claiming this well-referenced article is a hoax? She's in the International Encyclopedia of Women Composers, so clearly the topic is encyclopedic. pburka (talk) 18:37, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pburka: I don't believe the International Encyclopedia of Women Composers meets criteria #3 at WP:ANYBIO. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:12, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we should follow the "lemming principle" like Wiktionary. If a topic appears in another encyclopedia it should generally appear in ours. pburka (talk) 11:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has reliable sources coverage in multiple book sources including highly respected reference works so she passes WP:GNG and deletion is unnecessary in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 22:06, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: I located some of the books cited in the article, and the entries were one-sentence long (in other words, she exists). How is this "significant coverage" per WP:GNG? Magnolia677 (talk) 23:05, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see no reason to delete - this is well-referenced, with bios in several reference books. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 17:10, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not pass GNG or WP:COMPOSER. Let's evaluate the sources in the article: Organ and harpsichord music by women composers : an annotated catalog literally just lists her as a woman composer for organ/harpsichord; Music (vol. 9) appears to be a one sentence obit; International encyclopedia of women composers is also just her being mentioned in a list of composers as is Women in Music: An Encyclopedic Biobibliography, Volume 2; Directory of American Women Composers lists Wiggins as a piano teacher (but again, nothing other than her name in a list); The Southwestern Musician is also just a name-drop w/o context (seems to imply that either she was in grade one or that her works were performed by a grade one class, but preview is unclear); "Front Matter" (JSTOR) says that she has composed a piece for grade 2 piano (not even a full sentence reference, also is literally an ad so wouldn't help to meet GNG anyhow); and the Library of Congress source just lists that she composed "The Ghost" (and is a copyright record, ie. unpublished primary source so doesn't matter anyway in terms of GNG). Newspapers.com is paywalled so I can't assess. Likewise, Contemporary American Composers: A Biographical Dictionary and Women Composers: A Biographical Handbook of Women's Work in Music have no preview on google books. BUT unless 2 of these last 3 sources constitute sig cov (unlikely given that two of them are used exclusively to cite that she composed individual pieces) the article as it is currently sourced does not meet WP:GNG/WP:BIO. So we must look elsewhere for sources. My search (on my university's library database and on google) found nothing (except for Mary Wiggins the stuntwoman/actor and scholar Mary Jo Wiggins). Also, there's no indication of her meeting any part of WP:COMPOSER. Samsmachado (talk) 21:35, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think the entry in International Encyclopedia of Women Composers, Contemporary American composers: a biographical dictionary, and Women composers : a handbook combined with her published compositions meet notability requirements. // Timothy :: talk 01:41, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TimothyBlue: Do you believe the International Encyclopedia of Women Composers meets criteria #3 at WP:ANYBIO? Why? Also, which of her published compositions meet the notability requirements? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:29, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Hi Magnolia677, I did go back and forth on this one. In the end it was everything above combined that swayed me. It's definitely not the strongest case for notability. Personally I hope this is closed as No Consensus (sly hint to closer :), so if someone feels strongly about it, the subject can be returned to at a later date with fresh perspectives without the prejudice of a previous keep. // Timothy :: talk 11:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being selected for inclusion in multiple major reference works is, by definition, evidence of notability. This is not the same as being covered in the mass media, which might report on something that’s trending on Twitter this week but has no real importance; inclusion in a reference work demonstrates that experts have concluded that she has enduring significance in her field.

The argument that these encyclopedia entries are not significant coverage seems to rest on a misunderstanding of what significant coverage is. WP:SIGCOV does not stipulate that a text must contain a certain number of words to be significant coverage, rather it states: Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Entries in paper encyclopedias are often brief, as they have a limited amount of space; but they do address the topic directly and in detail. Here is her entry in the International Encyclopedia of Women Composers, misleadingly characterized above as "a mention in a list". It is short but it gives all the relevant facts of her life and work: her date and place of birth/death, her education and career, and the style of her compositions. Just because it is not padded out with flowery prose does not mean it is not significant coverage. TL;DR: being included in an encyclopedia means that someone is notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Spicy (talk) 12:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can understand how this would not appear to pass SIGCOV, but Spicy's argument sums it up well; the fact that she is mentioned in several published lists of women composers is significant in itself. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:23, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly passes GNG. I do not understand how the single delete !vote can justify their position with a self-confessed inability to access most of the sources provided. Hey ho. ——Serial 16:42, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cypress Grove, Marin County, California[edit]

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

Durham calls it a locality along the Northwestern Pacific RR. Site of Audubon research center but no evidence it was ever a community. Does not appear to meet basic notability standards. Glendoremus (talk) 21:53, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:54, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:54, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tomales, California: WP:GEOLAND "informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc. – any of which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources.", there is nothing that meets non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. If someone feels it merit mention, the sentence could be copied into Tomales, California. // Timothy :: talk 01:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete I just can't see the redirect to Tomales, which is some distance away. As for it being a settlement unto itself, I see plenty of evidence against that. Mangoe (talk) 18:50, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Britain's Big Cat Mystery[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NFILM; awards are non-notable and no full-length reviews are included in the sources. Most of the sources, in fact, seemingly have nothing to do with the film itself. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 21:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 21:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the film does not yet meet inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:32, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no indication here from the content or the sources that this passed GNG. This seems to be spam for an obscure conspiracy theory. For fringe things like these there needs to be a lot more coverage to make it worth having its own article.★Trekker (talk) 17:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per FRINGE. ——Serial 16:47, 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 redirect to Corte Madera, California. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:55, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chapman, California[edit]

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

Not recognized in Durham. No indication of notability. Appears to be a neighborhood of Corte Madera. Glendoremus (talk) 21:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:51, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:51, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Corte Madera, California: WP:GEOLAND "informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc. – any of which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources.", there is nothing that meets non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. If someone feels it merit mention, the sentence could be copied into target. // Timothy :: talk 01:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete So whoever was doing GNIS entries in this area found another way to make up spurious places, because, yes, this is also one from a nautical chart, a very large scale one showing an area from Point Sur to well north of SF. A smaller scale map of the same area show no such place name, and of course it's not there on any topo. I have no idea where the charts people got their place names, but in any case the chart that this came from is so large scale that there's barely room for the placenames, so assigning this to any specific feature of any kind is pretty futile. Unless there is some testimony for it outside GNIS/NOAA, there's no reason to credit its existence. Mangoe (talk) 19:07, 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 Novato, California. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:55, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Burdell, California[edit]

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

Another railroad facility mistakenly called a populated place by GNIS. Durham and Gudde both call it a rail facility on the Northwestern Pacific RR. No other indications that it was a community. Does not meet notability standards. Glendoremus (talk) 21:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:50, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:50, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Novato, California: WP:GEOLAND "informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc. – any of which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources.", there is nothing that meets non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. If someone feels it merit mention, the sentence could be copied into target. // Timothy :: talk 01:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete I'm not seeing anything to contradict the "just a rail spot" reading, and I don't agree that it should be redirected to Novato since it isn't actually in the town. Mangoe (talk) 14:00, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Barbecue Records[edit]

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

Run-of-the-mill record label that does not satisfy corporate notability. Google search shows that it exists, and that it advertises itself on social media. We knew that. No third-party significant coverage found.

Repeatedly created in draft and article space, possibly for undisclosed payments. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Relevant Australian record label with several divisions incorporated like a radio station and a media magazine. Also the record label appears on google in a third part named Kiss Fm Australia.TomBlak152 (talk) 04:50, 22 August 2020 (UTC)Striking out blocked sockpuppet !vote Captain Calm (talk) 05:30, 22 August 2020 (UTC) [reply]

*I found that the subject appears in several pages of the media Kiss Fm Australia, do a search on the Kiss Fm Australia website.144.138.171.8 (talk) 04:56, 22 August 2020 (UTC) Striking out blocked sockpuppet !vote Captain Calm (talk) 05:30, 22 August 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Delete per nomination. The article is ostensibly about a record label, but it's mostly about the radio show they do on a notable station, and the bi-monthly magazine they publish. The label itself fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Reliably-sourced information about the radio show could be added to the Kiss FM Australia article, though that's currently written in an even more OTT promotional tone. I briefly considered moving this to an article about the show, but there's not enough reliable, secondary coverage about it for sufficient independent notability to justify a separate article. Captain Calm (talk) 06:02, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not satisfy WP:CORP or WP:GNG. Can't find sufficient independent reliable coverage.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:20, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a run of the mill small scale record label. Having gone through Category:Record labels established in 1999 we have lots of these.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:14, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The fact that every single source in the article is primary kind of upsets me. I tried looking it up on Google, but I found nothing but pages from Barbecue Records. Koridas 📣 19:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amlaan A Chakraborty[edit]

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

Promo page for a non-notable music composer. Times of India articles are 2 line articles with insignificant coverage. Other articles include passing mentions of the subject or are unreliable sources. Most of the content include no verifiable sources. Fails GNG and WP: COMPOSER - hako9 (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:COMPOSER. Most of the article's sources do not mention him, so I am unsure why they are included. The Time of India sources do not establish notability as his work is not notable and the articles are too brief to establish notability. Searched "Amlaan Chakraborty" and "Amlaan A Chakraborty" but did not find additional sources on Google, JSTOR, ProQuest or NYT. Z1720 (talk) 21:11, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Could not find anything to make article meet WP:GNG or WP:COMPOSER. Some mentions, nothing more. // Timothy :: talk 02:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 18:10, 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 07:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Justin R. Durban[edit]

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

This musician has not worked on any notable films and I couldn't find any sources. TamilMirchi (talk) 20:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 20:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 20:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 20:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG and possibly WP:TOOSOON. EverybodyEdits (talk) 00:30, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional vice presidents of the United States[edit]

