Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 August 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 26 August 28 August >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger Conference[edit]

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

No claim to any notability. Fails WP:N. Deleted in Russian Wikipedia. Mitte27 (talk) 23:37, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 23:37, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a promotional article that seems to be native advertising created by a now blocked sockpuppet of a suspected undisclosed paid editor. There is a lack of non-promotional coverage in reliable sources so WP:GNG is not passed in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:15, 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. Consensus is keep, perhaps a merge is possible, but that can be discussed outside AfD. Tone 08:17, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Media coverage of Bernie Sanders[edit]

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

Wikipedia politics spans thousands of years. Not only was Bernie never nominated, there doesn't seem to be many unusual controversies, aside from a couple coverage disputes. Compared to human history as a whole, his campaign just wasn't that controversial. Many voters simply disagreed with his ideas. Atdevel (talk) 23:08, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, or Merge with Bernie Sanders, and/or 2016 campaign, and/or 2020 campaign. While the nominator's rationale is vague and a bit difficult to parse, this monstrosity has been a blatant WP:NPOV WP:POVFORK from the very beginning. The entire concept of the article is laughable, and the topic has received no sustaining coverage since Sanders lost the primary. I think the article would've been deleted ages ago if it weren't for the IP and SPA activity in prior discussions. KidAd talk 23:35, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP A rather large number people participated earlier this year in an AFD for this. Nothing has changed. Reliable sources give significant coverage to this, so it passes the general notability guidelines, just as it did the previous times it went to AFD. Dream Focus 02:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reliable sources give significant coverage to this. A two-part rebuttal:
(1) Many many things gets significant coverage in a presidential election. If a campaign screams "the media is biased", it will often get reported by someone. Every election also has meta pieces about "media coverage" and "media bias" mentioning many candidates. For example, the best sources in this article are academic books and reports which cover media coverage in general and mention many presidential candidates.
(2) There is not significant coverage about this subject beyond what could easily be covered in one paragraph in the Bernie Sanders bio and 2-3 paragraphs in the Bernie Sanders 2016 presidential campaign and Bernie Sanders 2020 presidential campaign pages. The high-quality sourcing in this article is primarily about media coverage in general during the 2016 campaign, with sources covering Sanders as much as they cover Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, and John Kasich, and far less than they cover Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. The only reason why a specific Sanders page was created was because "the media is against Sanders" became a popular refrain among Sanders supporters and his campaign, which conservatives then latched onto to justify their own hatred of the media and/or to sow discord among Democrats. On the basis of "significant coverage", similar articles could be created for Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, John Kasich, Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, Andrew Yang, Tulsi Gabbard, Jill Stein, Cory Booker, Julian Castro, and Gary Johnson because those candidates all made similar claims about media bias which were covered by reliable sources. There are probably more high-quality RS that cover Rubio and Cruz's grievances during the 2016 campaign. None of these politicians merit a unique "Media coverage of X" article because their grievances can easily be covered in 1-2 paragraphs in larger general articles, just as the Sanders campaign's can. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:50, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NPOV and WP:VERIFIABILITY, the same reasons I gave when nominating this article for deletion in January: Bernie Sanders is still the only BLP with an entire page devoted to media coverage of the subject. While the media's coverage of Sanders may be notable, I doubt he is the only person in the world for whom this is the case. This article was started as a WP:POVFORK asserting that the media is biased against Sanders. While the title was changed from "Media bias against Bernie Sanders", the content has not reflected this change. It is still a list of assertions from pundits alleging bias against Sanders with limited rebuttal and remarkably little verifiable fact. Some of this content could be merged into his page and pages for his presidential campaigns, but the article as it stands is far from encyclopedic, and my attempts to make constructive edits have been repeatedly rebuffed to the point where I have stopped editing the page. --WMSR (talk) 02:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I firmly reject the premise of the nomination. This is a notable subject. That said, in the previous AfD, I advocated for the removal of this version of the article because it was politically hijacked by WP:AGENDA people to turn it into the dismissive article it currently is. If you read the article, only one side is being presented. It is so non-sensical to repeatedly say "there is nothing to see here folks" when the details and depth of the allegations they are defending against are not presented. You "doth protest too much, methinks" We should have a proper article about the Bernie Blackout. I always advocate for retention of valid content, however I do not like wikipedia hosting incorrect information. This version of the article removed a large amount of content that previously told the story. It is now incomplete, distorted and thus incorrect information. Trackinfo (talk) 05:57, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge with Media coverage of the 2016 United States presidential election or a similar article. Per WP:NOT: Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. US presidential elections get enormous, saturation-volume media coverage and even minor details would be sufficient to pass the GNG, but that doesn't mean we should have an article on them. Taking a longer view I don't think Bernie Sanders is going to be nearly significant enough to justify this kind of treatment. While he's an influential figure now, he's also a US Senator known for unsuccessfully seeking the Democratic presidential nomination twice, and I don't think he will be widely remembered, say, fifty years from now. Imagine how people would feel about an article on, say, Media coverage of George McGovern. I also think it's significant that this article consists almost entirely of statements some person or group has made about media coverage of Bernie Sanders, referenced to the place where those statements were made. The coverage apparently doesn't allow building a narrative, as opposed to a series of isolated quotes. Hut 8.5 07:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any truly revelant portions to the article on Senator Sanders. There is no reason for this content fork.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If only because I see little reason to delete and it is still kind of topical, maybe after the election if things quiet down, could do a merge.Selfstudier (talk) 12:50, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
^ WP:HARMLESS. Time to stop putting this off. Sanders’ role in this election ended months ago. KidAd talk 13:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator appears a single purpose account, one shouldn't follow recommendations from them or supporters of such accounts.Selfstudier (talk) 16:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are sufficient sources to establish notability. I found for example on the first page of a google search for media coverage bernie sanders:
"The media keep falling in love — with anybody but Bernie Sanders" (Washington Post)
"What Bernie Sanders Gets Right About the Media" (New York Times]])
"Coverage of Bernie Sanders suffers from a lack of imagination" (Columbia Journalism Review)
"Bernie Sanders versus the “corporate media,” explained" (Vox Media)
"Why Does Mainstream Media Keep Attacking Bernie Sanders as He Wins?" {GQ)
Also a podcast with FiveThirtyEight and articles in In These Times, the Pointer Report and Jacobin (magazine)

TFD (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first source is composed from opinion quotes. All the others are about Bernie's view of the media, not about media coverage of him. Atdevel (talk) 20:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, the articles outline how Sanders has been covered in the media and include comments about the coverage by Sanders supporters, journalists and media observers. There is general agreement on the facts presented, and differing opinions on the reasons. TFD (talk) 21:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Had it just been a talking point during the 2020 campaign, it would have been one thing, but it was the same during the 2016 campaign too. There are ample sources discussing the Bernie Blackout phenomena ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5]) and even a full-length documentary ([6]). The topic is unquestionably notable. ImTheIP (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An article for the documentary would make sense, but this would be very different from the current article. Relative historical significance should be taken into account in assessing importance, and Bernie didn't even get the nomination once, which simply increases the chance for being president. Atdevel (talk) 23:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked up the Bernie Blackout documentary, it's actually more about his campaign in general than media coverage https://www.al.com/life/2020/05/alabama-filmmaker-how-we-made-our-bernie-sanders-doc.html Atdevel (talk) 01:19, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: He was a major part of the 2020 primaries and nature / bias in media coverage of the various candidates has been a significant topic   // Timothy :: talk  00:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This bias has continued throughout 2020, after 2016. --K. Peake 07:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Continues to be a significant aspect. DGG ( talk ) 23:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this is a significant aspect of Sander's political bids.--Astral Leap (talk) 07:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:SIGCOV exists to reference media coverage of these high profile political bids. Lightburst (talk) 14:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is significant amount of info and all well referenced. Why delete? Wiki is a tool to gain knowledge and do research. Expertwikiguy (talk) 07:51, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:44, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom Center (mental health organization)[edit]

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

advertising for a charity--purely promotional style more suited for its web page. DGG ( talk ) 21:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:12, 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 Sarah Zucker. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:59, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Current Sea[edit]

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

non-notable advertising for non-notable advertising consultancy. Apparent coi. DGG ( talk ) 21:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable spam. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Sarah Zucker. Zucker is an artist who makes lots of animated gifs. The "consultancy" is a joke. She's not advertising anything. If the creator has a CoI, they're astonishingly uninformed about the subject. The more likely explanation is that they attended an edit-a-thon in 2016 and tried to make an article about something they were interested in, but have not stuck around long enough to learn how to do it properly. Vexations (talk) 22:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 22:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I had not noticed the individual also had an article. A merge is fine with me. DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Sarah Zucker, it's already mentioned there and there is nothing of substance to merge. I'm not really sure if Zucker is notable either but she appears to be more notable than her company, so this seems fine for now. Spicy (talk) 02:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Sarah Zucker per Spicy. The company doesn't seem to be notable on its own. Worldlywise (talk) 02:45, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:45, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

José Antonio Zapata Cabral[edit]

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

Non-notable journalist and filmmaker with unverifiable grand claims. Reads like a CV. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 20:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A decent career in local journalism but nothing to really indicate notability. Mccapra (talk) 01:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It was likely created by the subject (user "Uncabral") more than a decade ago. His radio show was deleted in 2017 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ya no hay respeto). I was not aware of this article at the time. Raymie (t • c) 06:18, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet WP:People. Does not have any references. Google news only returns one result.Expertwikiguy (talk) 08:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:51, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Newsom[edit]

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

Lacks notability. Can’t find a lot of reliable sources to corroborate much of the information within the article, source supporting his death is relatively weak. Doesn’t look like much of his filmography is notable either. Rusted AutoParts 20:40, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. Plus I see that some of the claims made in the article were taken from his personal IMDB page, which is not a reliable source. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 21:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete signs of lots of self-editing with no indication of passing WP:ANYBIO. Graywalls (talk) 01:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:AUTHOR which states "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work." Some of the movies such as Ed Wood are pretty well known. Altough, this article lacks proper references and needs lot's of work. Expertwikiguy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:35, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Expertwikiguy: If you're referring to the Tim Burton movie, that isn't the Ed Wood movie he was involved in. Rusted AutoParts 06:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For somebody recently-deceased, you'd expect to be able to find obituaries to source and improve the article, but I can't find anything of the sort. If we can't fix up the article, we shouldn't have it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Nothing that passes GNG, BASIC or WP:AUTHOR. He co-wrote The Unofficial NFL Players Handbook, it's humor, but I still thought it would pass something in WP:NSPORT, but I couldn't find anything.   // Timothy :: talk  07:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to Chhota Bheem#Television films. There is consensus to not keep the article. Redirects are cheap so... delete and redirect. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:48, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chhota Bheem: Dholakpur ke Khiladi[edit]

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

Non notable film with nothing found in a WP:BEFORE to establish notability. Tagged for over a year. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:37, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:46, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chhota Bheem In Junglee Kabila[edit]

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

Non notable film with nothing found in a WP:BEFORE to establish notability. Tagged for over a year. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:36, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:36, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:36, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:36, 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 speedy delete. This is a blatant hoax. Fences&Windows 12:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mittir Masi[edit]

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

Nominator's statement: Non notable activist/detective, fails WP:GNG. All of references are misleading/unrelated. No mention of the person nowhere in references. I did google search with "Mittir Masi" & "মিত্তির মাসি" but unable to find one single source (while searching, please don't confuse with Mitin Masi (মিতিন মাসি)). আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 20:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mittir Masi is a planned baseless article to troll a non-notable female of Facebook. This article has almost cloned the name of a genuine article Mitin Masi. First, three citations nothing related to either this article or article Mitin Masi. Citation 4th, 5th and 6th are for article Mitin Masi and 7th citation are not related for both the articles. So there is not a single citation for this article. This article is created by a new user. I came to know abt this article after receiving complaints from a journalist who read Wikipedia. It's a serious issue after my complain Bengali Wikipedia deleted this article. Hope you too will take genuine action to the editor and for the article. Some site publishes Wikipedia articles like this and they hv started defaming that person providing the reference of Wikipedia. This is a serious planned offence to the woman. How come without a single verified citation for this person this article remain for more than a week? Pls take action to those editors and block those ip if IP address is used, I am afraid if media take this issue moral of an editor like us will be down. ---Sumita Roy Dutta (talk) 10:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The content has descriptions and language more suitable for a comic book character and not an actual person. This is in line with the above remarks by bnwiki editors (which I'm not) suspecting a bogus biography and possibly not in good faith. Note that the only other page on this subject was deleted from the Bengali WP. The statements in the Wikidata item provide only the English WP page as references. -- Deborahjay (talk) 11:50, 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 keep. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:18, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Volcana (DC Comics)[edit]

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

The article fails to establish independent notability. TTN (talk) 20:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Once again, per every deletion policy and guideline, "Fails to establish notability" is not a valid reason to nominate articles (especially multiple articles) for deletion. You should be aware of WP:DELREASON by now.
    • Per WP:ARTN, "Article content does not determine notability. Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article."
    • Per WP:NEXIST, "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article."
    • Per WP:ATD, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page."
    • Per WP:GNG, "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles or lists. The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it. The notability guidelines do not apply to contents of articles or lists (with the exception of lists which restrict inclusion to notable items or people). Content coverage within a given article or list is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies."
Do we really need to go through this again? WP:GNG refers to the existence of sources, not the citations in the article. Darkknight2149 10:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Verifiability means that sources need to be connected with the article. If you can find adequate sources you can add them to the article. Wikipedia has no grandfather clause, so we show no deference to past editors and follow sourcing, not inividual whims.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Negative. Nothing in WP:Verifiability overrides deletion nomination policy. If you believe or can establish that an article truly fails WP:GNG, then you have a basis for a nomination. "There aren't enough sources in the article to establish WP:GNG" doesn't cut it, particularly when it comes to filing multiple nominations. Darkknight2149 18:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; as per discussions above, I feel the nominator needs to come back here and demonstrate lack of notability. In the absence of same, Keep. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep The nominator does not say if they completed a Before search for sources before nominating for deletion. They may have done so, but judging from the deletion rationale it seems they did not. I agree that this article should be kept, at least for now. Rhino131 (talk) 16:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shourya Deep[edit]

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

Subject doesn't seem to meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Adam9007 (talk) 18:47, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Seems like a talented individual and I hope he makes it but agree this is probably WP:TOOSOON, sources just aren't there yet.   // Timothy :: talk  16:36, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 10:40, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 18:37, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shayan Italia[edit]

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

At this point, I feel like a detective. What a con job this article has been for more than a decade now! Please bear with me as I enumerate all the evidence gathered and the problems with this fluff-fest. Why 3rd nomination, you ask? Well, in the first one in 2009, the subject's self-published music albums were mistakenly believed to be independent, and from what i see "significant coverage" was misapplied to the one event of him auctioning his future earnings on ebay to raise funds. The 2nd nom in 2017 was by a drive-by user, so was a procedural speedy keep. Now. I've dug around enough. Here's the problem with this article: it wholly fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO!

Then there's the fact that the article has only ever been edited by the subject, sockpuppets, and Single Purpose Accounts, and most recently User:Musiceditor123, another SPA ( and as it appears a self-confessed associate to boot!), who has been at it since 2010 and has only added promotional junk like this, this and this about startups/philanthropy/awards; uploaded the subject's images or created articles about his song/album (now deleted).

Every single link I can find on Shayan Italia is promotional and PR-fed (yes, including that The Hindu entertainment section link). Most are about his millions of views of Youtube video of the Indian National Anthem, which are all promos/campaigns/interviews copied from this press release. It was a well-orchestrated, publicity campaign by the digital agency BC Web Wise (see PR) coinciding with India's i-Day. All of it fails MUSICBIO 1#ii (Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising). The other 'notable' bit about the eBay auction was back in 2009, as mentioned in the Guardian. It is trivial fluff - a whacky story about a crazy-sounding online event in pre-social media world. Both these are instances of WP:ONEEVENT. There have been no albums released since the article was created, no major songs, no music of any note for someone whose alleged notability is of a singer. The ones cited in first nom were self-published by the company FM Publishing (now shut), whose directors are Italia (yes, he) and family. See liquidation report. The subject fails every criterion under WP:MUSICBIO.

I'm taking the liberty of notifying all who were involved in the previous noms (barring sockpuppets) to re-examine the new evidence and sources (if they are keen, that is): Hekerui, L0b0t, EdJohnston, Michig, Drmies, Abecedare, Bongomatic, Serial Number 54129, SoWhy. Have done so because this is a serious and a very long (unadressed?) case of possible Paid Editing and heavy COI, and such an article makes a travesty of Wikipedia!

