Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 August 29

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 28 August	30 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:35, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Barrie Weaver[edit]

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

Industrial designer who seems to fail WP:NARTIST. I was able to find a couple of interviews with him on ProQuest, but nothing substantial. The article claimed shortly before this nomination that he was a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, which is not true (see [1]). Actually, he's a member of the RSA fellowship, which is like a "friends of the RSA" society (see [2]). I was also not able to verify the claim that he is a recipient of the Prince Philip Designers Prize; all the sites that seem to verify this are WP mirrors. I think he was a member of the Design Council, which might confer notability, but it's unclear. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:30, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:30, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:30, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article provides a lot of biographical detail, which is not in any of the sources. Worse than a biography of someone who is somehow not notable or famous enough, this is a BLP that is not verifiable. Vexations (talk) 18:15, 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 -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:37, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Birtherism (disambiguation)[edit]

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

WP:NOTDIC Kamala Harris citizenship conspiracy theories is also at AFD, likely to be deleted or redirected. The term Birtherism is a political media buzz word from 2008. Everything under "See also" is not relevant — Maile (talk) 22:59, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Maile (talk) 22:59, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete conditioned on the mentioned AFD ending in "delete" or "redirect". Once that article is gone, there is only one relevant article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:03, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Regardless of the fate of the Kamala Harris conspiracy article, this is not a proper dab page, as neither entry is a synonym for "birtherism", and the Harris article only mentions "birtherism" once. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:29, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A disambiguation page is not required (WP:ONEOTHER). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Enos733 (talk) 17:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not just about Obama.--24.99.88.86 (talk) 15:01, 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) 23:04, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1991–92 Newport A.F.C. season[edit]

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

fails GNG and NSEASONS Microwave Anarchist (talk) 22:43, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 22:43, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 22:43, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 22:43, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they too fail GNG and NSEASONS:

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

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

Delete all per nom Spiderone 00:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As WP:NSEASONS tells, these articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose, not just statistics and lists of players. Wikipedia is not a stats directory. -- Whiteguru (talk) 09:17, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:55, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 5 7 11:26, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NSEASONS failure. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:49, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, fails NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 15:06, 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 Merge boards pages to one article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:55, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Namco System 23[edit]

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

Non-notable arcade game board. Very little for this exists in reliable sources. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 22:41, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 22:41, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I beleive either both Namco System 22 and 23 pages should be removed, or updated. Redirecting to either with no evidence that the redirect is appropriate is unreliable. Bobbydilley (talk) 22:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (and likely most of the other Namco arcade hardware tech) to a single hardware on Nacmo's arcade technology. That Namco developed novel arcade boards for their games is notable but I don't think any individual board is, but they can all be documented to this degree.--Masem (t) 02:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I've definitely thought about doing that before in the past, but I wasn't sure how many sources existed to make one seem reasonable. Some of these boards I think could have their own pages, like the System 21 and System 10, but lots of these are very minor and don't even have proper names. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 02:29, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I also agree that merging to one page would make a useful resource. From a quick google search I can't see why the System 21 and System 10 would be notable, and think they should remain with the other systems in one page. Bobbydilley (talk) 11:49, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Even for boards that could have their own pages, unless they are going to be very long pages, it would likely be better to have a single page covering them all, so that the non-notable ones are documented as well. You still redirect all the names so they remain searchable, you don't lose information, just have everything in one place and don't lose these non-notable ones. --Masem (t) 15:52, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all of the arcade system board pages for Namco. Not to be a proponent of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but we as an encyclopedia tried this once with List of Sega arcade system boards, and that worked out pretty well. What I came to find is usually arcade system boards will get occasional mentions in magazine article, sometimes with a spec list. That may mean it'll be a bit arduous to put together good quality referencing for such a list, but it should be doable. With Namco being such a popular arcade company, I imagine such coverage would be in magazine articles for the particular games or in interviews with Namco's arcade developers, quite possibly even in English-language media. Red Phoenix ^talk 20:00, 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. (non-admin closure) Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 19:27, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James More[edit]