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

An unsourced hodgepodge of 99% non-notable characters (many even without names). A topic like this does better as a category. ★Trekker (talk) 19:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ★Trekker (talk) 19:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★Trekker (talk) 19:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:LISTN. Like all of the fictional POTUS-related lists, it has excessive detail. Notable entries may be added to Category:Fictional Vice Presidents of the United States. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 22:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Things that need sourcing can be sourced, or removed if they prove unsourceable. However, the office of the vice-presidency in the U.S. is subject to notable fictional depictions precisely because of the possibility of the vice president ascending to the presidency through foul play or other shocking narratives. There are also well-explored conventions of vice presidents who exert exceptional influence over the presidents they serve, or who pursue separate schemes and agendas, or who are comparably naive and innocent figures unknowingly aligned with corrupt presidents. Given the potential significance of the position in fictional depictions, a list of such instances is reasonably notable and should definitely be kept and improved. BD2412 T 22:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: discussed in this article, specifically with respect to fictional female vice presidents (with some fictional male vice presidents noted for comparison); and this article touching on the tropes referenced in my !vote. Therefore, this meets WP:LISTN. BD2412 T 22:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - The topic of depictions of the position of Vice President of the United States can be a notable topic, but having this list is not a good way to do that, a list format like this only attracts cruft. A better article could be Depictions of vice president of the United States in fiction which would be best to start from skracth, I don't see anything in this list worth keeping.★Trekker (talk) 23:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - The list is inherently worth keeping because, like all lists meeting WP:LISTN, it catalogs instances of a notable phenomenon. The criteria is not more strict than that. The tendency to attract cruft can be countered by a requirement for sourcing; I have provided a source that already covers ten items on the list, and am confident that more can be found. BD2412 T 23:51, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't see how keeping this heap of cruft would be beneficial when we could just make a proper article instead. Like I said, there is nothing here of value to keep really.★Trekker (talk) 00:52, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Listcruft, fails LISTN, mostly unreferenced OR/FANCRUFT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:53, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:LISTN. Meets Listcruft. Soon someone will create a List of fictional Assistant EPA directors in Netflix series // Timothy :: talk 01:48, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article meets Listcruft.TH1980 (talk) 02:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this article fails WP:LISTN, article is mostly a bunch of unsourced fancruft. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing of value worth keeping Spiderone 14:26, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a list that does not meet WP:LISTN. Jontesta (talk) 15:28, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It mostly lacks sources. 8 listed sources for a lengthy list. One of the sources is a twitter message by a novel's writer, another is a YouTube video. The rest seems to be OR. Dimadick (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tessaracter (talk) 15:29, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to a lack of sources. Doesn't meet WP:LISTN. Archrogue (talk) 18:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is high time Wikipedia did something to be rid of this listcruft. It is getting absurd.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:38, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails LISTN in fictional spades. ——Serial 16:39, 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 07:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of tattoo TV shows[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:LISTN or WP:GNG. This has been unsourced and in CAT:NN for 6 years. Boleyn (talk) 18:51, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:05, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:05, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category:Television series set in tattoo shops exists and should be used instead. Nate • (chatter) 19:06, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that this grouping is notable or encyclopedic. Deprodded by Andrew Davidson (talk · contribs) without explanation in May 2019. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 22:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LaundryPizza03 placed that prod with a single word edit summary "prod". They showed good forbearance in not rushing straight to AfD when it was removed. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:27, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:LISTPURP and WP:NOTDUP as navigational index; we clearly have plenty of articles on TV series that are about tattooing, as seen by the contents of this list as well as Category:Tattooing television series and its subcategory Category:Television series set in tattoo shops. The nom User:Boleyn is regrettably on autopilot with these same-same, WP:VAGUEWAVE nominations that fail to raise the right questions for this kind of list of articles (notwithstanding what WP:LISTN and WP:WHYN say regarding navigational lists). postdlf (talk) 00:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think this is a keep based on WP:CLN: "Accordingly, these methods should not be considered in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others" It doesn't mean it must be kept, but it does state: "Consider that lists may include features not available to categories, and building a rudimentary list of links is a useful step in improving a list. Deleting these rudimentary lists is a waste of these building blocks" There isn't a time limit on it and someone may decide to build on this. Since its a legitimate list per WP:LISTN it has been discussed in pop culture press [3], [4], [5], [6], and I don't see why I should be deleted when WP:CLN says "Deleting these rudimentary lists is a waste of these building blocks" // Timothy :: talk 02:11, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic meets WP:LISTN – for example, see the Encyclopedia of Body Adornment. Q.E.D. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:27, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a fine navigational list corresponding to Category:Tattooing television series. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:10, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being six years old is not a reason to delete. Nom needs to stop citing this as a reason, and consider that if most of their nominated lists are being kept, they might not share the consensus interpretation of WP:LISTN. pburka (talk) 20:17, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rekman Seller[edit]

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

non-notable musician, no real in-depth coverage in French or English. Praxidicae (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:32, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, it's hard to find reliable sources for musicians from small countries, but I can't see any evidence that he meets WP:MUSICBIO yet: WP:TOOSOON. Captain Calm (talk) 06:45, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 17:57, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:27, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Muttshack Animal Rescue Foundation[edit]

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

Not notable organization. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Has a small amount of news coverage for participation in local pet adoption events (which is ordinary for any rescue or shelter organization) but nothing lasting or broad. Even their claim to fame of their 2005 Hurricane Katrina rescue effort only appears on their own website [7] and in a single press release [8] (and the book, of course, which is mentioned in the wiki article). Doesn't pass notability standards. Normal Op (talk) 18:17, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 18:17, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 18:17, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 18:17, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A search of Google Books furnishes only the one reference already mentioned. Fails WP:NOTABILITY. William Harristalk 13:00, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not notable.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 00:26, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:NCORP: one hit on GNews, one verifiable hit on GBooks, nothing on JSTOR. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 07:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bivalve, California[edit]

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

Durham calls it a rail station built at site of oyster farm. No evidence that it was ever a community and does not meet basic standard for notability. Glendoremus (talk) 18:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:33, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:33, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete Topos go back a log way here, and they consistently show only a couple of buildings by the rail line (which is long gone). The book of interesting placenames is hugely indiscriminate and not a good source of notoriety. Mangoe (talk) 13:51, 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. Will salt due to repeated recreation shown by Cryptic Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nokuthula Victoria makhubu[edit]

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

Pretty clear autobiography - Cannot find any reliable, non-WP:SPS sources online. AviationFreak💬 17:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AviationFreak💬 17:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. AviationFreak💬 17:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vanity article - not a notable model based on the fact that there is no WP:V Wm335td (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable and self-promotional article. Fails WP:NBIO ~ Amkgp 💬 18:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the opening line is horrendously non-encyclopedic. It is almost certainly an autobiography, which we need to proactively rid Wikipedia of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Already speedied many times elsewhere and salted at at least Thula victorious and Nokuthula Victoria that I remember. No previous afds I'm aware of. I'll be blacklisting once this concludes. —Cryptic 23:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I've blacklisted this now, since this person's been creating socks since at least April. No opinion whether we should let this run for form's sake. —Cryptic 00:42, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Bishonen | tålk 21:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Padmakar Vishnu Vartak[edit]

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

Sources don't establish his notabilty. All I could find was a very short obituary. Even his Hindi article[9] has no useful sources. Doug Weller talk 17:45, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Doug Weller talk 17:45, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable BLP. A a s i m 17:51, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:52, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:AUTHOR, and WP:ANYBIO. I translated his obituary: Ancient Indian science was the subject of Dr. Vartak's study. Vartak had fixed the date of ancient Indian texts according to the position of the celestial planets. He also fixed the date of all the events in Mahabharata and Ramayana. ...He has established the Vedic Science Board. He has written 17 books on the same subject in Marathi, 3 in Hindi and 4 in English. All his Marathi books have been translated into English. Books Here Wm335td (talk) 18:15, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Wm335td: exactly how does he meet either WP:AUTHOR or WP:ANYBIO? You don't seem to have given any evidence for this. Doug Weller talk
- Perhaps that this could be taken as a claim of significance, but I also see no evidence there for notability, a long list of self-published works does not change that (I have written thousands of software programs and participated in many code repositories as a maintainer; it's my work and it doesn't make me notable, for instance). —Paleo Neonate – 05:35, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The obituary notwithstanding, the books appear to have been published by his own publishing house (making them self published). Non-notable author of non-notable books.--RegentsPark (comment) 00:58, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just sayin. The translations are also published by his own house so I wouldn't put much weight on that. The obit (translated using google translate) appears to be a fluff piece and I wouldn't use that for establishing notability. Unless reliable independent sources are forthcoming, this should be deleted.--RegentsPark (comment) 20:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here are just a few links that show various other publication houses that have published his books. Bookwell, Delhi Bhartiya Kal Prakashan, Blue Bird prakashan are just a few of them. [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]

Kindly do your due diligence and fact checking before posting false statements like above. Admins of this site should take note of such behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gauri a11 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gauri a11: personal attacks don't make your arguments convincing, especially when you seem to have avoided asking my question below asking for information about the publishing houses. I did do my due diligence and searched for their websites and couldn't find the. I hope you can provide them for us. And as for Admins, RegentsPark is a well respected Administrator here.

Doug Weller talk 17:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not a personal attack but simply stating facts. As for the websites of other publication houses, you asked me that question on the Rigveda talk page yesterday and I responded to it there yesterday itself. Here they are again.

http://www.bookwellpublications.com
http://www.bkpbooks.com
https://www.bookganga.com/eBooks/Books/Index?PID=5063737727570943757

ga11 (talk) 17:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I can't find anything on their websites about whether they self-publish or are standard publishers.Doug Weller talk 17:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of NPOV at this point is so staggering that this comment above is not even worth answering.ga11 (talk) 21:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just because an author happens to run a publishing house does not automatically make him non-notable and neither does this automatically make his books non-notable. In any case, his books have been translated into several other languages published by different publishing houses so this argument doesn't hold any weight anyway. His credentials have been succinctly summarized above by Wm335td — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gauri a11 (talk • contribs) 02:57, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This Admin is struggling to even find the websites of these publishing houses, let alone evidence they are reliable. Doug Weller talk 15:14, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. You asked me the question on the Rigveda talk page yesterday and I responded to it there yesterday itself. Anyone can go there and verify this. Here they are again. A Google search of two minutes produced them for me.

http://www.bookwellpublications.com
http://www.bkpbooks.com
https://www.bookganga.com/eBooks/Books/Index?PID=5063737727570943757

ga11 (talk) 17:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me examples of books by other authors that his publishing house has published? -- Toddy1 (talk) 03:52, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ख्रिस्त परिचय अर्थात ख्रिस्ताचे हिंदुत्व (लेखक - गणेश दामोदर सावरकर) (Marathi)(Paperback) is one listed on his Marathi Wiki page which I had translated into English wiki page. I am sure there are others but I don't know them. Some other Marathi or Hindi language editors might know. ga11 (talk) 04:52, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The obituary states fringe positions (such as that the dates of mythological events have been precisely determined) in its own voice, and as such clearly isn't a reliable source. I do not see any other evidence of notability. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:34, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:34, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, self published author who hasn't received independent coverage from reliable sources. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 03:32, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia articles should be written using independent sources. —Paleo Neonate – 05:35, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 08:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft or delete. A search on Google Books suggests that there are at least passing references to him or his work in reliable third-party sources (there are probably quite a lot of false positives). If someone took the trouble to read those sources (not just the snippets available on Google Books), they might be able to create a decent article on him. Anyone trying to write an article on Vartak needs to be willing to write from a neutral point of view, which must inevitably mean writing harsh things about Vartak's work.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:35, 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 07:06, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of official matches of the Montenegro men's national water polo team[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:LISTN or WP:GNG. Has been in CAT:NN for over 3 years. Not a notable topic. Boleyn (talk) 17:08, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:58, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing of value worth keeping Spiderone 14:26, 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 07:06, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Chairmen of the Saratov Oblast Duma[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:LISTN or WP:GNG. Possible ATD is merge to Saratov Oblast, but I don't think it is worth including there. Boleyn (talk) 17:06, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Oblast chairmen are not notable. Mccapra (talk) 00:49, 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 Sweetheart Video. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by Sweetheart Video[edit]

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

Possible ATD is merge/redirect to Sweetheart Video, but I think it lacks the notability for inclusion there and would be better deleted. Boleyn (talk) 17:04, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE Sweetheart Video article is rather short, so no reason to split the awards to their own article. Both of the awards have their own articles, and seem notable in this industry. Dream Focus 17:19, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Commercial industry awards tend to be promotional fluff, and this list doesn't appear to be an exception, especially since these awards lack independent RS coverage. Industry awards are of questionable value in company articles. Additionally, I'm not seeing the WP:CORPDEPTH coverage supporting Sweetheart Video itself. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the industry awards are only mentioned in media designed to sell pornography, and not given coverage anywhere else, they probably aren't notable. I started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability#notability_of_porn_awards Dream Focus 17:39, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't object to a merge. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 23:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to parent article, can and should be easily incorporated there, in the existing section that just links to this article. postdlf (talk) 18:00, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above, not independently notable, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, is most appropriate. Gleeanon409 (talk) 08:27, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to main article. There is nothing particularly notable about this subject. Orientls (talk) 13:28, 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 07:06, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rinat Malzagov[edit]

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

Procedural nom for a singer who (I believe) clearly fails WP:SINGER. No equivalents in Cyrillic alphabet Wikipedias. Previous AfD closed as no consensus in 2006, and things have changed a lot since then. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:32, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:32, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:32, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the personal website of a subject and an interview with them are not even close to enough to be anywhere near passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:27, 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 16:49, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Fakhruddin of Egypt[edit]