Concluding request: If anyone is voting Keep, could you please not just say "many articles exist about him" and, instead, provide exact links to stories you found to be independent, in-depth, non-PR. Also, if anyone thinks I've misstepped anywhere, I'd be glad to be corrected. Thanks! Best regards, MaysinFourty (talk) 18:30, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MaysinFourty (talk) 18:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MaysinFourty (talk) 18:44, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MaysinFourty (talk) 18:44, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. MaysinFourty (talk) 18:46, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MaysinFourty (talk) 18:47, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those people that were pinged--I'm in good company, but User:EdJohnston was there as well (and Bongo...I miss you). I voted "delete" a long time ago, and I had reasons for it--lack of sourcing, or lack of proper sourcing to generate notability. I see no reason to change my mind, but my old friend Hekerui probably sees no reason to change theirs. That Musiceditor might well be a sock, but it's kind of a useless question given how old the other account is; for our purposes, though, this edit alone was enough to block them as a "SPAM ONLY" account, and that's what I placed. Drmies (talk) 20:02, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I have revisited my 'delete' vote in the original 2009 AfD and have the same opinion now. It seems there was a rumor that he had released 'Deliverance' on Universal, a major label. Further study gives no evidence that Universal made such a release. A check for 'Shayan Italia' on discogs.com suggests he has one album, 'Deliverance', released by FM Publishing Limited in 2006 and a few singles and EPs. That firm only ever released records by him, and was liquidated in 2015, as pointed out above by the nominator. Two of the stockholders were surnamed 'Italia'. So we would probably conclude that his records were self-published. EdJohnston (talk) 13:42, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FWIW re: the Universal label. Many self-promoting music acts claim an impressive sounding affiliation with Universal for simply being a customer of their distribution services. It's not the same as being signed and paid by a major label to be part of their galaxy of recording artists; it's just the opposite--a service available from a major Music conglomerate to any music label that is willing to let Universal distribute their product for a percent of sales, and dutifully entered in their database as "available" from Universal (which duped an earlier AfD editor into thinking this artist was releasing on a major label.) The reason why you can't find Shayan Italia among lists of Universal recording artists is because the actual label is FM Publishing, which is his own company. It is not a major label. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete does not fulfil WP:MUSICBIO, despite attempts at improvement. I share the concerns about promotion. Hekerui (talk) 08:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Johnston. I admit my earlier "keep" !vote was probably based, asymmetrically, on the WP:OBVIOUSSOCK rather than the article itself. I have lived; but more importantly, I have learned. ——Serial 08:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC) ——Serial 08:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per Nominator. Priyanjali singh (talk) 16:34, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I sniffed around again and continue not to find any evidence of meeting the applicable guidelines. In the search, was disappointed that his version of Power of Love was the super-cheezeball song rather than the medium-cheezeball one from Back to the Future. Bongomatic 08:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC) p.s. hi doc![reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The responses suggest that the subject still doesn't satisfy GNG despite there being a lot of interviews and some other coverage. Wouldn't be against recreation if notability could be established. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Farid Yazdani[edit]

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

There are at least three problems with this biography of a living person. First, a Google search finds that Farid Yazdani is an Iranian-Canadian actor who uses social media and has an extensive on-line presence. It says over and over again that he is a Canadian actor or an Iranian-Canadian actor. That is more or less what it says. We knew that. Second, there was already a deletion discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farid Yazdani, and it concluded that he did not satisfy acting notability or general notability. He still doesn't. None of the roles listed in this draft since 2017 are major roles. Third, this article appears to be an autobiography, the submission of which is discouraged. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


  • I would like to know how Farid being an Iranian-canadian actor or a Canadian actor is grounds for termination. Upon googling his imdb and instagram page - there is nothing mentioned about him being Iranian. There is mention of him on numerous American and Canadian Television series. To address the acting notability or general notability disclaim, Farid was highlighted in red on many other wikipedia pages such as the Suits Season 5 under recurring cast (2.2), The Odd Squad wiki page, under villains (2.2.3) as well as the S.I.N. Theory page under cast. To me, it seems important enough for him to be listed on many other verified wikipedia pages. Third - CBC has just released a press package stating that he has been recently cast as a series supporting on a new series titled: Feudal. [1] I can predict that show will made into a wiki page as well. Farid is also verified on Facebook [2]. Don't know how much more is needed before "credibility" is high enough 170.10.244.114 (talk) 01:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Notability is not about how many Wikipedia pages link (or redlink) to someone, especially since this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit and articles wildly vary in quality and how much necessary or unnecessary information they include, so that's not really a valid argument here. It's about how many third party reliable sources cover a person or subject as more than a side mention. The Iranian-Canadian bit I think is either saying the article is missing information or that a quick Google search didn't bring up sources that confirmed notability, not that his nationality is an issue. His Facebook page and whether or not it's verified isn't really relevant to the points raised in this discussion. - Purplewowies (talk) 16:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Further, the article (created 16:42, 27 August 2020 UTC (link to first revision)) was not redlinked on Odd Squad until approximately an hour before its creation (15:56 to 15:58, 27 August 2020 UTC (diff)) and was not redlinked at all on Suits recently (link was added 16:47, 27 August 2020 UTC (diff), five minutes after this article's creation). Both of these new linkings were added by the article's creator. I'll bite that S.I.N. Theory was redlinked--it was added back in 2013 by what appears to be a different account of Yazdani's. - Purplewowies (talk) 17:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete: Some part of me thinks it's possible he meets notability but I'm leaning the other way strongly enough to vote toward deletion. - Purplewowies (talk) 16:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


    • Comment I would like to again point out there are many articles and interviews of Farid Yazdani online [3] - which I think validates his credibility. I think it's a weak delete request indeed and it should stay. As soon as Feudal is released, a wikipedia page will once again be made and I have a feeling it will stay. I'm just creating the page on his behalf to get ahead of the media push. I don't think the points are valid enough as he is a supporting lead on a new CBC TV series - which in alone should be enough credibility as it addresses the claim that he hasn't played in a "major role". [4]
Speaking about himself in Q&A interviews doesn't demonstrate notability — we require sources in which other people are writing or speaking about him in the third person. And even if you're going for "notable because he's had acting roles", that test isn't passed just because roles are listed — it's passed only when one or more of his roles have made him the subject of enough reliable source third party journalistic coverage about him in real media to pass WP:GNG, and no number of roles exempts a person from having to have coverage. Bearcat (talk) 19:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Furthermore to the point of Facebook, it is relevant as grounds for acting notability states in section 2 that the entertainer "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." Upon searching Facebook, I believe his page has a modest 16,000+ followers. 170.10.244.114 (talk) 23:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The number of followers a person does or doesn't have on a social networking platform has absolutely nothing to do with our notability criteria for people in any occupation, and actors are not automatically notable just because it's possible to verify that acting roles were had — the notability test for an actor requires things like notable acting awards, and/or media coverage that is substantively about him and his performances, which is not the same thing as merely having his name passingly mentioned in casting announcements, or appearing on the cover of a magazine that doesn't have a feature piece about him inside the issue, or speaking about himself in the first person in a Q&A interview on a local newscast. Obviously no prejudice against recreation at a later date if Feudal either gets him more substantial coverage or scores him a Canadian Screen Award nomination — but nothing that's already stated in the article today is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have more and better sourcing than this — we're looking for journalism, not photographs or press releases or social networking posts. Bearcat (talk) 19:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Do video interviews count toward press? I feel like they should be worth just as much if not more than print. For print, the page has already sourced an article that is strictly about him and his work [5]. I can also source at least 3 interviews on CP24 which is one of Toronto's largest, if not largest news outlet.

[6] [7] [8]

No, interviews don't count in any format, because they represent the subject talking about himself in the first person — but to count toward getting him over GNG, a source has to represent other people talking or writing about his importance and impact in the third person. You're allowed to sparingly use interviews for additional verification of facts after he's already been shown to clear GNG on proper journalism — for instance, if it happens to be in an interview that a person confirms their exact birthdate or their ethnic background, or comes out as LGBTQ or whatever, then you can use the interview to source that fact — but the interviews are not GNG-making coverage in and of themselves, if the article doesn't contain a sufficient number of third party sources written in the third person. Notability is not a thing people get to give themselves by talking about themselves self-promotionally — it's a thing other people have to anoint them with by externally and objectively assessing and analyzing the significance of their work, such as by writing content about it in newspapers and magazines and books. Bearcat (talk) 21:39, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentFarid also won a Canadian Comedy award for Day Players [9], to add to the request for notable awards. He is seen talking about it in 2 of the interviews. I've answered every single request that has been made regarding what needs to be seen. The proof is sourced and reliable. Ive seen weaker wiki pages about other actors with less sourcing. Seems like a prejudice at this point and a weak delete request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.10.244.114 (talk) 14:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Every award that exists is not always an automatic notability clincher — awards support notability only to the extent that said award gets media coverage. If you want to make a person notable for winning an award, you cannot source that award win to the award's own self-published website about itself; it has to be sourced to journalistic reportage about the award ceremony in order to establish that the award is a notable one in the first place. Notability is not simply a matter of counting the number of footnotes an article has in it — there are a lot of websites out there that are not reliable or notability-supporting sources, so notability is about evaluating the quality of the sources rather than just their number. It is entirely possible for a person with more footnotes to be less notable than a person with fewer footnotes, because the quality of the sources is much more important than how many footnotes there are or aren't. Bearcat (talk) 21:39, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of military installations in Massachusetts. Tone 18:38, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

South Hingham Camp[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. The sole source is self-published with minimal details. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Sources don't support notability, just routine coverage. The Boston Globe reported they planted a victory garden on March 27, 1943, Lt. Thackery was in charge of bayonet drills after Lt. Hume was finished with PT (August 23, 1944, North Adams Transcript), but apparently someone was not happy with how it was going with Col. Patrick J. O'Brian's training methods because he was in trouble for it on Aug 8, 1944, (The Berkshire Eagle). Since the article says it only existed until November 1943, I'd say the article sources are not the best.   // Timothy :: talk  17:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with List of military installations in Massachusetts: I don't see indication that the fort is notable by itself, but there are some links to it from other places and it would be worth having a mention with some context. Realistically, a lot of the Massachusetts 'camp' stubs can be merged there as well. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:06, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with List of military installations in Massachusetts per Eddie891. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:52, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Tone 18:37, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chief customer officer[edit]

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

I cannot find significant coverage in reliable sources of this job role. There is a Wired article but it is tagged Partner Content so I think may be paid. There is a Forbes post but it is at forbes.com/sites/, which is mentioned as potentially not reliable at WP:RSVETTING. Tacyarg (talk) 17:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 17:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:57, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article clearly needs work, but I see enough coverage. Harvard Business Review, Marketing Week, and a book by a Jeanne Bliss. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:36, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There are sources for notability. [7], [8], [9], [10], Winer, Russell S. "A Framework for Customer Relationship Management." California Management Review 43, no. 4 (2001): 89-105. I'd say all these lesser known "chief" positions could be combined into one article, but that's another discussion.   // Timothy :: talk  17:09, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Agree with the 2 above votes and what they said. Expertwikiguy (talk) 08:41, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agree with the notes above. Ktin (talk) 14:14, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 17:30, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ERequirements[edit]

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

No significant coverage per WP:N. The official website doesn't exist. SL93 (talk) 17:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can't find any sources for notability. It's mentioned in a few spots, but its barely a mention. There domain is for sale, not a good sign. I'd say merge into UML but there are no sources.   // Timothy :: talk  17:14, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Tone 17:30, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Mountain (2012 film)[edit]

The Mountain (2012 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable film with no independent reviews found during a WP:BEFORE search. Tagged for notability for almost 8 years. Donaldd23 (talk) 17:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 17:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 17:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was initially going to vote in favor of deleting the article, but it seems that the movie is part of a duology, the second of which sold ₺40 million in Turkey. The first movie was also released on a national scale for almost 14 weeks according to the data given by Box Office Turkey. Overall, I would say that the series is notable and the page on the first movie can remain as well. Keivan.fTalk 23:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I originally tagged this as non-notable, years ago. The article has been improved recently and a sequel has been filmed, released and got more at the box office. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Keivan.f ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 12:07, 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, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July Fourth Toilet[edit]

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

    Non-notable musical band. Reads like a promotional piece. References do not confirm notability/are not reliable sources. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 17:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment the first two sources are both interviews, which are specifically precluded under WP:NBAND - except for ... publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves. This just leave the nine-line review in the monthly(?) round-up of Scram magazine, which I'm not convinced is enough to demonstrate SigCov. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 07:45, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Tone 17:30, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The Lost Choices[edit]

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

    article of non notable film written by the director. RZuo (talk) 17:15, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. RZuo (talk) 17:15, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. RZuo (talk) 17:15, 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. WP:SNOW keep, and a total lack of WP:BEFORE was demonstrated. (non-admin closure) ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Adopt Me![edit]

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

    Per Roblox talk page. MaxandRubyPeppaBlueyCuriousGeorgeFan2.0 (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:05, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, because those games don't have the same coverage. You are comparing apples to oranges here. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That's like saying "This person is innocent of a crime, but should go to prison, because there are so many wrongfully convicted in prison." ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 19:33, 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 no consensus. It's clear that a straight-up delete isn't happening, and that's really all AFD needs to decide. If people want to do a merge/redirect, that conversation can continue on the talk pages. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:06, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Arduino IDE[edit]

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

    No claim of notability. Sources are self-published with no in-depth coverage. Nreatian (talk) 16:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Clearly the nominator has no idea about Arduino and its IDE. - Coriannakox (talk) 18:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC) (Creator of the article)[reply]

    *Keep - Somone did not bother to do a book search before nominating this. ~Kvng (talk) 21:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Speedy keep: I actually have this installed.   // Timothy :: talk  17:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: My main concern here is the WP:CFORK thats going on with Arduino#Software and question how nom's WP:BEFORE did not pick that up or mention it here. Oh .. I notice on article talk page this has copied content from the original Arduino article without really following Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. ( Unbelievably checking Inchicore railway works last night I realized I had plagiarized the the initial version of that myself without fully giving prescribed attribution and was back fixing that).Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Soft delete or redirect or possibly keep. If kept the content fork with Arduino must be resolved, attributions properly given possibly content copied from Arduino. A soft delete appropriate as the IDE may become WP:DUE in the Arduino article (it isn't currently) and because its a different sort of entity in its own category and a sustainable article in its own right is I believe possibly. Using a redirect (to section with with possibilies and categories) isn't really necessary for locating the main article from search but it is useful for categories. Choices are really about how the content fork is handled. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect is probably the cleanest way to resolve this. A WP:SPLIT at this time does not appear to be needed. ~Kvng (talk) 13:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep There is plenty of sourcing to have a large Arduino article along with a large Arduino IDE article. "Arduino" by itself is a word referring to the open source movement, the board, the IDE, the foundation etc. Many articles have been written on using the software (i.e. the Arduino IDE). Regarding naming, Arduino (software) might be an alternative to the current naming. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd expect Arduino (software) to refer to software that runs on the Arduino. The Integrated Development Environment (IDE) is not part of that but runs on a separate host (AFAIK). Thus I contend it would be in inappropriate to rename the current article to Arduino (software). I am minded it would be possible to reframe the article into Arduino (software) and have the IDE has a section in that, but that is not where we are at. In all events if !voting keep please identify who will be taking responsibility for resolving the content fork (I should have made it clear I am not volunteering to do that). Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm OK with Arduino (software). That's what the IDE has always been called by the "official" developers. You are correct that the IDE runs on a separate host; it produces RISC processor code that runs on tiny processors, which is not in itself anything specific to "Arduino" (except for the bootloader, I guess.)ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll accept that. But unless someone indicates they plan to expand the current article and resolve the content fork it would be better closed as a redirect or perhaps even a soft delete.Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: If there is a consensus on a merge/rename I'd support that; I'm simply against a delete or redirect w/o merge.   // Timothy :: talk  08:25, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Draft-ify. Moved to draft by the article's creator. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:40, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    GRIDI[edit]

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

    Promotional article and unreliable sources, mostly press releases. Even the claim "to be the world's largest MIDI sequencer by some musical technologists" is a circular reference from the company's own press release. No claim of notability. Nreatian (talk) 16:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Per nominator's rationale. I am convinced that this topic is not notable enough for Wikipedia. I will move it to draftspace. - Coriannakox (talk) 18:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Robert Dayton[edit]