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

BLP with no external references. Rathfelder (talk) 22:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 22:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sloppy nomination. There were already two "external references" and I easily added a third. Please read WP:BEFORE. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Most of the hits are churnalism or in deprecated sources, but I did manage to find [3] and [4]. I tried to cut most of the outrageous promo from the article just now but there is probably some left. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:24, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 22:41, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Wright (writer)[edit]

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

Not sure if it passes WP:NAUTHOR – Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 21:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 21:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NAUTHOR: [5] (Kirkus Reviews), [6] (The New Yorker), [7] (The Huffington Post), [8] (The Globe and Mail). His website ([9]) also lists a number of awards which maybe other editors could independently verify. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 22:27, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, for his other book: [10] (Kirkus), [11] (Publishers Weekly). AleatoryPonderings (talk) 22:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 22:34, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 22:34, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:AUTHOR for having multiple reviews of multiple books. In addition to the above, there's a gray-area-independent item in the UMass Amherst alumni magazine. Of course, they can be counted on to describe their alumni in glowing terms, but they're probably still more independent than his current employer. And the Montreal Review of Books looks reliable for our purposes. XOR'easter (talk) 06:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have found and added sourcing and I also found a source for the Fullbright Scholar claim - that in itself is a very strong evidence of notability, given how extremely selective and discerning the program is when it comes to their participants. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough reviews (including one in the Washington Post) to pass WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:25, 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:06, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Scott Holden[edit]

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

Failed political candidate. Lost in 2018 general election, and lost in 2020 primary. Scant coverage outside of the election. Chuka Chief (talk) 20:39, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nominator. Unsuccessful political candidate lacking in-depth coverage in reliable sources outside his campaign. Meatsgains^(talk) 20:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:22, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:22, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Losing candidates for office below the national level who are otherwise non-notable are generally deleted. -- Whiteguru (talk) 09:20, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We long ago decided to not be a gazeteer of all defeated candidates.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get articles just for being unsuccessful candidates for political office per se — to qualify for inclusion, he would have to show either (a) that he already had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten him an article anyway (the Cynthia Nixon test), or (b) that his candidacy was markedly more special than everybody else's candidacies for some reason that would pass the ten year test for enduring significance (the Christine O'Donnell test). But there's nothing here that clears either of those bars. Bearcat (talk) 17:17, 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 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clane College[edit]

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

Non-notable private training college which fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:NORG and WP:GNG. There is practically no coverage of the subject in the newspapers of record in Ireland. A search in the Irish Times for the organisation's current title, "Cenit College", returns zero results. A similar Irish Times search for the org's former title ("Clane College") also returns nothing. Not one single mention. An equivalent search in the Independent News & Media stable of national/regional papers also returns zero results for "Cenit College". And, while a search in the INM portfolio for "Clane College" returns a few results, almost all are false-positives or passing mentions. The ONLY national coverage I can find at all is this piece in the Sunday Independent Business supplement from 2012. One piece like this is not "significant coverage". PROMO and COI/SPA issues are also a concern. Guliolopez (talk) 20:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 20:11, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 20:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted per WP:A10. (non-admin closure) Hog Farm _Bacon 22:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jewish organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups[edit]

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

The list only contains two Jewish groups and they are already listed on List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups. I don't think the "list" serves a valid purpose. ImTheIP (talk) 19:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ImTheIP (talk) 19:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wow. Egregious WP:POVFORK. This is not a category of hate group used by the SPLC, so there would need to be some extraordinary sourcing treating this as a specific group. I see nothing like that outside of, you know, the websites of some of those other hate groups... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:10, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A10 (Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic). Arbitrary POVFORK and hence OR. Completely unnecessary and serves absolutely no legitimate purpose. If it was contributed in good faith then the author needs clear and strong advice not to do anything like this again. If not, then they need to be blocked irrespective of whether their other edits are good. It is very hard to assume good faith here as the author as had made no attempt to create any similarly misguided articles for other religions. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated it for speedy deletion. While there is a discussion to be had about how to follow up on this I think that it is imperative to get it out of the article space as quickly as possible. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:41, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied. Bishonen | tålk 21:10, 29 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Obituaries unearthed (ka-ching), looks like we are getting to GNG. Thanks everyone! (non-admin closure) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fred R Wanless[edit]