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

Fails GNG, no substantial coverage Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very short article, notability not established, looks like deposed monarchy cruft. PatGallacher (talk) 16:16, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 16:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Smeat75 (talk) 18:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he was born 36 years after the monarchy was abolished, this article is written as if it still exists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Hope springs eternal, Johnpacklambert. I, for one, am still awaiting the return of King Arthur. Drmies (talk) 21:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ---I agree with John Pack Lambert--Cts499m (talk) 21:11, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nika2020 (talk) 21:54, 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. Very nice work by Russ. This is the kind of content one would like to see to show notability beyond the family. I will rename as suggested. Tone 16:52, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Duke Carl Gregor of Mecklenburg[edit]

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

Mostly deposed monarch cruft, his career as a music and art historian does not appear to add up to much. PatGallacher (talk) 16:08, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:29, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep per WP:NAUTHOR, multiple independent reviews of multiple works. Reviews of his books include [15][16][17][18][19][20][21]. Slightly weak only because some of the reviews are a fair ways towards the brief side. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With additional reviews found and newspaper coverage for a slightly weak GNG case, this now looks like a solid keep to me. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment his academic background probably satisfies WP:NACADEMIC --Devokewater (talk) 16:52, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per WP:TNT, unless the article is significantly changed. There could be an article here on his academic career, as there are multiple published reviews of multiple books, enough I think for WP:AUTHOR [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27][28] [29] [30] [31]. But the genealogy cruft and claims to three-generations-dead titles need to go. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:41, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:HEY and WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG as a member of high European nobility and WP:Prof as a jazz musicologist. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:06, 21 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]
- He is not a member of any actual nobility. He is one of numerous clutchers at titles that became extinct three generations earlier, in 1918. We should not be saying in Wikipedia's voice that he is a duke. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:54, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree about Wikipedia voice, although I don't think what's in the article now is so bad as for TNT. Meanwhile, he has gotten some coverage as a member of a former line of nobility, e.g. [32][33][34]. Especially since he was mostly active before the internet era, these might be borderline for WP:GNG. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:12, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Remove the titles & the pedigree, there's no great evidence of independent notability. --Lockley (talk) 04:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've added his reviewed books to the article along with more career details, have been clearer about the "former" part of his former-noble-title last name and cut WP:UNDUE detail about his family, and have expanded sourcing. If this ends in a keep, the article should be moved to "Carl Gregor Herzog zu Mecklenburg", as the name he operated under (including in contemporaneous English language reviews). @David Eppstein: do you still have serious remaining TNT concerns? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:05, 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. As Vexations points out, the content is unverifiable, which makes deletion mandatory per WP:V. Sandstein 08:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maanlicht over de Javaanse rijstvelden[edit]

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

Non-notable painting. Article has a single source, and I cannot find others. Created by an SPA who only mostly edits articles on the painter Willem Jan Pieter van der Does. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your interest and help! I do realize that it is not perfect, and regarding about my SPA, yes I am not a senior editor here in Wikipedia, I am just a young person who wanted to share my stories and knowledge regarding about the artist's life and importance in carrying the history... In my opinion, every page in Wikipedia is a work in progress, and it should be allowed as long as it showed an interest and history in some kind... I, again, not an expert in writing in Wikipedia, I'm trying my best, and with this I am hoping that it is not about what's full and perfect, but rather about a public knowledge an in this matter people could appreciate more about an artwork and part of a history in this world :). An artwork cant be perfect in it's provenance and history, but it could widely impact the public in seeing the history itself. Thank you very much for your interest and time in considering my progress! I truly appreciate it! Hendricolucky (talk) 11:18, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hendricolucky: the very short answer to that is that we do not have articles on everything. We only have articles on the English Wikipedia that are on notable things. Notability is determined by quality and depth of published sources.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:18, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - into the article on the artist Willem Jan Pieter van der Does, as it seems that he is notable. (His article needs cleaning up. @Hendricolucky:, since you are interested in the artist merging may be a way of improving the encyclopedia and not totally losing info on this painting. Just a thought...). Netherzone (talk) 13:16, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete. The painting does not appear to be the subject of a body of writing. Ewulp (talk) 00:23, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are no sources, and all content is WP:OR. collectie.wereldculturen.nl has an number of works by van der Does, but none by this title. Vexations (talk) 12:05, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge As contains useful and interesting info. Ceoil (talk) 14:19, 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. Tone 16:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oldroyd Publishing Group[edit]

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

Procedural nom for a non-notable publisher. (CC DoubleGrazing, who recently prodded this.) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:34, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:34, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:34, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to suggest notability (WP:GNG / WP:COMPANY); plus, would be incongruous of me to vote otherwise. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:COMPANY --Devokewater (talk) 16:47, 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 16:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Four Foods Group[edit]

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

WP:PROMO for a business that fails WP:NCORP. Only hits are non-RS press releases and trade journals. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:29, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:29, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:29, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:29, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:COMPANY --Devokewater (talk) 16:54, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Article was speedy deleted per WP:R2 by admin Cryptic, after nomination here (non-admin closure) - hako9 (talk) 08:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gross Domestic Knowledge Product[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to be a widely used term. The only source mentioned in the article is a primary source, the non-notable organization whose employee coined this term. Daiyusha (talk) 14:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a WP:NEOLOGISM. 2 (!) hits on Google Scholar. No one has picked this up. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:39, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 17:34, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neologism indeed. I personally never came across this term till today. Search results aren't any promising. Non-existent citations for Umberto Sulpasso on google scholar. - hako9 (talk) 17:56, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Should still be deleted (at Draft:Gross Domestic Knowledge Product) despite its creator moving it into the draft namespace (and a bunch of others on the way). No amount of editing will make this acceptable. —Cryptic 03:44, 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. Sandstein 08:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mandar Agashe[edit]

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

Clearly fails GNG, sources which are there majorly aren't about him Dtt1^Talk 03:09, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dtt1^Talk 03:09, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dtt1^Talk 03:09, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Salvio

14:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not pass WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN; at first glance, looks like a notable subject but, upon further inspection, hardly any mentions in any of the sources except trivial mentions Spiderone 22:47, 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 keep. The article meets WP:GNG and WP:NONPROFIT (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 14:51, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Root Capital[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, plenty of business listings on charity sites, but no independent coverage in reliable sources. Kleuske (talk) 07:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per User:Kleuske.Knox490 (talk) 04:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 07:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' Coverage in Capital and the Common Good (Columbia University Press), Fourteen Points for the Twenty-First Century (University of Kentucky Press), Sustainable Economy and Emerging Markets (T&F) and other books, Americas Quarterly article, more than meets GNG or NONPROFIT guidelines. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:56, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Salvio

14:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep based on sources found by Eddie891. But... WP:NCORP / NONPROFIT has a high bar, and coverage in Capital and the Common Good and Fourteen Points for the Twenty-First Century doesn't seem substantial (I can't see the whole text), so may not count for notability. Americas Quarterly counts. This appears notable / borderline notable, no objection to userifying, relisting, or a new AfD. Widefox; talk 22:59, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. $Salvio$ 09:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lawyers to the Rescue[edit]

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

Non-notable organization. See also redirect Spencer M. Aronfeld. Normal Op (talk) 08:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 08:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 08:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2011-05 ↻ restored, 2011-05 ✗ G6

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

Salvio

14:20, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor the Traction Engine[edit]

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

Only one of the refs is both independent and reliable, the biography of the author. Everything else I'm finding is either primary sources or unreliable. This character fails WP:GNG. Hog Farm _Bacon 14:19, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 14:19, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 14:19, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 14:19, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 14:19, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nothing reliably-sourced to merge here. Redirecting doesn't really work per WP:XY, since Trevor is listed on both the list of TV characters and the list of book characters. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 14:56, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the current article clearly fails WP:NFICTION. Do ping me if better sources are found. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:54, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG, and there's nothing showing it has the potential to meet it. TTN (talk) 13:26, 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 keep. A discussion on merging with Tony La Russa does need the article to be at AfD. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Rescue Foundation[edit]

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

Non-notable organization. No citations after 15 years as a wiki article, and my BEFORE search turned up only primary and non-RS sources. Normal Op (talk) 09:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 09:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 09:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:00, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. (The article is also badged WP:DOGS and WP:CATS; I would have thought they would be included in the AfD alert.) William Harristalk 02:39, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@William Harris: I use Twinkle to start AfDs, and Twinkle doesn't seem to have 'dog' or 'cat' available, hence the 'animal' category. I'm not that experienced with the Delsort stuff, and in some cases I've tried adding wikiprojects but they're just not available. I have used Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Flat to search for other projects to add with Delsort, and there's no dog or cat there either. I have found, however, that if the Talk page has a wikiproject listed there, then an AfD will show up in each wikiproject's AfD lists the following day, when they have those on their project pages. If you know of another way and can tell me, I'm happy to know of it and will use it in the future. Normal Op (talk) 02:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea how it works, but you are correct that bot updates can take up to 24 hours to come into effect. Let us see what happens. William Harristalk 03:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it has now appeared on WP:DOGS. William Harristalk 01:43, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sourcing is not enough to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:38, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to not being notable and the lack of sourcing.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:30, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or merge to Tony La Russa. I made my a mistake in hastily closing this as delete, but it seems there is a lot of coverage as you look beyond paywalls. WSJ, a brief Oakland Tribune article called 'Contra Costa: Tony La Russa's Animal Rescue Foundation celebrates 25 years', profiles in various California-area newspapers, a Chicago Tribune profile (non-paywalled version: here), Sports Illustrated, Mercury News, LA Times and more. That's enough to meet GNG or nonprofit, imo. Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Salvio

14:17, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As per above, there are references behind paywalls. Whiteguru (talk) 12:20, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable NGO from California. The provided references are reliable. Priyanjali singh (talk) 13:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - the sources found by Eddie seem promising. Unclear if a merge would be better, but that can be proposed on the talk page. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tony La Russa ~~Delete~~ I've checked out the references mentioned above and none meet the criteria for establishing notability. All rely exclusively on interviews with the founder with zero "Independent Content", failing WP:ORGIND. Also fails WP:NONPROFIT as it is a small organization with what looks like 7 employees. Topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. (Edit: There isn't anything worthwhile to "merge" that isn't already in the Tony La Russa article already, so just a redirect is required) HighKing⁺⁺ 21:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

... which is exactly why a merge could be considered- because it’s primarily notable in the context of La Russa himself. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Eddie891, I've changed to redirect. I can't see anything worthwhile to "merge" that isn't already in the other article. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:18, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 08:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David William Parry[edit]