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

    Blatant promotional article. No references to attest for notability. First two references are actually links to an online shop selling his art. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 16:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: Upon further inspection I've noticed that the creator of this article also uploaded the subject's picture, the description of which reads "I took this picture of Robert Dayton". There has been no COI or paid editing disclosure by the author of the article - it was directly pushed into the mainspace. So unless someone who states they had taken a picture of someone in what appears to be a bedroom as not having a COI, then we are dealing with a violation of WP:COI and possibly undisclosed paid editing. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 17:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete GNG fail. I removed several sources that did not mention the subject. A search found next to nothing. As an aside, I do not think this is paid editing; it looks like run of the mill self promotion.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I am the author of this page. This is the first page I've ever created, and is definitely not paid editing! I'm currently in the process of editing text for neutrality and also to add additional citations. This person is an important figure in the Canadian underground scene and deserves a wikipage. --PoussinChevre (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you explain your connection to the subject given that you have stated here that you took a photograph of him in what appears to be a private residence? Nearlyevil665 (talk) 17:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @PoussinChevre: Wikipedia is entirely based on reliable sources written by others in above-ground reputable publications. We can have articles on people from the "underground scene", but they need to have been noticed extensively in the above-ground scene.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:36, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I know the subject because we're from the same town - I felt he was a worthwhile subject for my first wiki page. However, I see now that I published too early - hopefully my edits will pass muster!--PoussinChevre (talk) 18:15, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    ::@PoussinChevre: Taking credit for a photograph made in what appears to be the subject's bedchambers suggests more than simply "being from the same town". While it is perfectly fine to write about subjects you are connected to, you are strongly encouraged to go through Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation and allowing third-party review instead of publishing new articles directly. More info is available on WP:COI. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 18:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Ah! This is very helpful - thank you. Am I still able to submit edits for reevaluation or should I just pack it in and head over to Articles for creation?--PoussinChevre (talk) 18:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    My first instinct is to suggest to post all strong and meaningful references that you believe suggest notability of the subject straight here as a comment, but I will let more experienced users suggest the best course of action. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 18:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Use the article talk page for suggestions. The Afd isn't really the place for COI discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - I have not been able to find enough to support our notability requirements for WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. There is one article that is an interview and therefore a primary source which does not count towards SIgCOV in RS, and another article that is a human interest story, rather than a critical review or analysis of his work. Netherzone (talk) 23:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Wikipedia is not supposed to be a platform for promoting ones career.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:43, 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. Needs work but consensus to keep. Tone 17:31, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Post–Turing machine[edit]

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

    The article reads more like a research paper than an encyclopedia. Extensive clean-up is required to save this article.Dobbyelf62 (talk) 16:38, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep Per WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP and WP:MANYLINKS because the article has 253 items linking to it (in all namesapaces) and 220 of those are from articles. Also, the content of the article is included on a non-media-wiki wiki with the statement "This article's content derived from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia (See original source)," found at this Infogalatic article. I noticed that the nominator tagged the article with the "advert" template (I agree that it reads like a research paper, but I have found no promotional material within the article), and 3 minutes later made this deletion request. The article definitely needs extensive cleanup for tone, but this can't happen if the article is deleted. I feel like applying the "research paper" template and giving contributors time to make the edits would be far more appropriate. I also noticed that the creator of the article wasn't notified about the deletion nomination, so I will be doing that shortly. Thanks, KnowledgeablePersona (talk) 07:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Without looking at any other issues yet, I'll say that it's only 211 links once redirects and non-mainspace are eliminated, and most of those are from a navbox template. A search for insource:"Post–Turing machine" in mainspace reveals 29 matches (this matches hyphens too), some of which are simply "See also"-type links, so it's really a much more modest total than you're claiming. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:54, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for notifying the author of the article. My apologies!Dobbyelf62 (talk) 17:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to Turing machine. This doesn't seem to be a term that's in use (at best I found some lecture notes; Google Scholar gives zero). The history of the Turing machine is somewhat convoluted, including improvements from Post, which seems to be the gist of what's here, so maybe it's a WP:POVFORK in order to try to include Post's name in what's typically just called a "Turing machine" to give him more credit. But what's here is overly technical and goes well into WP:OR territory. In any case, what's here cannot stay. I wouldn't really be opposed to a delete either, but in case there's anything in here worth saving/merging, I wouldn't mind skipping that part. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep but trim down. Much of the examples section is unreferenced. There seems to be a fair number of references to this work and some people have used this model for their work. Turing machine is already enough and trying to merge it in there would lose some of the history. It does seem to get mentioned quite a bit for example a recent monograph Computability Theory, Karl-Heinz Zimmermann. --Salix alba (talk): 16:44, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: I searched in JSTOR and MIT Journals and found things I think are sources, I'm not sure how common the name is, but there are sources that connect Post and Turing. Until someone who is a lot smarter than myself says it should be deleted, I think there is enough sourcing for it to remain.   // Timothy :: talk  17:36, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Tone 17:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    List of last words in fiction[edit]

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

    A massive list of random examples of the last things fictional characters have said. Most of the examples are unsourced, and those that are sourced are only using the pieces of fiction themselves. There is no actual sourcing being used at all to discuss the concept as a whole, and I'm not finding any that talk about the concept in any kind of set that would allow this to pass WP:LISTN. This is also FILLED with WP:OR. While the overall concept of Last words in general may be notable, this list is completely WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Rorshacma (talk) 16:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per WP:IINFO. This is just a compilation of trivia, and even restricting to works with WP articles, this list could run into tens or even hundreds of thousands of entries (or more). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom.★Trekker (talk) 18:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - The main article seems to have the same issues, but this variation is even more indiscriminate due to the infinite nature of fictional characters. If the main list is going to exist, it can handle the few actually notable fictional last words. TTN (talk) 20:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete This is even more arbitrary than I first thought. I thought this would be last words in a book or other work. Nope, this is the last words attributed to fictional characters. This really has so much Tolkien that it seems like it is a manifestation of Tolkienfruft. There is no reason to have such a thing as a list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. There may be a few fictional last words which are notable, but they can be on the main list. Rhino131 (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per WP:NOTIINFO. No indication as to why these phrases are notable either on their own or as a group. Ajf773 (talk) 21:19, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I looked at the very first revision, and it contained only one entry I could defend, "Rosebud", from Citizen Kane. Citizen Kane is generally placed on practically everyone's list of most important films. And it revolves around Kane's mysterious dying utterance - "Rosebud". "Rosebud" is widely quoted, in other contexts, like Rosebud (The Simpsons). Scholars write theses about "Rosebud" [16], [17], [18], [19], [20].

      Shakespeare has Julius Caesar say, "et tu Brutus?" - also an iconic phrase, subject to scholarly attention. The phrase is so widely used people may use the phrase who have never heard of Shakespeare, or read Julius Caesar.

      I'd support a list last words that was free of fancruft, and only included phrases that were the subject of scholarly attention. I'd also support a list of last words where the word or phrase had entered our shared cultural heritage to the extent it was used without an explicit reference to its original context.

      Hal 9000's death scene, in 2001, is also very memorable, very unusual. It too would be something scholars write theses about.

      My suggestion? Only words or phrases iconic enough to have their own standalone article should be in the list. Et tu Brutus? would be an example. I was surprised we did not have an article on Rosebud (cultural relevance of Rosebud), or reasonable equivalent. With that restriction this would be a much shorter and manageable list. Geo Swan (talk) 23:30, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Rorshacma, Shellwood, Deacon Vorbis, *Treker, TTN, Rhino131, and Ajf773:, I threw out all the cruft, and started with a stub, written as per my comments above - a much shorter list of dying phrases each demonstrably notable in their own right. I invite your comments on it. Geo Swan (talk) 01:17, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is far better. I would not mind if it was kept like this.★Trekker (talk) 01:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • If we were able to limit this just to the entries that had enough notability to have their own articles, then I would probably be fine to keep it as a navigational list. But, I do agree with TTN that when its that limited, then there is no real reason for it to be split off from the main List of last words article. Though, that article is in just as bad of a shape as this one was before your revision. Rorshacma (talk) 01:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, I think applying the same inclusion criteria of only blue links (both full articles and sections of main articles directly covering said quotes) to the main list and merging them both would be a fine outcome. It feels like the main list really should be reformatted into an article about last words. I'd have to imagine there is commentary on the concept itself in terms of of actual documentation of last words as something of cultural importance. But just removing the bloat is a good enough first step. TTN (talk) 01:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC) TTN (talk) 01:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • @TTN and Rorshacma:, but wouldn't Roy Batty and Charles Foster Kane's last words be off-topic in List of last words, when every other entry there represents the last words of a real person? Geo Swan (talk) 01:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Something akin to the older article structure would suffice if the same inclusion criteria is applied to the main list. I assume that would cut the current list down by 80-95% and then both sections can be built up from there. TTN (talk) 01:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, ideally the notable fictional examples would be separated into their own section after the notable real life ones. Rorshacma (talk) 02:17, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't see how adding a section, that doesn't really fit, would be superior to adding, say, {{see also|List of last words in fiction}}. Geo Swan (talk) 13:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak delete With the trimmed article, there will be very few quotations that are both last words and so notable they need their own article, and such a fragment of a list is hardly worthwhile. And no, there should not be a separate article on "Rosebud": Citizen Kane covers analysis of how that fits into the film well (or the theses should be used to improve that page or a section within it, to avoid duplication). Surely academic discussion of HAL 9000's last words would fit within that article rather than separately! Perhaps there should instead be a list that goes with Category:Quotations from film more broadly but even then film/fiction quotations so rarely need to be discussed separately from their articles that listing only those with their own articles is not a great endeavor though, and many in the category that do are song or film titles too. AFI's 100 Years...100 Movie Quotes links to a number of article sections, usually the better way to present them. Otherwise put the best back into List of last words (none of which have separate articles – naturally!). Perhaps there's a way to establish inclusion criteria to this, but having articles isn't it. Reywas92Talk 08:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reywas92 I very strongly disagree with your comment "...but even then film/fiction quotations so rarely need to be discussed separately from their articles that listing only those with their own articles is not a great endeavor..."

        Iconic phrases enter English's cultural lexicon all the time, and a significant fraction of those iconic phrases continue to be used, and understood, long after many English speakers no longer know the original context where they were coined.

        Just the other day I watched a YouTube video on USAAF bombers. It explained that while the gunners in the (smaller) Luftwaffe bombers gun positions were surrounded by 60 round drum magazines, the machine guns gunners used in big USAAF bombers were loaded, on the ground with a continuous belt of ammunition 27 feet long. The narrator explained that the common idiom "the whole nine yards" often used to expending one's entire resources, all at once, was coined referring to firing all the bullets allocated for an entire mission in one long continous burst. I've heard that phrase used my entire life. I did not know its derivation. As I wrote above, phrases like "Rosebud", or "Et tu, Brute?" are routinely used by people who have no idea of their original context.

        I feel very strongly it is a grave disservice to readers to send them to a larger article when what they are really interested in is the meaning of a phrase. Doing so represents a danger that someone will feel that the explanation of the phrase is off-topic, and trim it from the larger article, without realizing the chaos this will cause.

        Back in 2007, when I was a newbie, and hadn't really encountered anyone with an incurable urge to merge, I started an article on the phrase "There's a sucker born every minute". Before I started this article I knew what lots of people thought everyone else knew - that the phrase was coined by P.T. Barnum. When researching the phrase I found that Barnum's biographers all agreed that he did not coin the phrase, that none of the people who really knew him well believed he coined the phrase.

        At the AFD I found a surprising number of participants thought the phrase should redirect to Barnum's article, in spite of all the RS who said he didn't coin the phrase.

        As I said, I had never really encountered contributors who wanted to merge things, merely for the sake of merging before. So I spent a couple of hours studying the results of google searches for where the phrase was used.

        What did I find? About a third of the writers who used the phrase, would lazily say "As PT Barnum once said 'There's a sucker born every minute'". Another third of the writers who used the phrase, (generally the better writers) would say the phrase was frequently attributed to Barnum, without claiming Barnum actually coined it. But it was the final third I thought was the most significant. The phrase had a life of its own, and a third of the writers who used never mentioned PT Barnum, at all.

        More than a billion people learned English as a second language, and are likely to be confused by cliched phrases like "There's a sucker born every minute" or "like tears in rain". If they click on a link to the phrase, they really deserve to go to an article on the phrase. If the mergists had succeeded in cramming everything about the phrase routinely but incorrectly attributed to Barnum into the Barnum article we could have very seriously eroded readers confidence in the wikipedia. If the phrase was changed to a redirect to P.T. Barnum#famous sayings, and some innocent contributor changed that to P.T. Barnum#famous utterances that would result in everyone who wanted to know what the phrase meant suddenly finding themselves at the top of the P.T. Barnum article. That would be very jarring. They could be forgiven for thinking that the wikipedia would suddenly send people to random pages. How would they know there was a connection between some 19th century circus owner and a phrase they wanted explained?

        So, I very strongly disagree with your general premise that iconic phrases, that have a life of their own, that measure up to GNG, should be shoehorned into larger articles. In particular, I am pretty confident that "Rosebud" is regularly used and understood to signify a mystery, by people who are unfamiliar with Citizen Kane. Geo Swan (talk) 13:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

        • Who the heck says Et tu Brute without knowing it was used by Caesar? Who the heck uses Rosebud wihout knowing Citizen Kane? That really baffles me, I have certainly never seen that word used by itself without some sort of reference to the film. You're sure building a straw man with Barnum there! That phrase really is known and used outside of the him as a circus leader and I would not suggest keeping it with his biography with the actual original irrelevant to him. But I simply fail to see how you expect to build a list of last words in fiction with an inclusion criterion of having their own article when the vast, vast majority of such movie quotes are tied to their movie alone. Examples of last words in fiction that have meanings or significant content disconnected from the film context and which should have their content split apart are few and far between. Sure, if it's an independent phrase, absolutely create a separate article, but there's not enough of them to maintain this list. Reywas92Talk 19:50, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to List of last words. There are more famous fictional last lines than just "Rosebud":
    • WRT merging into List of last words - I have several concerns with that.
    • All the entries in List of last words are supposed to be the last words of real people.
    • The List of last words article is, itself, a mess.
      • Lots of entries in that list may be documentable, but are totally uninteresting
      • Lots of entries in that list may be documentable, but lack the context that would make them worth covering. Consider the entry for George V:
    "God damn you!"[31][177][note 41]
    — George V, king of the United Kingdom (20 January 1936), to a nurse giving him a sedative
    Cursing the nurse giving him an injection is a lot more interesting when one knows that is generally accepted that his family and doctor "hurried on" the death of the very ill King with an overdose. The King was not looking for a hotshot, so this may have been, well, murder.
    I know merges of articles on related topics seems so natural to some people that they are mystified when asked to explain them. I don't see it. I don't see why the merge makes sense. I think my rewrite is policy compliant. And I think List of last words is a mess, would require a lot of work to fix. Geo Swan (talk) 02:55, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say the discussion here could likely be used as a consensus to TNT that article. Combining both stubs and working to define proper inclusion criteria while also trying to set up some kind of structure for actual discussion on the significance of last words in both real life and fiction would likely be the best course of action for both lists. TTN (talk) 02:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: This lasted for over a year...   // Timothy :: talk  17:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as WP:OR and WP:IINFO. Fictional characters die frequently and they all have "last words". Shooterwalker (talk) 03:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete- Useless compilation of trivia. Reyk YO! 10:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - How is this encyclopedic? Why does it exist? Is there a single article from a reliable secondary source devoted to this topic that isn't a clickbait list? Do even the biggest of film buffs care? Darkknight2149 10:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: Open and shut case. Every reason why has already been covered above. Don't understand the discussing. Normal Op (talk) 19:29, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:09, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Luca Gaetani Lovatelli[edit]

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

    Non-notable subject with dubious claims such as being 'one of the most famous wine producers in Italy', which is backed by a single source (in Arabic, for whatever reason that might be). Quite possibly an article created initially as a promotional piece for the subject's family wine business. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 16:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Nearlyevil665 i didnt write that (he is one of the most famous wine producers in Italy) some one else edit the article. i wrote (He is the son of the owner of an alcohol factory in Montalcino, Italy). and his family is Gaetani there is article about this family. and in the article there are sources in italy. and in wikidata i found the family tree of this family and this person. Amrahlawymasry (talk) 22:22, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    and when you search by his name you will find some articles about him and more of it about his brother and his family → https://www.google.com/search?q=conte+Luca+Gaetani+Lovatelli+dell%27Aquila+D%27+Aragona&rlz=1C1VFKB_enEG607EG607&ei=7StMX_38B6GDjLsP2ZaE4Ag&start=10&sa=N&ved=2ahUKEwi9p4zKgMTrAhWhAWMBHVkLAYwQ8tMDegQIFxAw&biw=1464&bih=706 Amrahlawymasry (talk) 22:49, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment. As the guidelines at WP:NOTINHERITED make clear, being part of a notable family is not enough to justify a Wikipedia page. For this page to remain, it would be necessary to show that Luca Gaetani Lovatelli has had significant coverage as an individual person. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 08:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - All of the articles in Italian (and one link is dead) are death/suicide notices, or articles about about his death. There do not seem to be any articles about him while he was alive. I tried some other newspapers as well and got nada. Lamona (talk) 19:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: All I'm seeing is inherited coverage, nothing SIGCOV that would meet BASIC or GNG.   // Timothy :: talk  08:32, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Gil Waugh[edit]