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

Non-notable poet. Fails WP:BIO Repeatedly deleted. scope_creep^Talk 22:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt this page and David Parry (poet). I am not convinced that any of the sources listed in the last AfD establish notability, and I was not able to find any of my own. This article looks like a massive WP:REFBOMB. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:26, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AleatoryPonderings Thank you, however, I do not agree with your statement because I do not think we should base our conclusion on a cursory review of references discussed over a previously deleted page. After all, this new article is not only different in every single aspect, but every reference provided supports the content of each account. As such, in this instance, we are not dealing with a WP:REFBOMB, but something that is aiming to maintain reliability. Posen607 (talk) 05:20, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I count exactly one reliable source in this article. See [35]. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 01:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AleatoryPonderings (talk) Thank you for your message. However, I do not agree with your statement because I notice several very important reliable references in the original article have completely disappeared? Examples include a review of Parry's first book, from the London MagazineRudgley, Richard (2005). "Wine, Smoke, and Flesh". The London Magazine: 99-103., which is a published reference from a reliable source (first founded in 1732); the BBC; "Parry: The book world has become commercialized". BBC. not to mention an interview with E-International Relations,"Interview - David Parry". which is another — reliable — source, considering its reputation as a peer-reviewed journal. Furthermore, as I previously noted, the context of Parry's notability must be assessed across borders (Azerbaijan, Central Asia and the UK). All meaning, other published references include the Astana Times, Witte, Michelle. "Winners Announced at Open Central Asia Literature Festival in Almaty". The Astana Times., and the TEAS Magazine, "Ancient Links between Azerbaijan and Northern Europe discussed in London". amongst others. Regards. Posen607 (talk) 04:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Firstly, please, note that the individual is not solely a poet. As it is already indicated in the article, he is also a dramaturge (theatre director, producer, actor), essayist and pastor, amongst other things. Therefore, his notability has to be noted in combination with multiple sources over a number of fields as opposed to one WP:BASIC. Secondly, references support the content of the article, and demonstrate the individual's international notability (in the UK, Azerbaijan and Central Asia), through interviews with E-International Relations ("the world's leading open access website for students and scholars of international politics") and the BBC, or articles about his professional work in The European Azerbaijan Society Magazine (TEAS), OCA Magazine (London), The Astana Times as well as reviews about his books, for example, in the the London Magazine. Obviously, some sources are printed and not available online. Where this is the case, there are specific details about the name, title, journal, year of publication and relevant pages of each source. Lastly, as far as I am aware, speaker candidates for TEDx events undergo rigorous selection processes (according to each individual's significance) before they are chosen as participants. This individual is already listed on the TED Talks website as a speaker in 2019 and again in 2020. All making me convinced this figure meets notability standards. Posen607 (talk) 05:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC) — Posen607 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. AleatoryPonderings (talk) Thank you for your comment. Nevertheless, this is simply not true, whereas as an academic, I simply cannot work full-time on every other Wikipedia article, which is why I focus solely on my fields of expertise. Posen607 (talk) 04:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I am not even sure why this is being discussed since I have just found an extensive, 5-page review of David William Parry's most recent book by Revd Brian Talbot in the electronic journal of The General Conference of the New Church, a UK branch of The New Church (Swedenborgian), which is a notable international institution. This reference clearly supports Parry's current notability considering his background as a pastor and theologist, amongst the many other sources already included in the article, some of which more than obviously abide by our community standards Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, namely in terms of reliable and independent secondary sources. CambridgeGraduate (talk) 20:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its curious that you just arrived this morning and are classed as a WP:SPA. About every 1/3rd Afd I do is full of WP:SOCKS and they always get blocked and votes struck, and the article is usually deleted. It is very curious how you happen to turn up at this Afd. scope_creep^Talk 20:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

scope_creep Forgive me, but hailing from the University of Cambridge, I suppose I am used to a little more courtesy. Either way, the point still stands, while this is a significant new reference. I may be new at this, but hope to be seen as someone having a reasonable level of skill. CambridgeGraduate (talk) 21:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC article—in Kyrgyz—pointed to above appears to be an interview. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:52, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CambridgeGraduate (talk) thank you and I have made a note of your reference and its details. Posen607 (talk) 13:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As Posen607 presents the issue about notability. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 03:50, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I count exactly one reliable source in the article. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 01:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - AleatoryPonderings (talk) Thank you and, please, see above for my response on this matter, which lists several other reliable sources. Regards. Posen607 (talk) 04:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this could use a lot of trimming down, and elimination of the self-referential or non-independent sources. Bearian (talk) 23:21, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I am doing that right now, and I am finding a lot of fabricated and misleading content, including several "sources" which are Wikipedia mirrors. So far, the only unambiguously reliable/mainstream source I have found is [36] (The Guardian) and it's a namedrop. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:25, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AleatoryPonderings: Thanks for that. I'll continue working on it, tonight. This article has been deleted 6 times, I think it is 6 times, so I would like to see exactly what has changed. scope_creep^Talk 07:22, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed a whole bunch low-quality or bad references, non-notable awards and dodgy claims of notability, like he is actor, and promotional references. There is not a lot there. What I did notice there is load of ISSU references, that are very low-quality as well as most refs seem to be primary. There is not real secondary sources, to speak of. There is a Tedx source which is being used but seems to be self-organised, from Lambeth. I suspect that is probably where they are. It is all him talking. I'll have another look at it tonight. scope_creep^Talk 08:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a Tedx url that User:CambridgeGraduate posted on his talk page, [37], also organised from Lambeth, with Parry on the list of speakers. scope_creep^Talk 08:25, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Took off another 3k. About 6-8 refs are event listings and announcements. scope_creep^Talk 14:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It is also worth mentioning that the articles in other languages were all created very recently by Posen607, apparently by machine translation. Readers should use caution when evaluating notability based on those other articles. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is of a sufficient size that each reference can be examined, which I'll do. scope_creep^Talk 17:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reference review.

Ref is his own biography page. Not independent. Can't be used to establish notability.
Ref is own book. Can't be used to establish notability.
Ref is own book. Can't be used to establish notability.
Ref is own book. Can't be used to establish notability.
Ref is own book. Can't be used to establish notability.
Ref: https://www.ted.com/talks/rev_david_parry_haralampi_g_oroschakoff_a_chit_chat_on_conceptual_art. This is a Tedx, organised by its owners, Not TED itself. The other person on the speaker list is: Haralampi G. Oroschakoff, who is mentioned in the URL above in [3]. It is NOT independent.
Ref: http://www.today.az/news/entertainment/77024.html Quote by Parry. Not independent. Passing mention. Not in-depth.
Ref: https://issuu.com/teasweb/docs/tm-11-12/5 Another quote by Parry. Happy he has found a friend. Not independent either. Passing mention in several pages. Can't be used to establish notability.
Ref: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/355027 Says on the page, Journalist invited to see it, and Parry's comments. Passing mention again. Can't be used to establish notability.
Ref: https://issuu.com/teasweb/docs/tm-13-08 Interview with Nick Pelas. Name drop on Parry. 1 sentence. Can't be used to establish notability. Very low-quality ISSU ref, which indicate community nature of their theatre group. No regional, city, nor country coverage.

I'm not going to do any more of the remaining eight references. They are all much the same. There is not even WP:THREE sufficient references to establish notability. Nothing in-depth, nothing intellectually-independent and WP:SECONDARY. I'm not convinced its passes WP:NAUTHOR either. It is an obscure publisher. The review that was included above is WP:PROMOTION, that includes selling the book. It doesn't inspire confidence, as much as I can see. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 21:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Examination each new of the new references that have been added by Posen607

Ref: https://issuu.com/teasweb/docs/tm-12-12/6 Another low-quality Issuu article of the The European Azerbaijan Society that states: David Parry, the renowned author, gave a presentation. Not independent, not secondary.
Ref: Rudgley, Richard (2005). "Wine, Smoke, and Flesh". The London Magazine: 99-103. I was unable to track this down, but it is WP:RS. Assuming the same standard per WP:AGF, as the other references, its likely to be WP:PUFF and PR'ish.
Ref: https://astanatimes.com/2014/11/winners-announced-open-central-asia-literature-festival-almaty/ states: Poet David Parry of the U.K. and other Western writers commented. This is another passing mention.
Ref: https://www.e-ir.info/2018/12/06/interview-david-parry An very short interview. Not independent. Not secondary. In the opening sentence it states: Rev. David Parry is an award-winning theatre director, producer, author, poet and Valentinian priest. None of it is true. I've not seen any evidence being him being a poet. Not a single poem. He is NOT an actor or a dramatist, per WP:NACTOR He held several community plays. He is not a director per WP:DIRECTOR or WP:PRODUCER. It is all WP:PUFF, just like what happened to the article. Certainly an author in an fringe publisher, but were not swimming in reviews.
https://www.bbc.com/kyrgyz/entertainment/2015/01/150116_iv_devid_parry_literature BBC Kyrgyzstan interview. Reliable and independent, but very short and no biographical details and also no name editor name the article, which suggests its a press-release of sorts.

Another attempt to present a supposed poet, author, dramatist, writer. No indication of notability. No major reviews of his work in the mainstream press. The Guardian reference comes closest to a mainstream reference, but it's not about him, so is a passing mention. As an author he should be able to pass WP:NAUTHOR but the books are obscure, from an obscure publisher, they have never been reviewed in depth, from multiple sources. There is no in-depth, independent, secondary sources of his work, in the mainstream press. Not one. The whole exercise of puffing the article up, is to disguise the fact that there nothing there. Hence the reason he has been deleted six times. scope_creep^Talk 07:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment scope_creep^Talk Thank you for your comments, even though I do not agree with your assessment of the above references or your final conclusion. I have listed some of my suggestions below:

Unfortunately, not all references are online. This is firmly stated in Wikipedia:Notability: "Sources do not have to be available online or written in English". Furthermore, you are inappropriately applying WP:PUFF because I have a printed copy of the aforementioned London Magazine reference myself, and I would be more than happy to upload it online as per Wikipedia:Offline sources. Please, note that "While Wikipedia:Articles for deletion may sometimes appear to be a battleground, it is not the venue for unfounded accusations of 'wikipuffery.'"
TEDx events are all fully licensed under TED Talks. In other words, speakers are accepted if TED approves only. This, to my mind, is more than enough to evidence Parry's reputation in the field of art (the subject of his talk), and satisfy the following guideline in WP:NAUTHOR, "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique." To further emphasise his proven notability, Parry is speaking at this year's TEDxLambeth event yet again (https://www.ted.com/tedx/events/38604).
The BBC Kyrgyzstan reference (https://www.bbc.com/kyrgyz/entertainment/2015/01/150116_iv_devid_parry_literature) is an obvious reliable, independent and secondary source, and cannot simply be dismissed. Indeed, it distinctly says Parry is a "British poet", while the questions illustrate the fact he has demonstrable international reputation as a poet. This decidedly fulfils the guideline that the material discussed "may be secondary, if the interviewee is recognized as an expert on the subject being reported." Undoubtedly, then, your above statement that he is not a "poet" is absolutely NOT true, because the BBC (an independent and reliable source) clearly recognises Parry as a "poet". Either way, you can read Parry's collections of poetry yourself in the British Library as per WP:BKTS."Grammar of Witchcraft". British Library. "Caliban's Redemption". British Library.

Having one's work in the British Library—one of the largest libraries in the world, which collects virtually every book published in the United Kingdom—does not confer notability. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AleatoryPonderings (talk) According to Wikipedia's own guidelines having books in a National Library is essential towards being notable. Also, his most recent book is registered in the catalogue of the National Library of Australia (https://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/8077233?lookfor=mount%20athos%20inside%20me&offset=1&max=107718). CambridgeGraduate (talk) 16:52, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reference provided by CambridgeGraduate (talk) is a review of Parry's most recent book by The New Church (Swedenborgian), which was founded in 1787. This review is a reliable, independent and secondary source and is highly appropriate in this case because Mount Athos Inside Me (Parry's third book) concerns theology, which can only be assessed by a religious institution – not all books are commercially published, of course! The review "contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources" as per WP:SECONDARY.
To add another point of reference, Parry is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts. Indeed, as it is stated in the "Fellowship" section of the Wikipedia entry: "Fellows must have demonstrated a high level of achievement related to the arts". The RSA is a prestigious institution founded in 1754 in London, something that, in my opinion, shows he is NOT a "fringe" poet or author. What is more, Fellows are reviewed by a "formal admissions panel", whilst To corroborate, please, find attached a clear reference to his Fellowship here."RSA Fellowship". and a reference to Wikipedia's notability guidelines regarding royal societies here Wikipedia:Notability (academics): "The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers)."

This claim is highly misleading. Parry is a member of the RSA fellowship, not a Fellow of the Royal Society. You can apply to be a member of the RSA fellowship—which is akin to a "friends of the RSA" organization—online. Being named a member of the Royal Society is a prestigious honour. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AleatoryPonderings (talk) to my certain knowledge, there is a complete difference between membership and being elected as a Fellow. Indeed, anyone going through the Fellowship process needs to be initially proposed before being seconded following which an Admissions Panel agrees to confer the status of Fellow. So said, Parry is listed as a Full Fellow on the RSA website through their "FIND A FELLOW" service, wherein his number is 22926 as listed on the URL. CambridgeGraduate (talk) 16:52, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All in all, every single other reference equally adds to Parry's notability across the board. Lastly, as far as I am aware, the article has been deleted once only — NOT 6 times! — whilst I am still convinced of Parry's significant notability as it meets all the criteria mentioned above. Posen607 (talk) 14:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Salvio

13:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Posen607 Your whole approach on this Afd as WP:SPA is to try obscure, obfuscate and disguise the fact this person non-notable, by presenting a whole series of smoke and mirrors references. I find it funny when you present a list of references that you claim are valid, when you personally WP:PUFFed the article to above 50k in size, with 128 references, where a full 110 of them were found to be totally invalid and non-RS. Examples included event listings, image references, raw search urls, loads of blog refs, self-published sources and claims to notability that don't exist or can't be proven, like being an actor or theatre producer. And no you present another set of supposed reference. scope_creep^Talk 14:21, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at some of your scope_creep^Talk bewildering comments, I find your approach similar to a pot calling the kettle black, or in other words akin to a squid deliberately squirting a confusing cloud of ink to disguise its movements. To be sure, you yourself have adopted these tactics to achieve your own end. For instance, you have removed references, which contradict your argument, exaggerated the number of deletions significantly from 1 to 6 and misrepresented a number of points within the article as clearly seen below. CambridgeGraduate (talk) 16:52, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the reference again:

London Magazine. I managed to find a copy. There was three poets discussing their poetry in a article. It didn't focus on person, it is WP:RS and its independent, but it is not in-depth by any means.

Regarding the London Magazine, Parry is very clearly reviewed in a five page analysis, called Wine, Smoke, and Flesh, in which case he is manifestly not one poet amongst three, discussing their own work. This is clearly a WP:PUFF on your part especially since this journal is not available online. Perhaps Posen607 (talk) can upload scans to clarify this point once and for all?

Tedx event can be setup by anybody including myself. Like any controlled system, the entry is rigorous, but doesn't indicate notability holding one yourself. CambridgeGraduate (talk) 16:52, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As for TEDx, Parry was one of 12 speakers in their overall 2019 programme, which boasted a very high calibre group of participants - each of whom was invited to speak due to their notability. At no point was Parry an organiser, is not listed as so and was clearly chosen because of his reputation in art literature (https://www.ted.com/tedx/events/33524).

The review [38] isn't mainstream. It on a very obscure site @ [39] Can't make head nor tail of it. Where is the rest of the reviews that are needed to satisfy WP:NAUTHOR.

When speaking of the General Conference, we are of course talking about the Swedenborgian (New Church) and not the Church of England, in which case, it is merely partisan and point-scoring to say that this is an obscure website. Instead, this is a link belonging to that denomination in its entirety, and not other Church body. As such, the review is reliable, informative as well as in-depth, while there is a full Wikipedia link that can shed further light in this instance The New Church (Swedenborgian). CambridgeGraduate (talk) 16:52, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FRSA. It is paid service. Anybody can join. It entirely Non-RS.

scope_creep^Talk 14:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This item has already been answered above. CambridgeGraduate (talk) 16:52, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As Scope_creep notes, the article has changed significantly since it was nominated. Participants are invited to compare the nominated version and the current version for claims about RS and N. Endorse Scope_creep's reasoning about both in the comment above. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:41, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AleatoryPonderings (talk) I welcome additional impartial voices who are not simply trying to win an argument, while I singularly do not endorse all the points raised by both scope_creep^Talk and you. CambridgeGraduate (talk) 16:52, 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. Fenix down (talk) 11:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2013–14 Alfreton Town F.C. season[edit]

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

I know it's a C-class and is well sourced, but it fails WP:NSEASONS, and there is no other reason that I can see to keep it. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:51, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:51, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:NSEASONS. Plus, I think it's way to detailed in a not neutral way and it would take a fundamental rewrite to fix it. So, TNT also applies. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 5 7 20:41, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:47, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above, fails NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 09:50, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Spiderone 20:42, 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. Sandstein 08:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Friedrich Wilhelm, Prince of Wied[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was the subject of a deletion discussion a short time ago. In retrospect it may have been causing confusion to deal with two people at once. However some people have interpreted this discussion as delete, others thought it was a weak keep. This ought to be clarified. PatGallacher (talk) 13:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural delete Looking at the other AfD it was six delete votes to four keep votes, and all of the keeps where along the lines of "Keep because he was the head of a dynastic family." Whereas, the delete votes actually focused on the guidelines. Given that, It is extremely bizarre there was any confusion about things and that the article was recreated instead of just being deleted. Unless I'm missing something this seems like a pretty clear case where the outcome of the original AfD should have been respected by deleting the article. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:05, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The page had not been recreated. Techie3 (talk) 03:57, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete leaders of powerless, deposed families are not default notable, there is no reason to have this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources and does not appear to be a notable topic. A a s i m 17:54, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , non notable person. Smeat75 (talk) 18:37, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Tone, closeing admin for last AFD. Techie3 (talk) 03:57, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's leave this nomination to run its course. --Tone 08:16, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A wide range of business activities in several countries (Germany, The Netherlands & Canada). One of the largest private forest owners in British Columbia. I think it's a little sad to see so many user speaking for the deletion of this article rather than spend some time on improving it. Clearly there are material and sources for his business activities that could provide for an article of the double length of the present version. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 21:36, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Most of the article is about Friedrich's family. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 18:01, 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. Fenix down (talk) 11:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2014–15 Barnet F.C. season[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSEASONS as the club was playing non-league football that season. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 5 7 20:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- fails WP:NSEASONS and there is only one sentence on this article. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 23:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:47, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above, fails NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 09:50, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's a Conference winning season. That can pass GNG if the time was put in to sort out the prose. Govvy (talk) 18:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Spiderone 20:42, 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. Fenix down (talk) 11:25, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2014–15 Grimsby Town F.C. season[edit]

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

The article only has one ref and it fails WP:NSEASONS due to the fact that the club was playing non-league football that season. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 5 7 20:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:47, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above, fails NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 09:50, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Spiderone 20:42, 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 07:06, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sally Anne Golden[edit]

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

Biography of an actor who appeared, always as very minor characters, in only three films. There's no WP:RS, and I can't find any substantive mention of her in any source beyond a basic database entry (e.g. IMDb, BFI, Findagrave). Her career squarely fails to meet the WP:NACTOR criterion "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films" (never mind the other two). Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 13:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 13:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:07, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not an IMDb mirror, and 3 very minor parts does not notability make.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:16, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Also, the claim that at age 70 (at the time) she is the oldest actor in the Friday the Thirteenth film series is implausible. Maybe in that film, but that's hardly a basis for notability. BD2412 T 06:23, 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 speedy deleted. El_C 14:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mujeeb Ur Rehman Malik[edit]

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

Borderlines A7, not notable, fails both WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:44, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:44, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:44, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete The article's creator is writing a bio on themselves, judging by the creator's userpage. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:37, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - thankfully, WP is not LinkedIn. Social media sources do not establish notability. Not close to passing GNG. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 12:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I CSDed it. That may be procedurally improper, but this article meets multiple criteria for a speedy deletion. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 13:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: WP:G11 - hako9 (talk) 13:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 09:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prakash Ambegaonkar[edit]

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

Delete, The article doesn't represent notability. A. Shohag (ping_me||Talk) 08:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any solid results through a websearch. He's the author of this book [40], and he's held some managerial positions in some non-notable companies. (Nominator, your !vote is implied. You don't need to mention delete in the nomination)- hako9 (talk) 10:29, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 10:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 10:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 10:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the breadth of sourcing is not there to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:58, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article doesn't represent notability. Nika2020 (talk) 22:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question for the admin. The article was originally created in 2008, the first revision is here. I wonder how did it survived for more than a decade! How actually? A. Shohag (ping_me||Talk)
Delete No significant independant coverage. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:41, 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 09:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FC Turon[edit]

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG. WP:TEAM provides no guidance. // Timothy :: talk 08:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 08:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 08:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:47, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - plays in second tier, has played in national Cup (see Soccerway) - meets general team notability guidance at WP:FOOTYN. Giant Snowman 09:50, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:07, 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 09:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KAD DVD[edit]

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

DVD distributor. Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRIT. WP:BEFORE showed no WP:IS WP:SIGCOV that addresses the organization directly and in-depth. // Timothy :: talk 08:17, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 08:17, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 08:17, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. BilCat (talk) 07:11, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 10:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No valid arguments made towards for the merge and it is single vote against the keep vote where participants agree (come in consensus) with AleatoryPonderings. I find nothing to close this as a redirect cum merge. Hence keeping this. (non-admin closure) Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 06:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto Regional Real Estate Board[edit]

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRIT. WP:BEFORE showed WP:ROUTINE local coverage, but not WP:SIGCOV / WP:IS that covers the subject directly and in depth which would indicate that the subject is "worthy of note". // Timothy :: talk 08:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 08:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 08:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SIGCOV. Toronto real estate is a buzzy topic so it gets hits, but [41] is the only thing approaching SIGCOV I could find, and it's not good enough. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, with thanks to Mindmatrix for reminding me to search under the old name. Here are some sources. NB: I found most on ProQuest; these are major papers so they're probably on Newspapers.com/similar, but I don't have access to that.^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]

References

^ "Archives of Australian Composers". opus.its.unimelb.edu.au.
^ Perkins, Tara (2014-07-25). "Top court move reignites Toronto Real Estate Board battle". The Globe and Mail. ISSN 0319-0714.
^ Johnson, Karen (2013-05-14). "Competition Bureau Appeals Ruling in Toronto Real-Estate Board Case". The Wall Street Journal.
^ "Toronto Real Estate Board cracks down on realtors sharing sales data". The Globe and Mail. 2018-08-29. ISSN 0319-0714.
^ Melnitzer, Julius (2014-02-05). "Federal court says Toronto Real Estate Board subject to Competition Act". National Post. ISSN 1486-8008.
^ "Toronto Real Estate Board's survival at stake: battle over listing service". National Post. 2000-09-13. ISSN 1486-8008.
^ The Canadian Press (September 26, 2017). "Toronto Real Estate Board raises concerns about possible vacancy tax". CBC News.
^ Noakes, Susan (September 18, 2018). "TREB says it has released disputed real estate data". CBC News.
^ "Toronto Real Estate Board wins extension days before deadline to publish home sales data online". CBC News. July 29, 2016.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are more hits using the organization's previous name. (For example, in Real Estate Riches: A Money-Making Game Plan for the Canadian Investor and Commercial Real Estate Investing in Canada: The Complete Reference for Real Estate Professionals.) There are also hits for "TREB" and "TREBnet" on Google News (though many of these are press releases). This also warrants a search of (Canadian) newspaper archives, given the age of this organization. Mind matrix 18:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The change from TREB to TRREB does indeed cause some difficulty in finding articles. With that said, I'd recommend considering them one and the same (it's just a name change). In terms of recent articles referencing the new name, regional and national newspapers are regularly releasing monthly trend reports, for example: ^[1] references TRREB in the opening article. In terms of articles critical of TRREB, there's this one from a few days ago:^[2]

References

^ "Toronto housing market roars back to life in July — with prices shooting up by 17%". thestar.com. 6 August 2020.
^ Kalinowski, Tess (18 August 2020). "TRREB cut off its listings data to property search site Bungol two weeks ago. The website still doesn't know why". thestar.com.