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

    Completely unreferenced WP:BLP of a writer and musician with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC or WP:AUTHOR. For both endeavours, the claims here are that his work exists -- but Wikipedia is not simply looking for verification of existence so much as properly sourced evidence of importance, such as important literary or music awards, journalistic coverage about his career and/or independent critical analysis of his work's creative or cultural significance. But the closest thing to "referencing" here is a linkfarm of external links to directory entries and the self-published websites of organizations he's directly affiliated with, which are primary sources and not support for notability. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have much better references than this. Bearcat (talk) 15:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:57, 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 15:56, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    ID Africa[edit]

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

    UPE article where article creator is now blocked, created for an organization that doesn’t possess WP:CORPDEPTH nor satisfy WP:CORP at all as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. A before search did show this & this but both are not sufficient to satisfy WP:CORP. Celestina007 15:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 15:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 15:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 15:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 15:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 15:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Indeed. Looking at all the sources that were chosen to include in the article, many of them share content with each other as well as with other sources. I can find the same cited content appearing under the byline of Opeyemi Kehinde on the Daily Trust site, Ugo Onwuaso on the Nigeria Communications Week site, AwesomeCon on Brand Communications, Raheem Akingbolu on This Day Live, and gnadmin on Good News Nigeria. Some of the sources consist of content replicated on other sites under the byline BHM, which is the marketing company behind this operation. All of this, in addition to the clear PR feel of all these pieces, demonstrates that the sources are all PR-generated material, not independent, reliable sources. Largoplazo (talk) 16:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: WP:CORP and WP:GNG require WP:SIGCOV and the sources in article and from WP:BEFORE show this doesn't exist.   // Timothy :: talk  04:14, 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 redirect to Chinabank. Tone 17:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    China Bank Binondo Business Center[edit]

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

    Article does not meet WP:GNG for WP:N. WP:NBUILDING states "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." From WP:BEFORE, the subject does not have WP:SIGCOV to meet this guideline. References in the article are not WP:IS.   // Timothy :: talk  16:59, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  16:59, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:30, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 15:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Merge important contents (esp. completion date of the building) to Chinabank and redirect. Add section on the former and current headquarters of the bank at the mother article which might serve as a guide for those who might want to upload photos of those buildings to Wikimedia sites (Commons doesn't allow photos of modern or post-November 1972 buildings from the Philippines where the copyright law has no-FoP provision). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge It seems like there should be more coverage of such an historic building, but there isn't much readily accessible online, except on the bank's website. So Merge into Chinabank per above. MB 01:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge: My first choice is delete, but Merge is acceptable as a second choice.   // Timothy :: talk  02:51, 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 because it was a copyvio listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems for over seven days, not because of any consensus or lack thereof here. MER-C 17:11, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Studio for Interrelated Media[edit]

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

    Non-notable academic department at a college. Searches show almost no coverage other than from the college itself. The article is basically an unreferenced ad for the department. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:14, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note significant text lifted from here. I leave it for someone else to judge whether it's G12. It's currently G11 ish but I haven't had time to look for sources to see if content issues can be fixed. StarM 02:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 15:43, 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 15:55, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Fiùran[edit]

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

    Article about a band, not reliably sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The notability claims here are that they won a minor award for independent music that doesn't pass NMUSIC #8 (which requires major awards on the order of Grammys or Junos, not just any music award that exists), and that they've been played and profiled on internet and college radio (but NMUSIC specifically requires national radio networks like CBC Music, and deprecates internet and college radio as not carrying of musical notability at all.) The content, further, is largely not referenced to reliable or notability-making media coverage, but to blogs and primary sources and YouTube videos and the internet/college radio streams -- the closest thing to a strong source here is three different citations to one obscure music magazine which would be fine if the other sources around it were better, but isn't widely circulated enough to singlehandedly get a topic over GNG all by itself if it's the only acceptable source on offer. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to have more and better media coverage than this. Bearcat (talk) 15:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. They've presumably garnered a bit of interest in order to have been given the radio coverage mentioned in the article, but not enough to pass WP:NMUSICIAN. The fact that their music is self-released after four years (whether by choice or because of a lack of interest from commercial labels) is problematic. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 16:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Couldn't find anything besides databases, concert sites and press releases. Most of the sites repeat the same biography. Not notable. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:47, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:54, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Femi Falodun[edit]

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

    This is a UPE article where article creator is now blocked, for a subject who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails to satisfy WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:BASIC & WP:ANYBIO. A before search reveals nothing concrete to substantiate or prove notability Celestina007 15:35, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 15:35, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 15:35, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 15:35, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 15:35, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. No evidence of anything approaching notability. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 16:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete another in a very long line of articles on non-notable marketing businesspeople.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Fails guidelines mentioned by nom. BEFORE showed promo pieces, nothing that meets SIGCOV.   // Timothy :: talk  02:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Tone 17:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Nigar Talibova[edit]

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

    Not notable. evrifaessa ❯❯❯ talk 15:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. evrifaessa ❯❯❯ talk 15:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. evrifaessa ❯❯❯ talk 15:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. evrifaessa ❯❯❯ talk 15:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. evrifaessa ❯❯❯ talk 15:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. evrifaessa ❯❯❯ talk 15:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I cannot fully evaluate Azerbaijani sources, but since she's based in Turkey (at least that's what the article claims) I tried to look up for Turkish sources and I couldn't find any. It seems that she doesn't have a notable career to begin with. Keivan.fTalk 22:33, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete no evidence she is notable as a model or as a singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:36, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - I concur with one of the voters above that there might be an issue with Turkish, Azerbaijani, and English spellings of this woman's name. In English I can find nothing on her band; and as a model she is only present in the typical social media promotions and modeling industry directories. It turns out that she is also known as Nigar Alptekin, and her husband is mixed up in a scandal involving Trump crony Michael Flynn. This article: [21] mentions her briefly as the wife while also explaining that she has gained very little notice as a model or musician (third paragraph from the bottom). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:57, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I found the following sources in Turkish (only from major publishers): [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], but these sources are mostly about her going on vacation at X city or becoming a mother, not about her career or anything. In Azerbaijani I found this article about multiple famous Azerbaijani women where she is also included. ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 07:39, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Andrea Jennifer Shubert[edit]

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

    I stumbled across this article by chance while trying to find out when the studio Genetic Anomalies was disestablished by THQ. I added some details from the source that connects the two topics, but unfortunately could not find anything else on Shubert.

    The source linked above and this one are the only ones in the article. Both include only some routine coverage of Play140 and name some very basic points:

    • Her name is Andrea Shubert
    • Shubert's former name
    • Shubert co-conceived Acrophobia in 1995
    • Shubert worked at Genetic Anomalies once
    • Shubert co-founded Play140 in 2009

    Unfortunately, there seems to be no source for the middle name, the birth date, or any other claim made in the article. Most content was unsourced since the article's creation in 2009. WP:GNG does, therefore, not seem to be met and the article should be deleted. Per WP:XY, possible redirect targets are Acrophobia and Chron X, but neither is better than the other. IceWelder [✉] 15:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 15:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 15:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 15:31, 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 15:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Kamala Harris citizenship conspiracy theories[edit]

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

    Propose redirecting to Natural-born-citizen clause#Kamala Harris. You should really see the talk page of the article for context, but I'll try to sum up as best I can: this is a WP:FRINGE legal theory (/ conspiracy theory) best dealt with in the context of the constitutional clause involved. A standalone article shows WP:RECENTISM and WP:UNDUE coverage of the fringe theory.

    Others on the talk page have favored such an approach. We floated John C. Eastman#Kamala Harris citizenship conspiracy theory or Kamala Harris as possibilities, but I was convinced that Natural-born-citizen clause#Kamala Harris is the best choice, since that article also lists people in similar situations.

    Finally, I do not see any need to merge anything from this article. Coverage at my proposed section is proportional and adequately searched. I'm only not proposing outright deletion since the title will remain a helpful search term for readers. BDD (talk) 15:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. BDD (talk) 15:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. BDD (talk) 15:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete or merge There is no ongoing coverage. Right-wing lawyers have long argued that the Citizenship Clause of the U.S. constitution does not apply some or all children of aliens in the U.S. The theory predates Harris and in fact was the official U.S. government position for the first thirty years after the clause was enacted. There is no need to duplicate coverage of this theory in an article about Harris. TFD (talk) 17:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Obviously meets WP:GNG. KidAd talk 18:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete or merge For John C. Eastman, this may be his greatest claim to fame. It certainly bears mentioning in the article on Donald Trump's racial views. However, I don't think it has much of a place merging into Kamala's page, personally; it's not factual, and it does not reflect her, unless we wish to simply note further how much of a natural born citizen she is. "Birtherism" about Barack Obama was a massive and entirely unsubstantiated phenomenon, but it must have a page because of how major it was. Even among more fringe Republicans and Trump supporters, I don't believe these Harris theories have any hold. I support merging it into John C. Eastman's page, or maybe into Kamala's, but not keeping the page. PickleG13 (talk) 18:30, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • How would this be "racial views". Wouldn't that be more like Trump's legal view / citizenship views / constitutional views ? The issue is whether Trump thinks a fetus inherently owed SANGUINIS regardless of where they are born, still being owed supplemental SOLI by the US. That is purely an issue of nationality, not race, and would also apply to a "white" child with jus-soli citizenship rights from England or Norway or Russia who is born in the US. 64.228.90.251 (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. This particular bit of fringe nuttery has not achieved significant coverage among sources, so no enduring notability. May be adequately dealt with in the appropriate article (John C. Eastman, Racial views of Donald Trump). Neutralitytalk 18:33, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - this information is sufficiently presented at John C. Eastman#Kamala Harris citizenship conspiracy theory and Natural-born-citizen clause#Kamala Harris. The subject is a fringe legal theory does not merit its own page. Reliable sources stopped covering this less than a week after Eastman published his opinion. --WMSR (talk) 19:27, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect as proposed - the target section already covers this in as much detail as Wikipedia needs to, and with appropriate context to related instances of the same conspiracy theory. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Not much more to say than "people are racist and wrong" Reywas92Talk 19:37, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect as proposed This is not a genuine controversy, just the fringe views of a publicity-seeking hack in Newsweek. Does not deserve a standalone article.,P-K3 (talk) 20:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I don't know who would actually search this up on own. Makes way more sense to have a subsection in her article; maybe add a sentence on her article saying someone said it, but its wrong? ping me when responding, gràcies! TheKaloo talk 23:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, with no redirect as this is not a likely search term. The basis of the article is Eastman's debunked op-ed in Newsweek that received almost no significant support, even by consevative legal scholars. No serious legal pursuit of the claims have been made in the courts. As such, giving the idea this amount of attention is undue weight to a fringe viewpoint. As to notability, there were several sources devoted to debunking, but the coverage was so brief that WP:NOTNEWS applies here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment on "not a valid search term": since this page was created on 14 August, it has had an average of 1,000 page views per day, with a peak over 4,000 and gradually trailing off. The threshold we commonly use in redirects for discussion for determining if a title is useful as a search term is one or two daily page views. This title is clearly useful as a search term; arguments to the contrary are wrong by three orders of magnitude, and I'll also remind everyone that notability is not temporary. The only really valid discussion here is whether this should be a standalone article, or to which article this title should redirect. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I largely agree, which is why I favor redirecting (though I would not be opposed to deletion as a second choice), but page views for an active article and page views for a redirect is very much apples-to-oranges. I expect those numbers to plummet regardless of this discussion's outcome, though probably not as low as 1-2 per day. --BDD (talk) 14:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect as proposed seems like a fair compromise. This article has been nothing but trouble since its inception.--Woko Sapien (talk) 18:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Everything and anyone can have tons of conspiracis pushed on them these days, I see nothing here that's not run of the mill. ★Trekker (talk) 18:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep it is undergoing a rename discussion as the issue of whether or not she is a "natural born citizen" is an object of discussion (media posed it to president, president commented, media reacted to president's comment) regardless or whether or not we choose to focus on the media's calling it a "conspiracy theory" to discuss whether or not one would be a jus soli 'natural born citizen' of the United States if you are born with jus sanguinis citizenship of Jamaica via your father. A much bigger deal is clearly being made of this than that silly thing with Ted Cruz, she's a VP candidate so it deserves it's own article just like Obama's does. It just really needs a rename because there aren't any actual notable "conspiracy theories" like with that "he wasn't even born in Hawaii, they faked the birth cert" silliness done with Obama. There is no notable "faked birth cert, she wasn't born in California" stuff with Kamala (despite what media misusing 'conspiracy' leads people to assume) but rather what seems to be whether "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in Fourteenth Amendment excludes who already inheriting jus sanguinis citizenship from a parent (you touch your parents' DNA prior to touching the soil) or if being subject to another nation's jurisdiction first would prevent it from applying. The Wong Kim Ark case seems to keep coming up. I don't fully understand the "but Kamala's parents weren't permanent residents when she was born" thing because I don't think WKA's parents were permanent residents either, weren't they just here on whatever the equivalent of a work visa was in 1898? Also nobody seems to be bringing up the precedent for that in circuit court with Look Tin Eli in 1884 or "Ex parte Chin King and Ex parte Chan San Hee" in 1888. Of course the omission of 1873's Slaughterhouse Cases supreme court case is even more glaring. 64.228.90.251 (talk) 20:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    comment I don't agree with Maile's trying to axe a disambig page, as there are certainly non-Obama uses of the term even if his is still the most prominent topic. Certainly not as a means of presupposing the deletion of this Kamala Harris birtherism article. The only reason not to have birtherism (disambiguation) is if birtherism itself expands from a redirect into that disambig, instead of being an Obama conspiracy redirect. Our and the media's lumping the Kamala objections in with Obama's ("conspiracy") seems racist because there hasn't been any "Kamala wasn't born in California" whispers like there were "Barack wasn't born in Hawaii" ones. That's why the Obama memes deserve to be called CTs while the Harris memes do not. There are entirely different forms of "birther" arguments for the two: BO was "was he born here?" whereas KH is "does 14th amendment apply to those who are already inherently subjects of Jamaica?" I would say the reason the Kamala objection needs an article while McCain's objection does not is because it's already gotten far more exposure than McCain's dilemma ever did throughout his entire campaign. 64.228.90.251 (talk) 22:57, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is, in fact, not undergoing a rename discussion. I waited for the RM to close before nominating. --BDD (talk) 15:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: this argument seems misconceived. This is no a "conspiracy theory", an example of "fringe nuttery" or "racism". It is just a conservative legal argument.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:36, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete or Redirect to Natural-born-citizen clause#Kamala Harris. We don't need a stand-alone article for each piece of mud thrown in an election. Related, I've put Birtherism (disambiguation) up for AFD. We don't need articles and disambiguation pages for every word or phrase that pops up in an election year. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. — Maile (talk) 23:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The whole issue is the politics of distraction, which seems to be the norm in every election now. The same issue came up with John McCain 2008 presidential campaign#Eligibility, and he was national hero. In his case, the mention of it did not merit its own article, but is one lone section in the article about his Presidential campaign. — Maile (talk) 13:48, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Tone 15:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Omar Alberto Rupp[edit]

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

    This article fails WP:GNG, as the subject is notable for only one event. This content could easily be merged into the ARA Narwal article. Lettlerhello 15:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello 15:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello 15:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello 15:01, 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 15:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Digital strategy[edit]

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

    This poorly sourced article is a rambling essay about nothing much. It disguises its banality in a bewildering fog of marketing buzzwords. Most of the sources are blogs and/or seem unrelated. Although I can find hits for the phrase "digital strategy" it is difficult to determine if they are related because this article is so vague and confusing and, frequently, so are those hits. Reyk YO! 14:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. What an irredeemable mess of messy wikilinks, stream-of-consciousness ramblings and corporate bollockspeak - needs nuking with extreme prejudice. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 14:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 15:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 15:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per WP:OR, WP:NOTESSAY, and WP:TNT. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:47, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: Definitely an WP:OR. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 16:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete The topic "digital strategy" and associated "digital transformation" are notable topics with many books and articles devoted to them. However, the article is very badly written, with synthesis and original research throughout. I rarely recommend deletion based on article quality, but this is an instance where it is warranted. Because this is a notable topic, I have no prejudice to re-creating a better written and better sourced version of the article. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 17:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. Tone 15:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Mayfield Mall[edit]