Dhritzkiv (talk) 18:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 15:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm sure it is a fine organization, but the above sources are WP:ROUTINE coverage. The question is what makes this entity stand out for an entry in an encyclopedia per WP:N? I'd be glad to switch to keep if there is something beyond WP:ROUTINE; if I'm missing something, please let me know. // Timothy :: talk 17:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- A lot of the coverage of this org is routine, it's true—especially given how breathless TO real estate coverage can be—but I have trouble seeing how the sources in the two {{reflist-talk}} templates above are routine. I count three decent-size articles in CBC News, Canada's national broadcaster, that feature the org in the headline. Here's another: [42]. IMV, "routine" in this context means something like "associated with regular, generic events" such as quarterly housing data reports. While some of these articles reference those reports, they don't seem like generic coverage that WP:ROUTINE is intended to weed out. It's an arguable point, though. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AleatoryPonderings. MB 01:37, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Toronto My first choice is delete, but Merge is acceptable as a compromise second choice; it works as well as a delete and editors at the merge target can work on it. // Timothy :: talk 03:01, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, I find that an implausible merge target. This is a trade association unaffiliated with the city government. An organization's being located in a city is not grounds to merge it to the article on the city. If we had something like Housing in Toronto or Real estate in Toronto (articles I have considered creating on more than one occasion, btw; this AfD might persuade me to take the plunge …) those would be appropriate merge targets. But Toronto itself seems like a real reach. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources presented by AleatoryPonderings and others demonstrate a pass of GNG, no reasonable merge target is present. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:52, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:N Based on sources brought to this AfD. Thanks to AleatoryPonderings and others. Wm335td (talk) 18:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sad clown paradox. Sandstein 08:10, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pagliacci (joke format)[edit]

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

Fails WP:WWIN, WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC CONTENT, WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Is WP:OR, WP:SYNTH // Timothy :: talk 07:41, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 08:04, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Seems to be an attempt to improve the page John Robertson (comedian) which was created by the same SPA. I've nominated Robertson's own page for deletion. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 08:21, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge The topic is notable – see BBC or Irish Times, for example. It might be merged with some other page such as sad clown paradox and that might be best as it's told about others besides Pagliacci (and the page currently gets the Watchmen reference wrong). Andrew🐉(talk) 11:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [43], [44], [45], [46] [47] Enormously famous joke format used all over the world.★Trekker (talk) 14:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think that the BBC History Extra and Huffington Post references demonstrate notability. I don't understand Dom Kaos' comment about improving the comedian's page: the comedian isn't linked from this page, or vice versa. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above and [48] (book published by McFarland & Company) and [49] (article in journal published by Duke University Press). AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:50, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge to Sad clown paradox. Neither the article nor the sources presented recognize this as a "joke format", rather it's just a joke that's been reused a number of times. Sources are not significant coverage about the joke format itself, but instead uses of the joke in the context of the sad clown paradox, an excellent place to mention this. Reywas92^Talk 07:27, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sad clown paradox. As stated by Reywas92, none of these sources actually discuss a "joke format", they discuss a singular joke that has been retold numerous times. Additionally, while the name used as the title of this article, "Pagliacci", gained prominence due to the version used in Watchmen, it has certainly not been the only name used for the joke over the years, so titling this article the "Pagliacci joke format" seems completely inaccurate. Problems with the current article aside, though, I agree with Andrew and Reywas92 that the actual main topic that all of these sources are actually discussing is the Sad clown paradox. That concept is the actual topic of all of these sources, and the joke is just being used in them to help illustrate it. Discussing the joke in that broader topic makes the most sense. Rorshacma (talk) 15:38, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Pagliacci (joke): It has received some coverage. With reliable sources indicated above, the article easily passes WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my vote to delete & merge to Sad clown paradox per others' comments. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 14:28, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Toughpigs the entire final section is about John Robertson (comedian), and the two pages were created by the same editor less than 17 hours apart. Maybe I'm being overly suspicious. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 14:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, now I see what you mean. Still, the "entire final section" is one sentence, and if Robertson isn't notable, then we can just take it out. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Conan (comics)#Marvel Comics,. While the topic might be notable, the consensus is that it is adequately covered at the redirect target. Further, there's some discussion about a broader merger/cleanup of Conan-related articles that can and should still take place, but not here. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conan (Marvel Comics)[edit]

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

Ok, I am sure this will generate some heat particularly from people who won't even read this rationale. But for those who don't. First, this is not the article about Conan the Barbarian (in fact this I initally thought it would be simply best to merge those two together, but this proposal was rejected at Talk:Conan_the_Barbarian#Merge_from_Conan_(Marvel_Comics)). Second, and this a bit less obvious, but as comments at the merge discussion reveal, people confuse the topic of Conan the character in comic books with the comic book series named Conan the Barbarian (comics), which is NOT being deleted. The sources given in the merge discussion and in the article (and that will probably appear here, sigh) like [50], [51] or [52], or anything else I see are either about the Conan the Barbarian or about Conan the Barbarian (comics). None of them discusses the character of Conan in the Marvel universe as separate from Conan the Barbarian in general, this is like arguing that we should have separate articles for Iron Man for his comic continuity (or several), movie-verse continuity, appearances in anime, etc (ok, actually he gets two, but the other article is a terrible mess, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternative versions of Iron Man; and in general, one fictional character should get one article which summarizes his various versions in different media, this seems rather logical..). Before some people post with a knee-jerk reaction, pretty please, consider that the only content here is a mostly unreferenced lead summarizing Conan the Barbarian (comics) article, with a bit of information from another Marvel series he appeared in (Savage Sword of Conan) thrown in, and then the list of appearances of Conan in other Marvel comic books. As a fictional character, Conan is, well, Conan. This article is effectively List of appearances of Conan the Barbarian in Marvel Comic publications, which I am not sure would pass WP:LISTN. So if you are going to vote keep, at least understand what the article is about (and consider renaming the article...). PS. There is also the Conan (Dark Horse Comics) (which again is just List of appearances of Conan the Barbarian in Dark Horse publications, mis-named as an article about a fictional character). Both could be merged into List of comic book appearances of Conan the Barbarian, I guess, but again I struggle to see how such lists would pass WP:LISTN. So in essense Conan has at least three articles about himself (main, tMarvel, Dark Horse, through the latter two are clealry just list of apperances in comics, no more and no less). After digging a bit more I see we have Conan (comics), which probably would be the best target into which we could merge both Marvel and Dark Horse Conan articles (which again are essentially just list of appearances), through considering how much unreferenced WP:FANCRUFT content there is in those articles, a delete is also an option... (but please note I proposed a merge first and this AfD is a result of the first merge being rejected, granted, maybe Conan (comics) would have been a better target to propose but it is easy to get lost in the current deluge of Conan-in-comics POVFORKS; and finally, we might as well discuss whether the targetarticle should be renamed; another name to consider might be Conan the Barbarian in comics. Anyway, comments appreciated. Delete, merge (where), keep because...? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:51, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:51, 21 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} 06:51, 21 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} 06:51, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:TLDR. The essential point here is that Savage Sword of Conan was highly successful; I have some issues myself. But it wasn't the only Conan comic published by Marvel and so there's some need for a bibliography of Marvel's publishing history with this major character. That's what we have here and it covers other significant works such as the newspaper strip. As Conan is a huge topic, there's perhaps some need for consolidation or restructuring across the various pages but that is not a pressing issue per WP:NOTPAPER and WP:DEADLINE. We have ample space for this and more and so the page should be kept for further development per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:09, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- No, Wikipedia is not a place for "a bibliography of Marvel's publishing history with this major character". Not unless you can show that this topic is discussed in reliable sources. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Per WP:NOTCLEANUP, AfD is not a place for long, rambling, cleanup discussions. And, per WP:CHOICE, it's not a place to make demands of other editors. And per WP:BEFORE, the nominator is expected to do the work of reviewing sources. There are, of course, plenty of bibliographies for Conan as published by Marvel and others. These include the Encyclopedia of Comic Books and Graphic Novels (vol. 2); Marvel Graphic Novels and Related Publications; The Conan Companion: A Publishing History; &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:53, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge somewhere - The whole set of articles seems pretty messy. It seems like a list of publications starring Conan is likely justified (looks like it's all covered in Conan (comics)?), but there's absolutely no need for a dedicated list of publications featuring him. That's the basis for a never ending rabbit hole of nonsense list articles. Looking at some popular, far-reaching characters, they generally only list titles and collections in which they are the main character. TTN (talk) 13:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect w/ Potential Merge to Conan (comics)#Marvel Comics, where the essential information (some notable series/publications, awards won, etc) is already covered. The extensive, completely uncited bibliography should not be kept. The first two sources that are currently here could definitely be added to the target article, but there is not much in the way of actual prose that needs to be merged. Rorshacma (talk) 16:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I would merge all into one article about Conan in comics, I think. - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Conan (comics)#Marvel Comics, this particular version of Conan does not pass GNG as a character, this article functions as a mostly unreferenced list of random appearances in random marvel comics, some of which are original research. I would oppose a merge, as most of this stuff is unsourced and what is sourced does not need to go anywhere. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:36, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect- to Conan (comics)#Marvel Comics. As pointed out by the Wombat, the existing content is unsourced and the target is already so full of cruft adding any more would make it worse. Reyk _YO! 13:52, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to an article / section about the series. This article is currently bibliography / list of appearances anyway. That's the place to cover it and this separate article is redundant. Jontesta (talk) 15:19, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- This article isn't about a specific series, it's about 8 different series. Duggy 1138 (talk) 11:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (conditional) to one of the above mentioned articles. I was highly tempted to vote "Keep per WP:TLDR" (the rationale is rambly and hard to follow), but after checking, the article consists solely of a disembodied lead section and a bunch of lists. Even if enough coverage exists to indicate that this specific version of Conan is independently notable (hypothetically speaking), I suspect that no one would be willing to do anything about that anytime soon. I am willing to change my vote if someone proves me wrong and actually does it. Templating is rarely effective and there's no reason this lead section can't be relocated in the meantime. Dark knight 2149 22:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- if a nomination is below X number of words in length it's "boilerplate" and therefore bad and wrong. If it's above X number of words, it's TLDR and therefore bad and wrong. There's just no pleasing some people. Reyk _YO! 07:11, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Do or don't, you are wrong... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:24, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge per Rorshacma, as lacking reliable independent coverage. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- to clear what pages exist:
- Conan_the_Barbarian - The Robert E Howard character, includes Conan_the_Barbarian#Comics
- Adaptations_of_works_by_Robert_E._Howard - About adaptions of Howard's works (small section on comics - Adaptations_of_works_by_Robert_E._Howard#Comic_books)
- Conan_(comics) - An overview of Marvel adaptions and Dark Horse adaptions then a long list of titles.
- Conan_(Marvel_Comics) - About Marvel publications featuring Conan.
- Conan_the_Barbarian_(comics) - The Marvel comic "Conan the Barbarian."
- Savage_Sword_of_Conan - The Marvel comic "Savage Sword of Conan"
- Conan_the_Adventurer_(comics) - The comic that replaced "Conan the Barbarian" at Marvel (stub)
- Official_Handbook_of_the_Conan_Universe] - A one-shot guide to Marvel's Conan.
- Savage_Tales - A comic that originally had Conan in it.
- Some Marvel Conan comics don't have (or deserve) pages.
- Conan_(Dark_Horse_Comics) - Covering the various Conan titles published at Dark Horse. Mostly a list of issues.
- I don't know that Keep, Merge or Delete are the answer. I think a clean up of all these pages, perhaps merging Conan_(comics) into Conan_the_Barbarian or Adaptations_of_works_by_Robert_E._Howard (and fixing issues with Conan_(Marvel_Comics) and Conan_(Dark_Horse_Comics)) or instead merging Conan_(Marvel_Comics) and Conan_(Dark_Horse_Comics) into Conan_(comics), but I think the merging process just moves the problem. Duggy 1138 (talk) 11:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:18, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of actors who played the vice president of the United States[edit]