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

    An extinct mall turned into a private office complex. The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Subject does not have coverage that meets significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. WP:BEFORE revealed advertising, WP:ROUTINE coverage of events and directory style listings.   // Timothy :: talk  03:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  03:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  03:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  04:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. (I've also brought this article closer to where I'd have it now if I'd made this for DYK this year, not 2015, with additional citations and references.) While this particular center falls below the suggested gross leasable area threshold, I believe the property has enough notable media coverage (some of which I've been able to add in the new citations), and I believe it passes GNG because of its claim to being the first enclosed and carpeted center in the US (I don't buy it, but...), presence of the largest suburban JCPenney for its time, and association with Google (which makes it a favorite of news articles talking about mall reuse). The latter is particularly unusual for a mall. Raymie (t • c) 04:26, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep well sourced and well written article which meets our guideline for WP:GEOFEAT. The nomination mentions "extinct mall" but our relevant guideline refutes WP:NTEMP. Nomination also suggests lack of sources, but in the article I see Bloomberg, San Francisco Examiner, Mountain View Voice, BizJournals. It is also relevant and notable that the mall was rented and purchased by Google. Lightburst (talk) 15:47, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per above, the existing sourcing is more than sufficient to establish notability. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply:This is an article about a mall. How is a mall that becomes an office complex still a mall? It might be relevant to an article about mall reuse, but this is an article about Mayfield Mall, not an office complex. But in either case none of the sources in the article demonstrate notability for a mall or an office complex. They are just routine news articles. Nothing that supports 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."
    • " How is a mall that becomes an office complex still a mall?" Because things stop being notable once they no longer exist, right? The sourcing is about the mall and the office complex that replaced it, indicating it as a noteworthy conversion that merits discussion. Knock this off right now, you're clearly disrupting just to make a point and doubling down when it's clear that you're not getting your way. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Per Lightburst's reasoning above. More than enough reliable sources. Esw01407 (talk) 21:53, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Meets GNG, easy to find more sources like this one with interesting info on the grand opening that should go in the article. MB 23:53, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentThe sources above and in the article are all routine run of the mill coverage and announcements. They do not establish notability. Every mall will have lots of routine coverage because they seek it out as advertising. If this type of coverage makes a mall notable, then every mall will be notable.   // Timothy :: talk  02:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Has every mall been turned into offices for Google? That's an absolutely unique and notable ending for a mall. WP:ROUTINE does not apply to buildings. Badgering editors when it's clear the tide is turned against you is completely useless. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 14:01, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      TenPoundHammer, just for reference, I think TimothyBlue means WP:MILL rather than WP:ROUTINE. Not saying that it's true, just that I think that's the policy Timothy is trying to apply. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Even without the reuse by Google, the article establishes sufficient notability for the mall. Given how it ended, it's easily notable. The nominator in their nomination and subsequent replies seems to argue that a) notability is affected by a thing going away, which is plainly wrong; and b) that we should assume that any outcome that leads to "every mall will be notable" is a sign that we've made a mistake. I grew up in in the mid to late period of the Mall Era. Malls were central to the business and cultural life of American cities. If it turns out that ANY 500,000+ sqft. American malls, current or former, don't seem notable for our purposes, then it's likely that our guidelines and processes are wrong, not that the malls aren't notable enough. Vadder (talk) 18:00, 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 keep. Consensus is that the sources found by Calliopejen1 show the article should be retained and improved Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:37, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Hawthorne Plaza Shopping Center[edit]

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

    The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Subject does not have coverage that meets significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. WP:BEFORE revealed advertising, WP:ROUTINE coverage of events and directory style listings.   // Timothy :: talk  03:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  03:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  03:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  03:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Seems to be a development that was significant to the city and attracted sustained coverage over time. According to the LA Times (1990), the plaza contributed 15% of Hawthorne's sales tax revenue. Significant coverage includes:
    Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Also note that the article contains additional reliable sources that I think have been unfairly characterized by the nominator. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:52, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per coverage above and already in article, sourcing is more than sufficient. Also further asserted in use of the former building in several movie and TV shows. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:34, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The above are all routine news coverage that any mall would receive; it does not demonstrate notability. WP:NBUILD says that ""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." Nothing above touches on historic, social, or architectural importance (and significant coverage means addressing the subject directly and in depth). Economic significance is refuted by the fact that it is a dead mall. If someone disagrees, please state which sources show historic, social, economic, or architectural importance.   // Timothy :: talk  03:47, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @TimothyBlue: You really don't think that "used in a ton of movies and TV shows" is "historical or social importance", nor the fact that a structure in a major city has been sitting abandoned for 21 years? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: No I don't. Being a movie set for several movies is not historic (especially in Los Angeles) and what social importance does being a movie set for a few days have? What social impact did being a movie set have? Being an abandoned property for 21 years is not notable, if anything it shows how unnotable the mall is.   // Timothy :: talk  04:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: Don't be sarcastic, I gave you an honest reply. Guidelines are not just random arbitrary statements, there is a purpose to them. I see this as wheat and chaff. If we have 2000 articles for American malls (don't know the actual number), but only 200 are genuinely noteworthy, the 200 (10%) will be obscured by the other 1800 (90%). Removing non-notable malls, helps the visibility of notable ones. If all readers see when they look at malls, is open, renovate, close, boring routine items, they will miss the truly interesting and noteworthy malls. I believe this is what WP:NBUILD is going for when it says "may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance".
    • Is there some historical importance, such as the malls that were the first of their kind? I'm thinking here of the same way department stores are viewed, every department store is not notable, but the first department stores were pioneers, those have a history that is interesting and notable.
    • Social, a small/average mall in an urban area not socially notable, it's just one among a vast array of social environments. But a mall in a small town may be the center of the community and a significant part of the social fabric, not duplicated in other places.
    • Architectural speaks for itself, there are lots of architectural journals and magazines and if they cover a mall because of its design, then I see that as an indication something about the mall is notable and this can be in the article.
    • Economic, I'd go to the social reason above. A mall in a large urban area is going to make a negligible impact on the economy, even if it makes good money. But a mall in a small town may be a significant part of the local economy, even if it makes a fraction of the money the mall in an urban area does. In the same way as a factory in a city with a huge manufacturing base like Los Angeles or New York wouldn't be notable, but if you move that same factory to a small town, it could be the lifeblood of the economy, if it closed the town would (and sadly have) dry up.
      // Timothy :: talk  04:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    *"Historical": "every department store is not notable, but the first department stores were pioneers." So by that logic, Bon Marche in Paris is notable because it was a first, whereas Kohl's, Burlington, and J.C. Penney aren't notable at all because they weren't the first of anything nor did they pioneer anything.
    "separating the wheat from the chaff.... helps the visibility of notable ones." That's like saying that a musician who never entered the Hot 100 (for example The Forester Sisters, which is a WP:GA) should be deleted so that an article on, say, Maroon 5 or Metallica can have its visibility helped, whatever that means. Because by your standards, the Forester Sisters were just a "routine" band who routinely got together, routinely released singles and albums, routinely got reviews from routine music reviewers, and routinely broke up like most other bands do.
    "it's just one among a vast array of social environment". So by your logic, Northland Center is notable because it was one of the first and a "pioneer", whereas literally every other mall in Metro Detroit is "just one among a vast array" and therefore not notable. Not even the one that had the very first American Eagle Outfitters in it, huh? Because it's in a mall that's "just one among a vast array" by not being notable in any other fashion.
    "Architectural speaks for itself". Not every structure has to be architecturally notable. Again, I guess that means that Forest Fair Village is just another run-of-the-mill, routine mall that routinely got built and routinely died because it didn't have anything significant from a structural standpoint.
    " A mall in a large urban area is going to make a negligible impact on the economy, even if it makes good money." How much is non negligible by your standards? Is Colonial Plaza no longer notable because it got torn down? Rolling Acres Mall is not notable because it didn't make enough money and failed?
    If you contrast Tri-City Pavilions with other GA-class mall articles like Colonial Plaza or Forest Fair Village (again, both of which are GAs), then you will see that the scope of coverage is exactly the same. But by your standards, not notable because they're "routine", "not historical", and their removal will "help the visibility of notable ones", whatever the hell that means. Wikipedia does not have a limited amount of storage space so it's not like there's a pressing reason to "separat[e] the wheat from the chaff". Again, that's like saying that lesser-known, defunct bands should have their articles deleted, or that canceled TV shows should have their articles deleted to "increase the visibility" of currently-airing shows. Are The Forester Sisters "chaff" because they're "routine" and no longer active? Is Lonestar "chaff" because they haven't had a hit single in years? Is Joe Diffie "chaff" because he's no longer alive? Is Colonial Plaza "chaff" because it was torn down? Is Rolling Acres Mall "chaff" because it was torn down? You seem to be concocting an utterly absurd and overly narrow view of notability that in no way lines up with WP:GNG. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:39, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply First, these are not my standards. I am discussing it from the guidelines.
    The WP:NBUILD is not an all of the above requirement. Le Bon Marché may (I haven't looked) have importance architecturally or historically. JC Penny may be notable due to social or historic reasons, even though it is failing economically and their store (as far as I know) have no architectural importance. This will be reflected in the sources.
    If something is important architecturally it will be covered by architectural journals and magazines, or by articles from historical preservation societies. The same is true about economics; if something is economically significant it will be reflected in the sources. I don't have a standard, WP:NBUILD is a standard and it requires significant coverage showing why something is "worthy of note". The comparison of musical groups or television shows to shopping malls is Apples and oranges, they are entirely different and have different standards of notability. Much of the rest of your reasoning is simple WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
    When you attempt to get personal with comments such the ones above, you're only showing emotion that betrays the weakness of your reasoning and evidence.   // Timothy :: talk  05:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The sources that Calliopejen1 presented above show that there is pretty significant coverage for this topic. I disagree with the nominator that "If all readers see when they look at malls, is open, renovate, close, boring routine items, they will miss the truly interesting and noteworthy malls." Notability is not assessed in relation to other subjects, and openings, renovations, and closures are not necessarily "routine". These sources show that there's some pretty specific coverage of this mall in third-party reliable sources, which is enough to meet WP:GNG. Just because a mall is dead does not mean that it automatically becomes insignificant - see WP:NOTTEMPORARY.
      Further, I'm not convinced that this automatically fails NBUILD. According to 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 requirement is that such buildings need significant coverage by reliable third-party sources. Historical, social, economic, or architectural significance is an ancillary, and will be demonstrated by whether the topic meets the GNG. epicgenius (talk) 18:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: None of the sources provides any evidence of mall meeting WP:NBUILD. It's all routine coverage or promo pieces. You could find articles like these for every single mall. These sources show that this was just an average mall; a number of people have looked and none have come up with a single source that shows this mall has historic, social, economic, or architectural importance. It was so completely average that even when some people tried to revive it, the plans failed.
    Source assessment table:
    Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
    "Hawthorne Plaza". The Daily Breeze. Yes Yes No Dead Link ✘ No
    Construction Under Way at Hawthorne Plaza Site". Los Angeles Times. Yes Yes No Dead link ✘ No
    Jeff Arellano (October 2, 2005). "Hawthorne Mall: Hawthorne California". Yes Yes No It's a simple blog entry on a site about Dead Malls. Provides no evidence of mall meeting WP:NBUILD ✘ No
    Williams, J (30 June 2014). "Watch: Exploring the Spooky Abandoned Hawthorne Mall". Yes Yes No One paragraph promo about "Tom goes inside the abandoned Hawthorne Plaza mall" Provides no evidence of mall meeting WP:NBUILD ✘ No
    Hernandez, Miriam (19 November 2014). "Hawthorne staging comeback with outlet mall". KABC-TV. Yes Yes No Short routine coverage about a possible plan to become an outlet mall. Provides no evidence of mall meeting WP:NBUILD ✘ No
    Mazza, Sandy (18 February 2016). "Ambitious new plans emerge for abandoned Hawthorne Plaza mall". Daily Breeze Yes Yes No Dead link ✘ No
    "Hawthorne Happenings March 10, 2016". City of Hawthorne. 10 March 2016. No Financial interest in tax revenue No It's a city community events calendar page No It says nothing about the mall ✘ No
    azza, Sandy (12 February 2018). "Makeover of decrepit Hawthorne Plaza Mall canceled again". The Daily Breeze. Yes Yes No Dead link ✘ No
    This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
    Source assessment table:
    Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
    Kowsky, Kim. "YOU ARE HERE Reaching Out to an Ethnically Mixed Clientele: [South Bay Edition]." Los Angeles Times Yes Yes No Routine coverage any mall would receive. Provides no evidence of mall meeting WP:NBUILD ✘ No
    Gnerre, Sam. "SOUTH BAY HISTORY: Hawthorne Plaza." Daily Breeze Yes Yes No Routine coverage any mall would receive. Provides no evidence of mall meeting WP:NBUILD ✘ No
    Sandell, Scott. "Hawthorne Plaza Shops Around for a Way to Survive Slump Retail...Los Angeles Times Yes Yes No Routine coverage any mall would receive. Provides no evidence of mall meeting WP:NBUILD ✘ No
    Glover, Kara and Anne Rackham. "Hawthorne Mall Faces an Uncertain Future." Los Angeles Business Yes Yes No Routine coverage any mall would receive. Provides no evidence of mall meeting WP:NBUILD ✘ No
    Mazza, Sandy. "Hawthorne Mall Stalls Over Housing." Daily Breeze, Oct 10, 2010. Yes Yes No Is not about the mall. Provides no evidence of mall meeting WP:NBUILD ✘ No
    "Shopper's Paradise each Center Tries to Carve its Niche with Own Personality: [South Bay Edition]." Los Angeles Times Yes Yes No Short promo piece. Provides no evidence of mall meeting WP:NBUILD ✘ No
    Mazza, Sandy. "Mall Makeover Mired in Debate." Daily Breeze, Jun 22, 2008 Yes Yes No Is not about the mall. Its about a stalled plan to possibly make over the mall. Provides no evidence of mall meeting WP:NBUILD ✘ No
    This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
    There is nothing here that shows this former mall meets WP:NBUILD.   // Timothy :: talk  11:35, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per sources in the article and above. MB 23:21, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The sources above and in the article are all routine run of the mill coverage and announcements. They do not establish notability. Every mall will have lots of routine coverage because they seek it out as advertising. If this type of coverage makes a mall notable, then every mall will be notable.   // Timothy :: talk  02:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then let it? Notability has been established for "run of the mill" plazas on here because of having reliable sources (newspapers) and verifiability. Anchor stores are usually the long term leasees of the property. Depending on the anchor store, they might have also bought the overall land. That information usually suffices WP:GNG. – The Grid (talk) 02:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I got curious for possible sources:
    • This provides some history of its beginnings. It verifies the February 1977 opening and 1999 closure. [29]
    • This is a blog but it looks like the newspaper articles references can be verified. Note I didn't bother to view anything about its usage as an abandoned site.[30]
    Some of the sources accessed can be removed but note WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. I vote keep on the sources that can be obtained. – The Grid (talk) 12:50, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment for closer: since there is an RfC currently under discussion at AfD about what is considered proper sourcing for determining mall notabiity, it may be worth holding these open until that is finished. If a close is made, it would be very helpful for the RfC if you could explain how you evaluated the sources in terms of notability, routine, run of the mill coverage, and how you feel voting and !voting influenced this AfD. Thank you,   // Timothy :: talk  09:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @TimothyBlue: You've already been told at WP:AN that that's not a reason to keep the AFD open longer. Let these discussions run their course. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That was the opinion of a single individual, not a consensus. At ANI the consensus in the close was stated, "You and others suggested, reasonably, that some the guidelines for malls should be developed and clarified, and in fact constructive discussion about a potential WP:SNG is ongoing at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#RfC on shopping malls and notability guidelines.". Let the closer have all of the information and they can decide. There is no hurry to close these only to have them reopened at DR as a result of the RfC.   // Timothy :: talk  20:31, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Tone 15:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    A1 B-boy Sasa[edit]

    A1 B-boy Sasa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Non-notable dancer with non-verifiable claims to being "the first B-boy hip-hop dancer", "retired having never lost a B-boy battle" or "helped push B-boy breakdancing into the mass media as hip-hop". Written like a promotional piece. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 13:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 15:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 15:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 15:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nomination. While he may have been an influential performer, I can't find any sources to support the somewhat weaselly claims made in the article. I'm happy to be change my vote if anyone can find sources to demonstrate his notability per WP:ANYBIO or WP:ENTERTAINER, but at the moment there's not enough to warrant keeping the page. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 15:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete very clearly a non-notable dancer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:47, 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 delete. Tone 15:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Pokhara Industrial Estate[edit]

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

    Reviewed under new article curation / NPP. No indication of wp:notability. No GNG suitable sources given and I couldn't find any. No SNG basis. Appears to be a small industrial park. North8000 (talk) 12:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:19, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete: Fails WP:GNG. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 17:45, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:06, 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 15:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Ean Golden[edit]

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

    BLP notability and sourcing issues, reads like PR Acousmana (talk) 12:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Acousmana (talk) 12:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. A near-orphan with no references, about a musician who falls far short of WP:NMUSICBIO. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as far as I can tell the only actual source is the subject's own website. Wikipedia is to be based on secondary, 3rd party indepdent coverage. It is not a directory of everybody and everything that has created a website.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note the article did have three references which the nominator removed before nominating. Have reinstated the MixMag source as it is a WikiMusic Project reliable source, as shown at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The reference isn't Mixmag, it's www.remixmag.com: and it's an article written by the subject of this AfD. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 07:48, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I checked said refs before deleting, none were suitable WP:RS cites for a BLP article. Acousmana (talk) 20:05, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It confirms he wrote for them so is an acceptable reference for that.Also being a near-orphan has got nothing to do with notability, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    it's a nothing source, simply not usable in this instance. Acousmana (talk) 20:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. Consensus is that the publication is notable, and of note is that no participants here have agreed with the statement in the nomination that the article constitutes advertising. North America1000 14:07, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Paletten[edit]

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

    Blatant advertising, lacking references/sources. Gardenchef19 (talk) 12:44, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 15:25, 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:45, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Fredrik Svensk[edit]

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

    Article is blatant promotion (as pointed before by other users), lacks references/sources Gardenchef19 (talk) 12:46, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 15:24, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy keep per WP:CSK #2 as AleatoryPonderings said. -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:27, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete based on the 'merits' of the article itself. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy keep - per WP:CSK. Per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 15:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Haven't seen enough yet to make a determination on notability or lack thereof either here or on the related nomination of Paletten, but I dispute the notion that WP:CSK #2 applies here. I've helped process many a nomination by an IP or a new account, and while these have, to put it charitably, varied widely in terms of merit, that does not mean that they have not been made in good faith. Nom is persistent--I'll assume that this is the same person as the one behind the IPs who had AfD-tagged the articles previously (which I reverted as incomplete noms)--but I see no indication that the intent is frivolous, vexatious, or malicious. Unless something new comes up, the discussion should proceed. --Finngall talk 15:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete This article shows an abyssmal failure to pass GNG. The page from his employer is not indepdent, so we have at best one source that passes GNG, which requires multiple sources, and I do not see strong evidence that even that source passes GNG requirements.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Does not pass WP:ARTIST nor WP:GNG; maybe a case of WP:TOOSOON. Most of the secondary sources on him come from 'aftonbladet', which I don't see as a reliable independent secondary source. I disagree that WP:CSK#2 applies here, and disagree with the reasons given to invoke it here. Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 07:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment My only question is whether there's an argument for WP:NPROF C8 or similar here. Editorship of a well-established publication like Palatten is not nothing. (But this is the only assertion of notability in the article, and I didn't see anything else on searching.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak delete. I'm not convinced that being co-editor-in-chief of an art magazine is the sort of academic journal leadership described in WP:PROF#C8 and if not for that we would need evidence of passing WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete in the absence of anyone making a case that being one of 3 chief-editors for an art magazine confers notability, and with no other evidence in sight of notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep, withdrawn with no dissenting opinions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Aleksey Kokel[edit]

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

    Fails to meet WP:BIO. Artist known locally in his community with no international or nationwide recognition. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 12:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:46, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: First source is a passing mention in a book that is devoted to Chuvash history. Second is a conference paper held in the region the artist hailed from. Updated comment: I took a look at the Russian sources and a couple of them reference to the Chuvash Republic government site[10][11], which is obviously not a reliable source. One is a reference to a statement commemorating the artist by the National Museum of the Chuchav Republic[12]. There is also another source that is a passing mention (artist referenced to 1 page) in a 420 page book[13]. Four links are dead[14][15][16][17]. One reference is to a catalogue of the artist's work[18]. One is to a open Russian database of artists[19]. That's pretty much what the Russians sources are. P.S @Eostrix: If there is a more streamlined or efficient way to comment with the references and evidence of non-notability please let me know, I'm new around here! Nearlyevil665 (talk) 12:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Being catalogued and being honored by a state government (Chuvashia) are also signs of notability. There are a whole lot of hits in google books for Кокель 1880 (most of which refer to this artist).--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 13:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You misunderstood. He wasn't honoured by the Chuvash Republic. There were simply references to him on their government website, which was most likely for the purposes of promoting tourism to their region. Those two links are now dead too, by the way. There is no way to confirm what those government website references constituted, but my best guess is that it would be promotional. As for the cataloging, that too is blatantly non-notable. It was for a catalog produced in 1960 for the exhibition of the artist's works. Any artist that has ever had an exhibition could produce a reference to their own catalog of works. There is nothing to suggest that this particular catalog was of any note, quite the contrary. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 13:37, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In regards to "Any artist that has ever had an exhibition could produce a reference to their own catalog of works", as Kokel was dead and buried for four years in 1960 it would be quite a feat (a miracle, even) for him to produce his own catalog for the exhibition.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 13:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I stand corrected it would have taken necromancy for the man to produce his own catalog being dead and all, but I'm still not convinced a catalog produced for what appears to be a dubious local exhibition evidence in support of notability for said artist. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 15:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Kokel created significant body of work that was the primary subject of Васильев, В. А (2009). Алексей Афанасьевич Кокель: 1880-1956 : жызнь и творчество (in Russian). Чебоксары: Издател'скии Дом "Пегас". ISBN 978-5-91225-021-7. OCLC 775591819. Vexations (talk) 15:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ https://www.cbc.ca/mediacentre/press-release/cbc-greenlights-new-original-drama-feudal-a-raucous-east-coast-tale-of-lust
    2. ^ https://www.facebook.com/FaridYazdani
    3. ^ https://edmonton.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=1008903
    4. ^ https://www.cbc.ca/mediacentre/press-release/cbc-greenlights-new-original-drama-feudal-a-raucous-east-coast-tale-of-lust
    5. ^ https://www.theifp.ca/community-story/9136394-around-town-farid-yazdani/
    6. ^ https://www.cp24.com/video?clipId=1008903
    7. ^ https://www.cp24.com/video?clipId=1388940
    8. ^ https://www.cp24.com/video?clipId=1446430
    9. ^ https://www.canadiancomedyawards.org/archives.php?year=2017
    10. ^ http://gov.cap.ru/hierarhy.asp?page=./299/2899/48887/72612/73213
    11. ^ http://gov.cap.ru/hierarhy.asp?page=./5032/11628/46625/74572
    12. ^ http://www.lib.cap.ru/kokel3.asp
    13. ^ https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BA%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C,_%D0%90%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B9_%D0%90%D1%84%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%8C%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87#cite_ref-_1ebe5826ac261ff7_8-0
    14. ^ http://interkavkaz.info/image/350_%d0%9a%d0%be%d0%ba%d0%b5%d0%bb%d1%8c_%d0%90%d0%bb%d0%b5%d0%ba%d1%81%d0%b5%d0%b9_%d0%90%d1%84%d0%b0%d0%bd%d0%b0%d1%81%d1%8c%d0%b5%d0%b2%d0%b8%d1%87
    15. ^ http://www.culture21.ru/Page.aspx?orgid=385&page=./54/4042
    16. ^ http://www.cheb.ru/history/street/kokel.htm
    17. ^ http://artru.info/ar/18988/
    18. ^ https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BA%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C,_%D0%90%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B9_%D0%90%D1%84%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%8C%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87#cite_ref-7
    19. ^ https://experimental.worldcat.org/fast/1657246/
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Margaret Lindsay Ramsay[edit]

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

    No demonstrated notability other than being the daughter of Sir Alexander Lindsay and the spouse of artist Allan Ramsay. Relationships do not confer notability as per WP:NOTINHERITED. Should either be deleted or possibly merged with Allan Ramsay. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 12:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:45, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:45, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 15:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I did a brief search and turned up three sources, which confirmed the birth date and death and the elopement date. If I can find such information almost 300 years after her birth, I think she is likely notable. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: She is notable for the mere fact of having her DOB/DOD documented in secondary sources? Context matters - All sources that do mention her (or her DOB/DOD) establish no significance or notability other than her posing and serving as a muse to her notable husband, Allan Ramsay. Her elopement too would have not been recorded if the notable husband was out of the equation. I strongly suggest a merge with Allan Ramsay, if not an outright delete. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 06:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a lot more than her DOB documented in the sources. I've analyzed a lot of articles for AfD, and yes , I think there's enough here. Expectations are typically a little lower for those who have been dead for 300 years. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Previous AfD discussion mentions coverage in Mitchell's Women in Scotland, 1660-1780 and in Barker and Challis's Women's History: Britain, 1700-1850. Can't find these on Google books - can anyone give more info about the mentions there? Tacyarg (talk) 07:25, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Was kept at previous AfD in 2008, under different title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margaret Lindsay (1726 - 1782). (Can someone please add this as the box which should appear at top of this AfD?) PamD 08:42, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: portrait is in Scottish National Gallery, a reader is likely to look her up to find out more about her, we have sourced content. Seems notable and encyclopedic. PamD 08:44, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I found Barker and Chalus' book on Google where there are (for me) three sentences about her that I could see (about Lindsay herself rather than her husband or relatives). This book references "Virgins and Viragos" by Rosalind Kay Marshall where the snippet I see shows an index entry for her under the name Lindsay as a "see also" to her husband's entry. There is a great deal about her in, for example, "The life and art of Allan Ramsay" by Alistair Smart available on the Internet Archive.[36] WP:NOTINHERITED is not a policy or guideline. It is advice as to what arguments are best avoided in deletion discussions and so is somewhat premature when referred to in an AFD nomination. It decidedly does not say that relatives of notable people are not notable or even that they are not notable if they would not have been written about except for their famous relatives. Her elopement too would have not been recorded if the notable husband was out of the equation is an inappropriate argument to be making. As always we look for sources about the person themselves and in this case the sources seem entirely suitable for our purpose. Thincat (talk) 09:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete The nominator’s rationale stands. What exactly did she do besides exist a few centuries ago? It’s not like she was the subject of a famous work, so being in a gallery isn’t relevant to independent notability that is unable to be established. Trillfendi (talk) 17:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. She's notable because reliable, independent sources took note of her. Notability is not temporary, and noted people need not accomplish great feats. pburka (talk) 17:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Per Pam and Thincat. Tacyarg (talk) 08:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per PamD and others - notability is just about met, this article is potentially useful, and it's doing no harm (very unlikely to be UPE or an SEO scam after 300 years...) GirthSummit (blether) 15:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Thincat. and also it would be a great help to others to find details about her and i think there is no personal interest as the person died, I suggest to update it properly Onmyway22 (talk) 16:52, 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 delete. Tone 15:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Commbox[edit]

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

    Non notable upto Wikipedia standard. Coriannakox (talk) 12:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coriannakox (talk) 12:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. An unremarkable business. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH: I couldn't find any coverage beyond passing mentions and promotional reports/press releases. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 15:37, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Per WP:BEFORE please google "Commbox" or "BumpYard". Has been covered with in-depth analysis in multiple Isareli tech magazines. Nreatian (talk) 16:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Can't see any evidence of notability. Does look like it may be a paid-for article, particularly given the behaviour of the account creating it. Number 57 10:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - notability not established. 1292simon (talk) 23:43, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - paid-for spam where the spammer has filed retaliatory noms against the nominator. MER-C 18:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Tone 15:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Darius Saluga[edit]

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

    Doesn't seem to meet general notability and WP:NBOX criteria. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 12:19, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 12:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 12:28, 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 no consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:11, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Stav Beger[edit]

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

    Non-notable producer. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV scope_creepTalk 21:41, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. One of the most successful music producers in Israel! Produced "Toy", "Shney Meshugaim", and many other 1# charted songs, and even won Society of Authors, Composers and Music Publishers in Israel prize (One of the most notable Israeli music prizes). WP:NM: "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition." + "Has won or been nominated for a major music award". He meets the criteria! Israeli guys would joking on this deletion nomination, believe me. YairMelamed (talk) 22:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Seems a weak keep to me, but I daresay Israeli/Hebrew language sources would solidify him as a keep - he's written some major works, including stuff for Eurovision. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That may be so. But where is the in-depth, independent, secondary references. Single sentences and passing mentions, are insufficient. I saw mention for Eurovision, but I can't find much on. WP:THREE would be ideal. scope_creepTalk 06:57, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The consensus is there must be real coverage to WP:NMUSIC, which is not there. Passing mentions doesn't cover it, and that's all I can see. scope_creepTalk 09:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't think so. It looks like PR. scope_creepTalk 20:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Beger is one of Israel's prominent music producers and songwriters and responsible to some of the major hits in the recent years. The above mentioned article is in Yedioth Ahronoth, it's exclusively about Beger and it's not pr, there is also almost an hour intreview with him in Kan. Tzahy (talk) 04:17, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Where is the rest of the coverage, that should be visible for a WP:BLP. At the moment it still fails WP:SIGCOV. Where is the in-depth, intellectually independent secondary sources that are needed to establish notabilty. That article does look PR. Stating he is notable, without evidence isn't ideal. scope_creepTalk 09:43, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yedioth Ahronoth has a wall, and the full article is unfold only to paying subsribers, just like the NYT, WaPo and WSJ. Tzahy (talk) 17:20, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So far there is nothing substantial been shown. Lots of conjecture about being notable, but no evidence. scope_creepTalk 11:27, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nomination. While he may be prolific and influential, there simply doesn't appear to be sufficient independent, third-party coverage of him to pass WP:ANYBIO. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 15:41, 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 Deemed university. North America1000 14:12, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Medical deemed universities[edit]

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

    The deemed university is a type of degree-granting institution in India. There are several engineering colleges, medical colleges, liberal arts colleges, and many other specialized institution declared as 'deemed-to-be-university.' Hence, a separate article for 'Medical deemed universities' seems redundant. It should be redirected to deemed university page. Neurofreak (talk) 10:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:35, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:19, 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. While there is sourcing that can verify information, there is a consensus that only the Inc article satisfies our criteria to establish notability. As such there is a delete consensus at this time. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:05, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    World Orphans[edit]

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

    I think this fails WP:NCORP but it's arguable—hence this sitting in CAT:NN since 2016. There was indeed a 2-page article in Inc about it in 2007: basically, World Orphans did not do its due diligence with overseas partners and ended up out $70k. Beyond that, there's not much else significant I can find. There's this in the Gaylord Herald Times (small local newspaper) and this (maybe an RS, but just a namedrop). I think this calls for a deletion discussion. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:39, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:39, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:39, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm on the fence. Not very notable beyond the Inc article, although that article is not insignificant because of the controversies/issues raised. The article in Gaylord Times, a relatively weak source, reads like a puff piece and Blue & Green (also puffy) probably isn't WP:RS. Maybe a weak keep if the content leans mainly on Inc. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep based on the above sources, particularly the Inc. piece already in the article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:23, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:37, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:19, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep agree there is multiple reliable sources covering this topic in sufficient depth, even if there's only two. - Scarpy (talk)

    18:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

    • Weak keep. Borderline but just about makes it. Johncdraper (talk) 09:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    HighKing has convinced me. Change to Delete Johncdraper (talk) 20:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. The INC piece] referred to above fails WP:ORGIND as it relies entirely on an interview with Mr. Wiseman and has no "Independent Content". As stated above, the blueandgreen reference is really a profile about Wiseman and only mentions this company in passing. The HeraldTimes reference relies on interviews with people involved in the company, fails WP:ORGIND. Topic fails WP:NCORP/GNG. HighKing++ 19:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The inc piece has about four paragraphs of prose so does count for WP:ORGIND imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:02, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, littered with phrases which make it clear that the information was provided by Wiseman. For example, how could the author know whether Wiseman was "surprised" or not, or what he "wondered" about, etc. It fails WP:ORGIND because none of the prose is clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. HighKing++ 10:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep. Sure, the references are somewhat deplorable, one is primary, but the organisation has both detected and cleaned up fraud in a charitable area were all too many are quick to engage in fraud. Recognise their cleanup efforts. --Whiteguru (talk) 12:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. I'm just not seeing the multiple WP:RS we need to meet WP:NORG. Looking at what's in the article now, guidestar is a directory listing, mlive.com is a college paper article that's mostly about a student, and World Orphans is largely a name drop. The Inc article is a good solid source, but it's just one, and I'm not seeing anything else in my own searching. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:50, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Tone 15:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Ian Malcolm (councillor)[edit]