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

Not a notable concept. Doesn't meet WP:LISTN or WP:GNG. Has been in CAT:NN for over 5 years. Boleyn (talk) 06:29, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 07:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 07:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -I think it's notable enough to warrant staying, especially as there's a corresponding page for the President. MaskedSinger (talk) 12:02, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both these and the President pages are way to broad and undefining. I feel like instead we should have List of actors who played George Washinton and similar lists for all the other Presidents (and Vice-Presidents) and we could also have Depictions of Presidents of the United States on screen, thats a notable topic I feel. But a list like this just isn't helpful or encyclopedic.★Trekker (talk) 19:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per LISTN. However, if someone deletes the List of actors who played the president of the United States, this will have to replace it, per the Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, right? Clarityfiend (talk) 22:58, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Note that this also spans actual and fictional vice presidents, which IMHO seems like poor data hygiene. --Lockley (talk) 22:29, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not in any way defining to most people who will end up on the list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The article passes WP:GNG and is notable (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 15:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Mitroshina[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I checked all the sources again after the previous nomination. Here’s a quick analysis: Source №4 appears to be a paid press material (see ‘IBT does not endorse any of the above content’ tag; compare with another random material that was written by internal editor), moreover, Indian Edition of the ibtimes.com site is a questionable source for a whole biography. Sources №1 and 5 primarily discuss the scandal of Mitroshina being banned from entering Ukraine after her controversial statements. Article’s biography heavily relies on the source №1, while the biography segment in this source is a shortened copy of the source №4 (mentioned previously). Sources №2 3, 6, 7, 8 primarily cover a social media flash mob aimed to bring attention to the domestic violence issues in Russia. Mitroshina is credited as a ‘campaign organizer’ alongside with another person, which basically stands for her being the first one on Russian Instagram to post a photo (which is present in the infobox at the moment) with a hashtag #IDidn’tWantToDie drawing attention to the matter. I want to note that this is neither a movement, nor an organization; for instance, Times indicates that was not the first or the only flash mob against domestic violence in Russia. All the accessible coverage of this flash mob is extremely limited by time and context, which, again, gives no cause to call it a significant movement. It is also important to point out that Mitroshina is mentioned among many other people who took initiative to stand against domestic violence in Russia. In a nutshell, 1) Mitroshina’s hashtag does not itself represent a significant movement against domestic violence in Russia, 2) There is no indication that this particular Instagram flash mob is notable enough to justify existence of this article. All the other present sources are either not reliable at all (gossip websites, promotional materials), or not independent. I couldn’t find any substantial coverage of Mitroshina’s activism - if we call her an activist; neither could I track any mentions of her notability in Russian culture in general - if we call her a writer or public figure. The article itself is written in an advertising manner (She gives lectures on mass media communications, blogging principles (Instalogy project) and fitness. In 2019, Mitroshina released the book "Promotion of personal blogs on Instagram: a step-by-step guide".) and I can’t see any reason to keep it on the English Wikipedia. Juliette Han (talk) 16:57, 17 May 2020 (UTC) struck due to votestack. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Juliette Han/Archive Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:30, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Juliette Han (talk) 16:57, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Juliette Han (talk) 16:57, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Juliette Han (talk) 16:57, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article was deleted on the Russian Wikipedia. Juliette Han (talk) 17:01, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Juliette Han's great notability investigation. Wikisaurus (talk) 22:07, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the persuasive analysis of the nominator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Blatant WP:PROMO covered up by an experienced WP:PAID editor from RuWiki. This investigation and this one on Russian Wiki say it all. Tulpan64 (talk) 10:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC) sock vote struck Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:30, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting as the original close of delete was unsustainable once it transpired that the nom socked as one of the delete votes. I have struck both but am relisting as there are good faith delete votes abd no arguments put forward to counter the detailed source analysis.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:33, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Here is previous AfD, just a few months ago. All arguments to "keep" by several contributors can be found there. I do not see any reason to make another AfD so soon. Why the nominator decided to start the deletion again and then resorted to sockpuppetry is a good question. Based on their comments, the nominator is a clever person. The subject of this page is a well known (notable) women activist against violence in Putin's Russia. I am certain that the page on ruwiki was deleted for political reasons. My very best wishes (talk) 15:29, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability established in original discussion, sources are exceptional and established with international reach. Agree w/ My very best wishes deletion attempts may have been politically motivated. PainProf (talk) 18:55, 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 Reframe as an article about the author Eileen Gibb. If this is not done, renomination is possible. Sandstein 19:50, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sammy the Shunter[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. No, this is not part of the TtTE franchise, but something even less known, seems like a rip-off by a non-notable author (so no valid merge/redirect targets I can think of). Which would make for a possible interesting story - but I can't find it written anywhere, so... WP:FANCRUFT? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:27, 21 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} 05:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did a Google Books search on this and there look like there might be enough sources with WP:SIGCOV for it to pass GNG. But it's hard to tell without being able to see the sources, and most of the books aren't there in full-text due to copyright restrictions. I have, however, managed to electronically borrow Steel Wheels by A.F. Garnett, which is one of the sources that comes up, and that's definitely just a passing mention. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 09:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~ On further investigation of the sources, I found:

Modelling Railways in 0 Gauge, which is a passing mention;
Something from The New Yorker, which I can't access;
Something from The Bookseller (UK), likewise;
and catalogues and things sourced from Wikipedia, which clearly aren't of any use in establishing notability.

If both the New Yorker and Bookseller sources give significant coverage (potentially possible from the previews given by Google) we might have a GNG pass. On balance of probability I think that's unlikely. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 10:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I may well plump on at least a weak keep; but is there a Women in Red case for shunting this to Eileen Gibb leaving a redirect and reworking into a BLP ? Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:16, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Djm-leighpark, Love this idea; have you found sources on her? YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 14:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. only thing I know about her currently is her association with Billy (the bus).I currently know absolutely nothing. It is a mystery to me what will or will not emerge.Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC) .... Okay I've found this which gives brief bio details. Djm-leighpark (talk)[reply]

Yeah, I spotted that too; sadly doesn't appear to be a WP:RS, though, which would absolutely be needed if it were going to be a BLP instead. (It's a shame they didn't cite wherever they got their information from.) As things stand though I'd be worried that a BLP on Gibb might be more likely to get deleted based on lack of sources about her rather than about her work. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 18:05, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into a new article about the author per the above suggestion - Fails to establish independent notability needed to pass WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 13:39, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Move to Eileen Gibb, as suggested by Djm-leighpark. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 14:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge - Sammy is not "a rip-off by a non-notable author", but a contemporary character who dates from about the same time as Thomas. He appears in more books than Thomas, even if you count the later books by Christopher Awdry. He is fully deserving of his own article. A merge into Eileen Gibb#Sammy the Shunter might be acceptable over deletion. Mjroots (talk) 16:34, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or otherwise merge per Mjroots. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:33, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If the author is notable and we end up with a new article about her that we could redirect/merge this to, it would be a win for everyone. Anyone would care to stub her bio? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Author section WP:BOLDly added to existing article and redirect created though have't rcat'd it. Anyone got a Kenneth Clark book ... not that one but an autobiography? Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:57, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:57, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per WP:ATD and to find compromise. The author is likely notable and this could be a more encyclopedic way to cover this information. Jontesta (talk) 15:16, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Merge where? To the recently created redirect? That would be more of a split than merge since there is no target article. We will need better sources than a blog if this is to keep. I did check GScholar, News and Books and can't find anything about her outside simple bibliographical entry that she is the author of said books :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:42, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)@Piotrus Please don't use the old Pluralis Majestatis as an attempt to include me your statement as I find it obnoxious and pompous[53]. If you mean your interpretation of WikiPedia then say so. The random blogger is seemingly a subject matter expert in the area per e.g. [54] or [55]. Obvious is if someone is NOT considering writing a BLP article on the dude and is prepared to disclose an email address to please use "YOU CAN CONTACT ME DIRECTLY AT..." and see if he has any information he is willing to disclose on sources. As the author has deceased BLP does not apply but we may well have a BLPO. I'd nip down to Bognor to look at a possible book in the library but when I when to Sussex last week to retrieve a book to provide imagery evidence of the (obvious) substantial nature of a book source I lost my wallet, cred & debit cards and driving license ... and probably WSCC library cards for that matter — so a Coid-19 opportunity at Bognor or St. Pancras could easilty take me out of a BLP consideration. On a more serious note we likely have WP:BASIC as published work is broad. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:28, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Djm-leighpark I have no idea why you chose to reply to me, but I'll ask you to mind WP:CIV and WP:NPA. Accusing others of being "obnoxious and pompous" is not very nice. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: You and the nom., and the one who tagged notability and immediately Prodded. Not nice.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PamD' actually beat me to the email idea while I'm having a rant. Thanks PamD. Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've emailed the blogger Steve to ask if he can tell us what his sources were. He's still active on that blog. Please hang on for a few days to give us a chance to access this extra info. PamD 07:11, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- No hurry, and thank you for doing this. I just fear the answer will be "personal investigation/fromn the subject's family" and therefore not reliable :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also worth noting if anyone has access to newspaper archives there's possibly stuff there. Ian Allan publishers, Kenneth Clark (auto)biographies are other longshots. Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:35, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in The Times that I could find. Mjroots (talk) 12:23, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a reply: he sourced info from COPAC and CBI, Genealogy sites, and, as we feared, "Other details are from Gibbs' daughter." I wonder whether she managed to provide any of the same info for an obit in a local newspaper or similar? PamD 08:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Djm-leighpark, do we know were she died? That will point us towards local papers for an obituary. Mjroots (talk) 15:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The likely place of death was Hampshire, though Surrey is possible. [56]. My initial thought were North Hampshire, but there were connections to Beaulieu area also. May need to check for surname of "Holder" also. I'm tempted to take a free 7-day to [57] or [58] but I need tp do that when I've got a batch of stuff to search including early Bergin stuff. I did goto Bognor Library yesterday morning as they've got the Kenneth Clark autobiography (longshot) but the Librarian barred my entry & I had to be back in Chichester by 11:00am ... then tried three bookshops in Chichester but no luck. Other thoughts are M-Gauge association; RH&DR but the're all longshots and I've elected so far not to try there at the moment.Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:28, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've put in a request for assistance at the Hampshire WPs talk page. Mjroots (talk) 18:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To make this an explicit !vote: on the assumption that sources are found, keep and move to Eileen Gibb, per Djm-leighpark. Previous !vote struck. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 15:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article as it stands it is a keep on its own merit, even without the Mettoy model being citable at present. If this article can be re-purposed to Eileen Gibb via a move and refactor that would be a sweet result and probably a better and beefier article and I'd support any consensus on that matter. Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I grew up with the StS books. Not as well known as TtTE but deserving of an entry.--Robert Fraser (talk) 09:21, 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 keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Berniece T. Hiser[edit]

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

NN author, fails the GNG, WP:AUTHOR and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Meets none of the criteria of NAUTHOR. No significant coverage in reliable sources beyond namedrops and casual mentions. Notability tagged for over a decade. Prod removed by an anon IP (with no other Wikipedia edits) with the threadbare rationale of "Better to improve than delete." Ravenswing 09:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 09:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 09:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 12:26, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. There is significant coverage of her in The Encyclopedia of Northern Kentucky, published by the University Press of Kentucky, although the book partially cites Wikipedia. I was able to find some RS reviews of her books: [59][60][61] Gale lists six more reviews of The Adventure of Charlie and His Wheat-Straw Hat, including reviews from Booklist, Publishers Weekly, and education journals. Her books were published before the internet age so finding full text reviews on Google isn't going to be easy, but it's clear that coverage exists and our standard for notability is WP:NEXIST. Spicy (talk) 15:27, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Spicy. I also found a review of one of her books in the Kentucky Folklore Record. pburka (talk) 22:08, 18 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) 05:06, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These are great finds for sources! WP:NAUTHOR now met, so keep Sam-2727 (talk) 23:47, 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. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 01:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Akif Saeed[edit]