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

    The subject does not meet Notability (people), and Not a Directory. Local politician without any claim to national significance. Note that "Lord Mayor" is a ceremonial role taken up on a rotating basis by councillors; it contrasts with the role of the elected mayor (e.g. Andy Burnham and Sadiq Khan). It is reliant on primary sources. The JPStalk to me 12:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete one source is not enough to show a passing of GNG. Especially when the source is from the subject's employer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Fails NPOL, local politician. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 20:21, 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 no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:14, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Série Club[edit]

    Série Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

    Non notable television channel   Kadzi   (talk) 13:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 13:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:58, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio 12:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to Groupe M6#Television Yet another pointless BFM Lyon Ado article creation; it's never aired a minute of original content and the Groupe M6 article describes it in perfect detail. What we have in the article is pointless corporate information nobody wanting to read a network article cares about. Nate • (chatter) 02:25, 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 no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    African Distillers[edit]

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

    This doesn't seem to be notable since the article lacks sourcing and all I could find about it in a WP:BEFORE was a trivial article about their profits. So, I'm not seeing anything here like multiple in-depth reliable secondary sources that it would need to pass WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Plus, the article is kind of advertish. Adamant1 (talk) 04:40, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:22, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:58, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Draftify. Per WP:PUBLIC, significant coverage in reliable sources is almost certainly available, we just need more time for editors to find those reliable sources and add them to the article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: Large, publicly-traded company in Zimbabwe that produces about 3/4 of the country's wine. It doesn't attract the same kind of North American press coverage that an American or European company would, although I found two American newspaper stories following an import push in 1989: one article from the national syndicate Howard Scripps News Services, and another article from the Arizona Daily Star. I believe that this demonstrates notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep this is a notable company, certainly through out Southern Africa, which listed on the Zimbabwe Stock Exchange satisfies WP:NCOMPANY --Devokewater@ 12:56, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Being listed is not an automatic indication of notability - see WP:LISTED. Usually a listed company features in analyst reports but no analysts cover this company. Toughpigs provided two references. The first from the Star Tribune is no good, it simply contains two quotes from a company executive and nothing else, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. The second reference contains exactly one relevant sentence - enough to confirm the existence of the company and little else - and also fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Similarly, Bad-patches reference is entirely based on an interview with the company's Director of Trade and has no independent content, also fails WP:ORGIND. I have searched and I am unable to locate a single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability. The best I found was a book entitled Multinationals and the Restructering of the World Economy by Michael Taylor and Nigel Thrift which has a chapter on "South African Breweries Limited" and mentions this company. Multiple sources are required. As such, topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 15:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This non-trivial 50-page report on the company was just published and is highly likely to meet WP:CORPDEPTH; that it costs US$499 makes that no less true. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, per HighKing. Trivial mentions are not sufficient to maintain an article on any company. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:47, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: Fails both CORPDEPTH and SIGCOV. I likewise see nothing here to meet WP:COMPANY, HighKing is right: WP:COMPANY explicitly says that being listed on the NYSE doesn't confer notability, never mind in the Zimbabwean exchange. Finally, there is nothing in any relevant notability criterion exempting Zimbabwean companies from their requirements. If this subject hasn't achieved SIGCOV, the answer is that it does not qualify for an article. Ravenswing 11:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep - Going to err on the side of keep here. There are a ton of sources (if you haven't yet, use "Afdis" as your search term), but I'm not terribly familiar with sources from Zimbabwe. It's clear that it has a major economic presence in the country, and I think it's just less common to have sources write about consumer products in the same way that's common as in e.g. the US. So it's not surprising that most of the coverage is business/trade-oriented. I'm throwing "weak" in front of keep mainly because I'm not sure about the reputation of these sources, and there seems some potential for basis on press releases and/or qualify as "routine", but here's some of what I see: NewsDay, Chronicle, Sunday News, Business Weekly, The Standard, Business Times, Zimbabwe Independent, Sunday Mail, Equity Axis. It's a tough one. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:35, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: This is a large, company traded on the Zimbabwe Stock Exchange not the NYSE however I am inclined to stretch the guideline of WP:LISTED. This distiller also has 6 locations. Not Napa Valley but notable. Passes WP:N Lightburst (talk) 02:35, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • KEEP Rhododendrites found enough coverage to confirm notability. Dream Focus 13:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: All distilleries are always notable. Plus when considering Rhododendrites sources I believe this passes notability.   // Timothy :: talk  19:07, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: Whilst there has been a considerable number of submissions, the sources cited relatively late in the debate deserve proper consideration.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 12:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: Sustained trivial mentions in reports, news articles. QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 00:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Producing 3/4th of the country's wine (per Toughpigs) is a strong indicator of notability. We should not expect US-standard sourcing to be readily available online for a Zimbabwean company. SD0001 (talk) 10:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No one here is expecting US-standards based sourcing to exist and it's ridiculous to claim we do. Let alone to try and act like articles about US subjects are the only ones that can meet such a low freaken bar as having two in-depth sources about them. Anywhere in the world should be able to meet that standard and it doesn't have jack to do with the US. It probably wasn't people in the US who came up with the guideline in the first place. American's aren't the only ones that speak English. Also, it's totally the soft bigotry of low exceptions to hold Zimbabwean companies to a lower standard then companies from anywhere else just "because Zimbabwe." There's plenty of extremely well sourced articles about Zimbabwean companies in Wikipedia. Including Old Mutual, Ecobank Zimbabwe, Bindura Nickel Corporation, etc etc, just to name a few. Not every damn article about something in Africa should be kept just because voters like you and ToughPigs have a slanted, clearly wrong opinion about the place. Some things, no matter where they are located, are just not notable. That's life, get over it and stop blaming Africans or Zimbabweans because something isn't notable (that mostly goes for ToughPigs, but also anyone else that feels like calling Africa about the level of journalism there. Whatever it is). --Adamant1 (talk) 12:39, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:00, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    One Love (2009 film)[edit]

    One Love (2009 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Advertorialized article about a short film, not properly referenced as passing WP:NFILM. As always, every film is not automatically guaranteed a Wikipedia article just because it exists -- we look for markers of a film's significance, such as notable film awards or attention from established film critics in media, not just technical verification of the film's existence. But right across the board, the review pullquotes here are all from unreliable and non-notability-making blogs rather than real media outlets, and I can't find any evidence whatsoever of coverage in stronger sources. In addition, it warrants note that the article was created by an editor whose username matches the name of the film's director, thus indicating a clear conflict of interest. Bearcat (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio 12:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete:, as per nomination, apparently a WP:COI with the film director authoring the article. First two references are good reviews. Fourth reference is a dead link. Fifth reference is a good review, sixth is a dead link, defaults to a short review on archive.org. Seventh is broken, eighth is a 404. While the pull quotes are intriuging, and the good reviews inspiring I can't see this passing WP:FILM. --Whiteguru (talk) 12:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: My BEFORE failed to find any review or analysis in a reliable source. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:08, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was merge to Nazarene Theological College (Australia). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:40, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Richard S. Taylor[edit]

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

    WP:BEFORE shows no evidence of reliable, secondary, substantial coverage or academic work to help indicate notability. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:18, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:18, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:18, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:18, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:58, 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 15:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    List of salaries of central bank governors[edit]

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

    Fails policies on original research and lists Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Only eight items are actually known here, which are more trivia than necessary to be collated together. Chair of the Federal Reserve lists its salary, not sure about others. Reywas92Talk 19:33, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per WP:NOR and that the editor has only bothered to fill in eight countries' data. Ajf773 (talk) 21:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: Non-notable WP:LISTCRUFT. Someone's incomplete pet project from over three years ago. Normal Op (talk) 19:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - insufficient evidence of notability; need evidence that this has been discussed at length by reliable sources Spiderone 14:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Above, I provided five reliable sources that discuss this at length. pburka (talk) 15:12, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Tone 15:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Kgaswe School[edit]

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

    The article has been linked to a single primary source since at 2010 and I was unable to find the multiple in-depth reliable sources that would be needed for it to pass either WP:GNG or WP:NORG. As an alternative to deletion the article could be merged or redirected to the article of the town where it's located Palapye, which already has an education section, or Independent Schools Association of Southern Africa. Merging or redirecting this to either one would fit the consensus about how to handle non-notable school articles. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:07, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 13:47, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:30, 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 speedy delete as a copyright violation. A run through the copyvio detector shows that it was copied from the main university's synopsis of the school, which explains the promotional tone. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    School of Creative Studies and Media[edit]

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

    A department of Bangor University - did consider a redirect but the title is so generic it could be mistaken for any similar department in any university. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 10:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 10:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 10:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 10:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 10:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 10:39, 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. (non-admin closure) DTM (talk) 05:03, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Rajinder Singh (brigadier)[edit]

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

    After having worked on this article recently and brought it to the current state it is in, I am having serious doubts about the notability of the person in question from a Wikipedia perspective. Yes, the event that he was part of was notable, so he can be mentioned there - Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948, or as a commander in the JK State forces/rifles article - Jammu and Kashmir Rifles, but as separate article, I am not so sure.
    As per WP:1E, as everything seems to be about the MVC action, and there doesn't seem to be "significant coverage" of his whole life in reliable sources, 26 years of his life and all of his army career except four days - this article has very little basis to stay if Wikipedia guidelines are appropriately adhered to. DTM (talk) 10:35, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:37, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:37, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep (cross-posting from WT:INDIA) I think this is too notable. 1E is for stuff like Prakriti Malla. This brigadier (pass of WP:NSOLDIER right there, btw) played a major role in a major world event. Saved a whole state for a country rather than the other, ensuring a conflict that's lasted to today? Has a postal stamp with his face? Has a village named after him, and schools (more than one Wikipedia notable entities)? Won second highest honour (ANYBIO), and has since received sustained coverage in multiple independent reliable sources (GNG) about his deeds and whether he should have been awarded the highest military award his country has to offer? As I said, too notable. Compare this with the articles we keep on internet influencers and domestic footballers. Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This is exactly what I am talking about; everything about him is only related to 4 days in 1947; and not of his life as a whole. There are just too many large gaps about his life. His entire army life (except 4 days) is missing as well as his early life. We might as well called the article Rajinder Singh in October 1947.DTM (talk) 11:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sure the information is somewhere, in the personnel archives of the organisation he worked for, for example. Missing details, which is true of most historical figures, isn't enough reason to delete even if it is completely missing, IMO. Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I think WP:1E does not apply per its second paragraph. While there is not much information about his earlier life, there is enaugh of a legacy related to the person, so there is an enduring coverage. Having a postage stamp certainly indicates notability. Agathoclea (talk) 11:19, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Though the reason for the notability is clearly the one event during the war, there appears to be plenty of related coverage that has continued over the years. Definitely notable and I'd actually go for speedy keep on this one. --RegentsPark (comment) 12:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. WP:BLP1E always needs to be applied with common sense; interpreting it literally when the events themselves are very significant doesn't make sense. There is substantive coverage of this individual in several dozen sources, as even a quick google books search reveals. If you feel the need to establish firm consensus on this, DiplomatTesterMan, feel free to let it run, but as I write this you still have the option of withdrawing this and closing as "speedy keep", because no one else has supported deletion. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep on the basis of his crucial involvement in a seminal event in the founding of India and the lasting legacy indicated by the stamp (he's marginal for WP:SOLDIER, BTW), but there is no way this article will even get to B-Class on the basis of the material in the article at this point, 27 years of his life are completely missing, and the usual sources for such information on highly decorated Indian soldiers are mute on that period of his life. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep per #4 of WP:SOLDIER, though as noted above everything on this page seems to be based on that one event. Mztourist (talk) 04:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep A notable personality in India. Recipient of Maha Vir Chakra, a notable award given to Military officers. His contribution to "Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948" can't be forgotten. Priyanjali singh (talk) 16:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Clearly notable as a brigadier per WP:SOLDIER. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:50, 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 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Daniel A. Ninivaggi[edit]

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

    Seeking consensus on a very close case on WP:BASIC. In addition to the usual barrage of press releases, there's coverage in major outlets (e.g., [44], [45]), but it either seems WP:ROUTINE or really about Icahn Enterprises. [46] seems to be about him personally, but I'm not sure if it's reliable. Has sat in CAT:NN since 2016, presumably because the case is so close. I would have considered a redirect, but since he's been an exec at a number of companies there's no clear target. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:10, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:10, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:10, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete the coverage does not rise to the level that actually shows notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:13, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 11:41, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Mahmoud Mohammad Tabrizi[edit]

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

    New page review: I’ve looked at this BLP several times. There are primary sources, interviews, non-notable awards and other references, but taken all together it does not amount to a GNG pass in my view. Mccapra (talk) 10:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 10:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 10:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 10:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete didn't find anything in a BEFORE search which would justify keeping. Fails GNG and BIO outright. JavaHurricane 11:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete it's not impossible that we're missing some coverage due to the difficulties of researching Iranian subjects, but that hunch isn't enough to justify keeping at this time. signed, Rosguill talk 15:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete There are no enough sources to maintain claim to notability. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was redirect to Star Vijay. Tone 15:19, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Star Vijay Music[edit]

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

    Television channel that does not exist yet, fails WP:GNG. 1292simon (talk) 09:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Draftify, may become notable once it is launched after the pandemic. JavaHurricane 11:08, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to Star Vijay: Can be separated after it begins and receives coverage. Ab207 (talk) 17:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect as per above Spiderone 14:50, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 11:41, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The Bay Club at Mattapoisett, Massachusetts[edit]

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

    This subject of this article does not qualify with the general notability guidelines. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:36, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:37, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Non-notable, unsourced spam.--Darwinek (talk) 12:30, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Appears to be spam. I'm not finding coverage outside of real estate listing, primary sources, and a few spammy websites. Not notable. Hog Farm Bacon 15:39, 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 delete. Tone 15:19, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Vconsol[edit]

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

    The page creator have added 30 refs. But if we look clearly - it is visible that all of the refs are news snippets from 20 August - 22 August about the software winning a competition round organised by Government of India. The application is even not yet released to common public. Wikipedia is not a news website and WP:1E. Zoodino (talk) 09:08, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 09:08, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 09:08, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete the current sources doesn't confer notability. The editor has also created another similar page for the same company. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 09:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: WP:TOOSOON might be generous. If it flies and a decently sourced article can be produced without WP:CITEBOMBing a couple of sentences then a chance might for mainspace occur in the future, but I am nowhere near convinced that would happen. Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 14:50, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:40, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The Weston Group[edit]

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

    The subject of this badly sourced article does not meet WP:NCORP and, even after extensive attempts to rewrite, the article is still an advertising brochure. The previous AfD closed as no consensus for want of participation, but the subject is no more notable now than it was then. My own searches turn up hits for unrelated organisations with the same name, but little to nothing about this one. Reyk YO! 08:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 14:02, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 14:02, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. A major WP:CORPDEPTH fail. Like the nominator, I only turned up SIGCOV for [47], which is not the same (full name is "George Weston Limited", not "The Weston Group LLC"). AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:30, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 13:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Sukhveer Singh Bhadouriya[edit]

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

    A non-notable politician and fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. Zoodino (talk) 08:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 08:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 08:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 08:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: Definitely fails NPOL. Sources only make trivial mention, that too on a single event. Ab207 (talk) 17:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 10:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. BD2412 T 00:03, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Mr. Moseby[edit]

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

    The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies)Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. The keep from 2013 was because of the two votes, one stating that 'a character that appeared in 83 episodes is notable', 'keep per' and oh, a clear personal attack on the nom... Sigh. I think our standards are a bit higher now. (Oh, this is also totally unreferenced (outside one footnote to a single episode of the show)... and pure WP:OR/WP:PLOT). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:47, 17 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 02:47, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 02:53, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy keep. This nomination is so erroneous, citing Wikipedia:Notability (biographies), which applies only to actual living people, on a page whose subject is a fictional character, giving rise to serious question as to whether the nominator has read ad understood the article and guideline in question. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 04:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - I agree with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. The nom has misrepresented the first nomination. Six editors voted with four voting to keep. Nowhere was it stated 'a character that appeared in 83 episodes is notable'. In fact the character is a major character in two television series that spanned 158 episodes and a TV movie, as well as having appeared in crossover episodes of other TV shows. Neither series had 83 episodes so I'm not sure where that figure was plucked from. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:06, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect - Mistaken guideline aside, the nomination is correct that this currently fails to establish independent notability through real world information-providing reliable sources. The keep !votes in the previous AfD did rely on all "it's notable" claims without any backing, so sources should be provided if those claims are to be made again. The number of appearances are completely irrelevant to establishing notability. TTN (talk) 12:10, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep- I have found two sources which discuss the character in some detail, “Cowboy Up!”: Non-Hegemonic Representations of Masculinity in Children’s Television Programming, and Conceptualizing Perspective in Rural America: An analysis of individual assumptions and responses influenced by televised programming (Pages 175-180). The first may have access issues for some but it includes analysis of the character in terms of the portrayal of masculinity in children's television. The second appears to be an undergraduate research paper, however it was presented at an official conference for undergraduate research at Purdue University. These may not be enough to demonstrate notability on their own, but there may be more sources out there. I think there is a decent case for notability here. Rhino131 (talk) 12:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete / redirect - after a review of the sources. There are some questoins of whether Mr. Moseby is a racial stereotype, but nothing enough to establish the WP:NOTABILITY of the character, and really more about racial representation in children's programming as a whole. In the sources he's cited as a brief example in a much wider conversation about representation, when we really need more WP:SIGCOV to explain this character's real world reception overall. Jontesta (talk) 15:11, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: This discussion was closed on 25 August by User:Awesome Aasim, a non-administrator, as keep. Pursuant to WP:DPR#NAC, I, an uninvolved administrator, have vacated this closure and determine that the debate be relisted for a further one week from today.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 08:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There actually was a lot more for all of the main characters while the program was actually airing. I don't know if it's a thing just with Disney programs or whether it occurs with all kids' TV programs but almost as soon as the program ended, sources started disappearing. Admittedly, a lot of the websites did start reorganising their content but it's almost as if they said "Well, that program has finished, we don't need this stuff any more" and dumped everything. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Highly notable character who was a cornerstone of a highly notable 2000s Disney Channel Sitcom. Sources have become dead links over time. However, the character lives on in memes and nostalgia; and its clear that it had made Phill Lewis's career appearing in dozens of episodes with this unique character. DrewieStewie (talk) 13:14, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can you cite any sources to show that "the character lives on in memes and nostalgia"? Because if all the sources saying that are now "dead", well, than it means the character no longer lives on. And while notability is not temporary, we need to be able to verify those old sources, otherwise it is just a claim that WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. Or THEWERESOURCESBUTNOWTHEYAREGONE. C'mon. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:51, 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 13:16, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Ideology of Tintin[edit]

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

    This has been tagged for 8 years as WP:OR (the tag was added by User:TenPoundHammer). I sadly concur that what we have here is a OR-ish WP:ESSAY in need of WP:TNT. Google Scholar/Books search show there is no such concept as "Ideology of Tintin". Now, both the comic author and his individual books received good amount of coverage, and so there are few tidbits here and there that could be merged to Hergé, The Adventures of Tintin or one of dozen+ specific books his stories are collected in that are almost all notable (at least I assume so...). Through in most cases, those issues are already dicussed there, making this article a SYNTH POVFORK (for example, accusations of anti-semitic themes are discussed at lenght, with better references, at Flight_714_to_Sydney#Critical_analysis already). Anyway, no, there is no "Ideology of Tintin", and this mostly unreferenced essay is beyond clean up, IMHO. PS. Prior AfD from 2007 was not linked on the article's talk page, but the nom also noted OR. The consensus back then was "rescue by adding references since WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES". Which hasn't happened in a decade plus. Sigh. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:56, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:56, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:56, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 16:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as WP:TNT per nom. JavaHurricane 11:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Delete, clear-cut synthesis backed up by only one source which doesn't even support the ideas presented. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:09, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Complete WP:OR. If it contains any legitimate ideas, it should be restarted in the main article only with the support of proper sourcing. TTN (talk) 14:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was redirect to List of The Adventures of Tintin locations. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 17:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    San Theodoros[edit]

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

    This is a fictional nation that appears in a few strips of The Adventures of Tintin. Unfortunately, the article is pure PLOT with no shred of analysis / reception / significance. 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 coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. And before someone proudly displays a WP:GOOGLEHITS results, yes, the country is mentioned in some books like [49] or [50] but unfortunately the discusison I see is limited to WP:PLOT summary or is otherwise limited to passing commentary that "San Theororos is a parody of a banana republic" or such. Whichj does not suggest that we need a dedicated WP:FANCRUFT description if this fictional country, a mention in the first book it appears in, which I think is The Broken Ear, should be sufficient; and at best this could be redirected to List of The Adventures of Tintin locations. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:39, 27 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 07:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:39, 27 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 07:39, 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 13:15, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Mikhail Pomortsev[edit]

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

    No sources, and nothing that indicates notability DiscoStu42 (talk) 06:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:50, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:50, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • With the addition of the Nephoscope I guess that it satisfies notability, but the article is still pretty sketchy. DiscoStu42 (talk) 11:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: I've expanded the article a bit and added sources: diff. Notability under WP:BASIC is satisfied. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:29, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: With the changes you've made I'm definitely fine with keeping it. DiscoStu42 (talk) 13:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was speedy keep. Discussion opened by a sock puppet. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:36, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Ghazi Hur Mujahid Faqeer Arbelo Katpar[edit]

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

    Does not meet WP:N WP:GNG. There is almost no coverage in WP:RS. The one cited source that comes closest to RS just mentions the person in the passing. Does not belong on English-language Wikipedia. Stefania0 (talk) 05:21, 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 delete. Sandstein 11:02, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Nicktoons (Albanian TV channel)[edit]

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

    Article fails WP:GNG and has had an issue of being WP:OR since March 2019, I’m not sure if these articles were fixed if the article would be worthy enough to save or if deletion is the best option for it. Pahiy (talk) 04:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 04:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 04:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per WP:BROADCAST. The sources in the article at present, including one from The Hollywood Reporter, demonstrate that this station exists, which seems sufficient for the (IMO unduly permissive) standard of WP:BROADCAST. A merge to Nickelodeon#Media is also possible. AleatoryPonderings (talk)
      • Actually, delete. On checking the sources again, none of them indicate that a separate TV channel—as opposed to a series of licensing deals—exists. Self-trout. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:24, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 13:14, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Freelanthropy[edit]

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

    Fails WP:NCORP. Created by the company's founder. I did find one passable source in my pre-AfD check, which I have added, but NCORP requires multiple sources to qualify. The other external links listed are either not independent or do not mention Freelanthropy except in passing. – Teratix ₵ 04:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 04:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 04:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 04:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 04:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: Barely found anything about the organization aside from being briefly discussed in a book. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 05:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was redirect to List of Batman Beyond characters. Eddie891 Talk Work 11:40, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Derek Powers[edit]

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

    One more comic/animation character with nothing but plot and list of appearances. 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 coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. The usual dePROD with no helpful rationale, so here we go. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to List of Batman Beyond characters. Any relevant information can be added to the description on that list. Rhino131 (talk) 12:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to List of Batman Beyond characters. I found a few sources that mention him, but these were merely plot mentions, largely due to his role in Terry McGuinnis' origin. I was unable to find enough sources that went in-depth enough to support an independent article, so Redirecting to the main character list, where he is already covered, would be the best solution. Rorshacma (talk) 15:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to the list as noted above for a WP:CHEAP WP:ATD-R where he's already mentioned. -2pou (talk) 17:46, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect for same reasons as above. Mukedits (talk) 20:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect - Unlikely to be independently notable. Darkknight2149 11:06, 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 List of Batman Beyond characters. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 13:13, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Inque[edit]

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

    Another minor comic/animated character. No reception, pure plot and list of appearances. 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 coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. The usual dePROD with no helpful rationale, so here we go. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:09, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:09, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:09, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:09, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to List of Batman Beyond characters. I remember doing a source search on this character a year or two back to possibly expand this article, but I could not find enough significant coverage from reliable, third-party sources. However, I think this is a viable search term, and the character is already mentioned in the above list so I think that would be more beneficial than outright deletion. Aoba47 (talk) 04:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to List of Batman Beyond characters. Any relevant information can be added to the description on that list. Rhino131 (talk) 12:15, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I remember this character. She was pretty cool! Redirect to the list... =P If a Aoba47 made a full-hearted attempt to improve it and didn't uncover sources, then new sources are unlikely to be found now. -2pou (talk) 16:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect as an article that does not pass the WP:GNG or WP:NOT#PLOT. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:35, 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 redirect to List of Batman family enemies. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Lock-Up (comics)[edit]

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

    Not a planet, just a very minor character, plot summary, list of appearances, that's it. 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 coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. The usual dePROD with no helpful rationale, so here we go. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:08, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:08, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:08, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:08, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to List of Batman family enemies. The characters only significance is that he began in animation and then made the transition to regular comics, similarly to Harley Quinn though clearly not as notable. There may be some relevant information out there about that transition, but that could still simply be added to the characters entry on the Batman villain list. Rhino131 (talk) 12:19, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete or redirect - Fails to establish notability at this time. TTN (talk) 23:19, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: I see two pages of coverage in Welcome to Arkham Asylum: Essays on Psychiatry and the Gotham City Institution (McFarland & Co, 2019), as well as The Essential Batman Encyclopedia (Del Rey, 2008) and The DC Comics Encyclopedia (DK Publishing 2016). — Toughpigs (talk) 00:42, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The actual commentary on the character in the first doesn't really actually say much. It's just 80% plot recap. The "The Essential Batman Encyclopedia" is a literal plot recap, so it does not provide significant coverage. The third doesn't seem to have previews, but it's obviously the same vein of literal encyclopedia like the other. TTN (talk) 00:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Concur. Toughpigs, would you care to provide any quotations from those sources that go beyond a plot recap? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The coverage in Welcome to Arkham Asylum discusses the character as an example of the messages that the show presents about psychiatric care: "This scene, in particular, conveys another confounding message regarding psychiatric institutions: psychiatric treatment, although therapeutic, can result in fears of both the care provider and the fellow patient." — Toughpigs (talk) 18:09, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The single quoted sentence, which I assume is the best you've found, does not mention the character, and discusses a scene not the character, so it seems totally irrevant. WP:NOTINHERITED. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:31, 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 redirect to Adam Strange. Eddie891 Talk Work 11:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Rann (fictional planet)[edit]

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

    The 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 coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. The usual dePROD with no helpful rationale, so here we go. Oh yeah, this is another article with zero references, too. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    *Weak keep I was considering redirect, but I an not sure where. List of locations of the DC Universe, Adam Strange, and Hawkman are all possibilities. I still don't believe delete is the best option, but if there is no clear redirect target I am left with keep. However I am willing to change based on further discussion and consensus. Rhino131 (talk) 12:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Redirect per below. That makes sense. Now that I think about it the two really are connected. Rhino131 (talk) 16:30, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to Adam Strange. While there have been other characters that have had some involvement with the planet, it was introduced with Strange's first appearance and they have more or less had a shared history every since. He is by far the character that is most intrinsically tied to the location. Outside of the single sentence in the introduction mentioning the issue it first appeared in, the entire current article is completely unsourced, in-universe plot descriptions, which should not be kept or merged. Rorshacma (talk) 15:44, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to Adam Strange as a WP:CHEAP WP:ATD-R since there is enough context there for the reader to find info. -2pou (talk) 17:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete or redirect as compromise. Does not meet the WP:GNG and can possibly be covered in context of something else. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:46, 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 04:52, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Transilvane[edit]

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

    The 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 coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. The usual dePROD with no helpful rationale, so here we go - except this article is also unreferenced, too, not even the usual primary sources used here, nope, nothing... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete since there doesn't seem to be a good redirect WP:ATD-R option. It also appears to be the Romanian adjective form (Transylvanian), so one could delete and redirect to Transylvania, but the search function might provide better options to a searcher, so delete. -2pou (talk) 07:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete this is a very minor location and without a good redirect target deletion is indeed the best option. Rhino131 (talk) 12:30, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - A minor fictional planet that only appeared in a small handful of issues. Searching for sources brings up a few results, but none of them appear to be valid for passing the WP:GNG - most are just fansites or user generated content, and the one I found that appears to be from a reliable source is nothing but a long plot summary of the initial story. The location is far, far too minor to include in the DC locations list. Rorshacma (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - This is literally the only third party coverage I could find. Darkknight2149 11:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as failing to meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of significant coverage. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:58, 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 04:52, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanagar[edit]

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

    The 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 coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. The usual dePROD with no helpful rationale, so here we go. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:05, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:05, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:05, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:05, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: Not enough sources, not qualifying. WP:GNG QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 06:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm unfamiliar, but is this a viable search option? Hawkman would probably be a suitable redirect target as a WP:ATD-R option. -2pou (talk) 07:23, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Delete Wow... finding a suitable target has serious WP:X or Y problems. Better to leave it to the search results for the reader to decide, especially with all the Hawekmen/women that have articles. -2pou (talk) 07:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - The topic lacks sources to show real world notability. TTN (talk) 21:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to Hawkman. I understand 2pou's argument, as there have been multiple characters called Hawkman, some connected to Thanagar, some not, and it's all very confusing. But I'd still prefer a redirect over deletion, and Hawkman as a whole is still closely connected to the planet. Rhino131 (talk) 01:42, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as lacking sufficient sources to meet the WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:59, 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. Refereeing at international level is not an indication of notability under ny guideline, not seeing anything on the Hungarian Wikipedia article to indicate GNG Fenix down (talk) 06:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Mohd Nazri Abdullah[edit]

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

    I found no significant coverage. Non-notable referee. SL93 (talk) 04:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 05:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 05:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 05:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - no evidence he meets GNG. GiantSnowman 18:47, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 22:50, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This referee has reffed international matches, although GNG is not met here, I was wondering if there are other language sources that haven't been found. Govvy (talk) 11:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I haven't looked closely, but the Hungarian Wikipedia page is surprisingly detailed. Nfitz (talk) 22:57, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And also unreferenced beyond run-of-the-mill databases! GiantSnowman 18:57, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep due to working at international matches (and AFC Asian Cup final no less!) --BlameRuiner (talk) 10:08, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was redirect to Amethyst, Princess of Gemworld. Eddie891 Talk Work 11:38, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Gemworld[edit]

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

    The 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 coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. The usual dePROD with no helpful rationale, so here we go. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:53, 27 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 03:53, 27 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 03:53, 27 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 03:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge with Amethyst, Princess of Gemworld. I don't see the need to separate the location from the character. Rhino131 (talk) 12:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to Amethyst, Princess of Gemworld. The location basically exists as the location of Amethyst's stories, and pretty much all sources mentioning it are actually discussing her and her various comic series as the primary topic. There is currently no reliably sourced information to Merge, but redirecting it to the article on the main topic would make sense. Rorshacma (talk) 15:50, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect as above per as a redirect alternative to deletion WP:ATD-R that provides the reader information they are seeking. -2pou (talk) 16:08, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete or redirect. A decent target has been identified. Article otherwise does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of third party sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:01, 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 04:53, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Marvel Comics characters named Iron Man[edit]

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

    This list seems to fail WP:LISTN (not citing any sources outside PRIMARY) and seems like a limited fork of Iron Man (disambiguation). At best I'd suggest ensuring that the linked disambig links to all of the characters mentioned here. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:49, 27 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 03:49, 27 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 03:49, 27 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 03:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Rather pointless disambiguation page. Any characters prominently named Iron Man should just be relocated to the real disambiguation page. TTN (talk) 13:24, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - As stated, any actual notable character here named "Iron Man" would be better to be included on the disambiguation page. But, really, that would only be James Rhodes, as he is the only one here that actually prominently took on the mantle for any amount of time. Every other entry is either just an alternate version of Tony Stark, or "someone who wore the armor once or twice". Rorshacma (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as redundant to the disambiguation page, and several other Iron Man article spinoffs that are still just about various editions of the same character. Don't need another WP:CONTENTFORK, especially without meeting the WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:03, 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 redirect to Walhalla railway line. Tone 04:53, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Siding, Walhalla line[edit]

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

    A temporary, unnamed railway siding doesn't warrant an article. The sole source is of questionable reliability. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:18, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:37, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:37, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to Walhalla railway line JarrahTree 10:18, 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 04:54, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Thomas & Friends annuals[edit]

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

    Fails WP:LISTN and WP:NBOOK. While this isn't named as a list, in function, it is a list. I'm not finding anything that discusses these books as a unit. In fact, I'm pretty much just finding content on wikis, unreliable blogs, and sales sites. I don't see how this is possibly notable. Hog Farm Bacon 02:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 02:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 02:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 02:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 02:11, 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 04:54, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Mustafa Majid[edit]

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

    Appears to be a fringe theorist of ethnic groups in Bangladesh who fails WP:NAUTHOR. Worldcat says his most widely held book is in 20 libraries ([54]). Most of the cites in this article are dead or unhelpful, but there is one review in The Daily Star in English [55], so at least the beginnings of a WP:NAUTHOR case. Articles in other Wikipedias do not help with sourcing. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 01:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 01:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 01:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 01:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Fringe theorist lacking the broad coverage we require for such figures.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 22:13, 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 delete. Tone 05:06, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    SAGA-EO Project[edit]

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

    non-notable defunct project fgnievinski (talk) 00:52, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete for above reasons. Defunct and fails notability. Balle010 (talk) 01:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2020_August_27&oldid=979218462"