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. From WP:NPEOPLE: "For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" or "note"—that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"". WP:BEFORE revealed no additional WP:RS containing material that meets WP:SIGCOV: ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail" that would contribute to demonstrating WP:N. Some WP:ROUTINE coverage exists. // Timothy :: talk 15:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 15:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 15:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Akif Saeed was the Emir (leader) of a religious and political party, Tanzeem-e-Islami, founded by Israr Ahmed in Pakistan until ver recently in 2020. There is plenty of news coverage for him in the Pakistani newspapers and news media. Added 6 new newspaper and book references to the article and somewhat expanded it today. Ngrewal1 (talk) 18:55, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Akif Saeed served as party leader of Tanzeem-e-Islami party from 2002 to August 2020 and then recently resigned due to health problems with Coronavirus disease 2019 and reportedly developed some heart problems, too. Even though he has reportedly recovered from it now, he wanted some new leader to take over...Ngrewal1 (talk) 22:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Ngrewal1 — Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 19:14, 19 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) 05:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources added to article credibly indicate notability. I find the entry into an encylopedia especially convincing, although the other news sources are good too. Sam-2727 (talk) 23:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well-sourced. Ainty Painty (talk) 13:33, 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 without prejudice to draftification $Salvio$ 09:35, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pravrajika Divyanandaprana[edit]

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NPROF or WP:BASIC. WP:BEFORE showed no WP:IS, only routine coverage or promotional articles. // Timothy :: talk 05:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 05:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 05:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 05:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please also note that discospinster moved the article to draftspace and noted their concerns. I don't believe these concerns have been addressed in subsequent revisions and the article was ~~returned to~~ recreated in mainspace. // Timothy :: talk 05:30, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
TimothyBlue, I'm a bit confused by the order of events here. It seems to me that discospinster moved the article to the draft space, and then Ashukmr created a new version in the mainspace, with the draftspace article still remaining. Is this correct? Sam-2727 (talk) 23:34, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Sam-2727: I was mistaken, I assumed the article had been moved back from Drafts, but it seems to have been simply recreated and there are two now, one in Drafts and this one here.

First Article created in mainspace by Ashukmr at 09:54, 18 August 2020‎
First Article moved to Drafts and creator notified by Discospinster at 09:58, 18 August 2020‎
Second Mainspace article created by Ashukmr at 09:58, 18 August 2020‎
Second Mainspace article Last updated by Ashukmr at 10:37, 18 August 2020‎

They appear identical except for two added refs in the second article. The timing makes me this was a glitch I actually assumed it was not possible to have the same title in Drafts and mainspace at the same time. discospinster does this look like a glitch to you? // Timothy :: talk 01:09, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the original creator was making an edit at the same time I was moving it, so that when they pressed "save" it ended up recreating the article from that point. ... discospinster _talk 01:14, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't find any exact matches on google, some unreliable sources return inexact matches. Fails GNG through and through. Sam-2727 (talk) 23:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It seems very strange to me that the creator was still working on the article when it was tagged. More time should be allowed for further improvement, either by the creator or other editors.--Ipigott (talk) 11:27, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Replyy: Ipigott, It was moved to drafts when they were working on it. It was tagged after it was idle in mainspace for 2 days, its been 5 days now since its been edited. Plus, this is about notability. If there are no sources (and no one has been able to find any) for notability, it can be deleted. // Timothy :: talk 14:20, 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 08:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kunmudo[edit]

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

Entirely unsourced WP:V fail. Claims it's a Korean martial art, but (1) there is apparently no article in the Korean Wikipedia; and (2) all the hits I found in the Roman alphabet are unreliable. In Hangul—according to this unsourced article, at least—it's 군무도. Maybe readers of Korean (which I am not) could evaluate any potential evidence for that search term. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article has no significant independent coverage and my search failed to find any reliable sources that had significant coverage of this art. Nothing in the article is connected to an actual reference. It also fails to meet the notability criteria for a martial art at WP:MANOTE. There's no evidence this is a real martial art or has many students. Papaursa (talk) 13:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now because of a failure to meet WP:GNG, but hopefully someone will be able to perform a Korean language source search. Sam-2727 (talk) 23:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Article was A7 deleted by admin User:GB fan shortly after nomination here (non-admin closure) - hako9 (talk) 13:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Isaiah Nicholson[edit]

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

Cannot find anything whatsoever about this person or their show except for an IMDB listing. Not WP:NOTABLE. AviationFreak💬 04:17, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AviationFreak💬 04:17, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with a flaming torch, along with the other non-notable "YouTube program" that the same editor created. - AppleBsTime (talk) 04:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, unsourced autobiography with no credible indication of notability per WP:BIO, WP:GNG or WP:WEB. All I can find about him online is an IMDB vanity page listing his own web shows. Captain Calm (talk) 05:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (I've tagged for A7) unsourced biography of a youtuber minor. No sources and no claim of notability. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:52, 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. Nomination withdrawn based on the strength of Editorofthewiki discovery of sources showing notability. (non-admin closure) // Timothy :: talk 04:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Media Theatre[edit]

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD: "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 WP:SIGCOV that is direct and in-depth. WP:BEFORE showed WP:ROUTINE coverage of events, nothing in-depth about the facility itself. There are some routine articles covering the facilities 25th anniversary. // Timothy :: talk 04:05, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 04:05, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 04:05, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I will say that the article doesn't necessarily have to be about the building itself, but could be to the general theater and its performances. However, WP:GNG is not met through trivial local listings. It's hard to sift through the sources though, so I'm a bit uncertain on this point. [62] is a good indicator, but alas that's only one source. Sam-2727 (talk) 23:20, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Striking and voting as Keep now based on sources found in newspapers.com (which I should really get a subscription for through wikipedia library for stuff like this). Sam-2727 (talk) 04:25, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG per sufficient sourcing. In addition to the link above, I was able to find [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70]. Plenty of sourcing here for a page. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:13, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question for Editorofthewiki: This article is a promo from an arts council - [71] and this article is about an actress, not the threater - [72]. The remaining above sources are all WP:ROUTINE coverage of event announcements, not articles about the theater itself. None of these articles contain WP:SIGCOV that covers the subject - Media Theater - directly and in depth per WP:GNG.

In case I've missed something, I will ask: please tell me which articles above discuss the subject - the Media Theater - directly and in depth? and what information about the theater do they reveal that demonstrates it is "worthy of note" in an encyclopedia per WP:N? I'm sure its a wonderful theater, but this is about Wikipedia guidelines. An example of something that addresses the subject directly and in-depth would be an article about the history of the theater. An article about an event at the theater is just that - an article about an event that has a mention of the name of the theater it is taking place at; this might be a source for the production, but not the theater. If you can convince me with the sources, I'll be glad to change my vote. // Timothy :: talk 20:35, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The 7th and 8th sources are the two strongest, in my view, and discuss the history of the theater itself. But that doesn't mean we should discount the rest. This was just what I was able to pull up in a relatively quick search - I could spend hours going through the archives. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: [73] [74] you list above are the strongest and based on that there could be more. Sam-2727, I keep getting an error on the source you listed, what do you think about the two here that Editorofthewiki found?

These are convincing to me as significant coverage (Philadelphia inquirer is a legitimate, big newspaper with large readership/coverage). There's an extra l at the end of my link on accident. Here's a usable link: [75]. I'm changing my vote to keep based on the newspaper clippings found. Sam-2727 (talk) 04:25, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also I think the above point is from TimothyBlue but I'm not particularly certain since there is no signature. Sam-2727 (talk) 04:26, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Yes from it's me. Signatures are hard ;) // Timothy :: talk 04:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a 440-seat regional theatre. The article is terrible and requires expansion, clean-up and referencing, not deletion. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:22, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Nomination withdrawn. I think Editorofthewiki sources show there are probably more sources out there and that this does meet notability. Thank you all for the good discussion and work. // Timothy :: talk 04:34, 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 keep. Tone 08:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mineplex[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is very WP:MILL. Many other servers just like Mineplex (such as CubeCraft) exist, and none get their own articles. It has been briefly mentioned in some articles, but it is not enough to reach WP:GNG. It was previously nominated in 2017, and was merged to the article on Minecraft servers. Since then, it has been recreated. The notability has not changed since then. Either delete or redirect this article. I-82-I | TALK 02:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. I-82-I | TALK 02:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I disagree on the WP:MILL point, which I read as saying it is a run of the mill Minecraft server. It has held a Guinness World Record for number of concurrent players, is one of the four servers that is officially partnered with the game developer Mojang, and is one of the oldest still-running servers. The coverage related to the Dallas Mavericks partnership is far more than a brief mention, and is in multiple different sources. More coverage: [76] [77] (the latter is just to go against WP:MILL and not to show notability). Leijurv (talk) 02:56, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources provided by Leijurv indicate notability, and here's another one: [78]. I think the "exploitation" article is particularly interesting and should be added to the article to balance the current mildly promotional tone. Sam-2727 (talk) 23:09, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the sources found clearly indicate that this topic passes WP:GNG. Nomination rationale is mostly WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. Devonian Wombat (talk) 13:40, 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 08:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neeraj Badhwar[edit]

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

Non-notable journalist. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Fails WP:GNG DMySon 02:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DMySon 02:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 06:09, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 06:09, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 06:09, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:52, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. All sources out there are stuff he published so don't count. Amazon not a RS. Sam-2727 (talk) 22:46, 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 08:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neeraj Agnihotri[edit]

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

non notable photographer, lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. fails WP:GNG DMySon 02:08, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 05:50, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 05:50, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 05:50, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable photographer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:51, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete current sources either unreliable, trivial mentions, or self-published (so also unreliable). Search returns no sources that would contribute towards notability. Sam-2727 (talk) 22:39, 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 delete. Tone 08:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ruben Licera Jr[edit]

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

person not notable, links are from co-bloggers and mostly PR articles Emperork (talk) 00:54, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 07:28, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 07:28, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete PR/blog sources ≠ notability. Source search didn't come up with any true news coverage. Author warned of COI. Sam-2727 (talk) 22:15, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about him. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is a lack of actual reliable, 3rd party, independent secondary sources to back up this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:30, 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.

[1] "Archives of Australian Composers". opus.its.unimelb.edu.au.

[2] Perkins, Tara (2014-07-25). "Top court move reignites Toronto Real Estate Board battle". The Globe and Mail. ISSN 0319-0714.

[3] Johnson, Karen (2013-05-14). "Competition Bureau Appeals Ruling in Toronto Real-Estate Board Case". The Wall Street Journal.

[4] "Toronto Real Estate Board cracks down on realtors sharing sales data". The Globe and Mail. 2018-08-29. ISSN 0319-0714.

[5] Melnitzer, Julius (2014-02-05). "Federal court says Toronto Real Estate Board subject to Competition Act". National Post. ISSN 1486-8008.

[6] "Toronto Real Estate Board's survival at stake: battle over listing service". National Post. 2000-09-13. ISSN 1486-8008.

[7] The Canadian Press (September 26, 2017). "Toronto Real Estate Board raises concerns about possible vacancy tax". CBC News.

[8] Noakes, Susan (September 18, 2018). "TREB says it has released disputed real estate data". CBC News.

[9] "Toronto Real Estate Board wins extension days before deadline to publish home sales data online". CBC News. July 29, 2016.

[10] "Toronto housing market roars back to life in July — with prices shooting up by 17%". thestar.com. 6 August 2020.

[11] Kalinowski, Tess (18 August 2020). "TRREB cut off its listings data to property search site Bungol two weeks ago. The website still doesn't know why". thestar.com.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[1]

[2]