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

Ugh. My least favourite type of deletion candidate: a productive scientist in a specialized field who, by virtue of not working on anything flashy, has low citation numbers and no chance at a GNG pass. Personally I think that having a number of species named after him (as opposed to by him) should count for something when it comes to gauging importance in the relevant field, but unfortunately we currently don't make any provisions for that. Present sourcing is shite, which could be amended, but I'm afraid that by the book we are looking at a WP:NPROF fail. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Trying my best to save this one. I've added more refs and I'm sure there are much more on him which might not be available online as he was mostly active in the pre-internet era. He fails WP:NPROF but can be saved per WP:GNG,WP:ANYBIO (cr.2) and WP:NACADEMIC (cr. 1). Less Unless (talk) 20:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate it. If you can get a working link to the obituary in Arachnology that might be worth a lot. Unfortunately that journal is not among my university's subscriptions. (BTW, WP:NPROF and WP:NACADEMIC are the same - just different shortcuts.) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:44, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elmidae I have filed a request in RR, hope someone might help. Less Unless (talk) 15:19, 30 August 2020 (UTC) PS: I have the article, it has a lot of facts. I will add them soon!Less Unless (talk) 15:46, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't have a specific opinion on notability at the moment but the publications section (Studies and research on Salticidae) is definitely too long and needs to be shortened, dramatically. Usually, for articles about academics we include a few selected publications, maybe 5-6 most imortant ones. Including a large portion of the CV as is done here makes the article look overly promotional. Also, if the article is kept, the title will need to be moved to remove the middle initial. The current title does not conform to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people). Nsk92 (talk) 22:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nsk92 I agree on everything you mentioned. Will work on it! Less Unless (talk) 15:46, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. I have access to the 2018 obituary in Arachnology through one the university libraries with which I am affiliated (the journal is behind a paywall and I doubt that a public access version of the article exists). I have downloaded and read the obituary, and I must admit that even after that I am pretty much on the fence in terms of notability. The obituary describes a modest and dedicated scientist who was primarily interested in doing research and whose accomplishments seem to have been somewhat under-appreciated, and perhaps still are. The author, another retired British arachnologist who was also mostly active in the 1970s-80s, does describe the impact of Wanless' work in some detail. But I still don't know what to make of it. Let me just quote a key paragraph. "As an alpha taxonomist, Fred Wanless was impressively productive. In the 15 years (1973–1988), during which he had an opportunity to study Salticidae, he described 137 new species and 13 new genera. Among them, only nine species (7%) have been later synonymized, and all his genera and the subfamily Spartaeinae remain valid. Besides new descriptions, Wanless published worldwide or regional revisions of 25 salticid genera of hitherto obscure statusand composition. Some of these revisions allowed other students to conduct their own research in related fields. For instance, a taxonomic revision of Portia (Wanless 1978f) allowed experimental studies on the biology and behaviourof Portia fimbriata and other species of that genus by Robert Jackson and co-authors (Jackson & Blest 1982; Jackson & Hallas 1986; etc.). Fred’s inventory of the Salticidae of the Seychelles Islands (Wanless 1984c), in which seven new species and one new genus were described, remains the only one of its kind. It is impossible to outline all of his taxonomic achievements in such a short, general account but, in recognition of his impressive contribution to salticid taxonomy, a genus, Wanlessia (from Borneo and Taiwan), and 11 species have been named in his honour." Still, the citability numbers are pretty low, even for someone who mainly worked in the 1970s-1980s, before the age of the internet. The obituary does mention that in the 1970s he served as an ordinary Council member and then as the Meetings Secretary for the British Arachnological Society. In terms of passing WP:PROF, I think one can plausibly argue either way here. Nsk92 (talk) 16:15, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Switching to Weak keep in light of the additional obit uncovered by Russ Woodroofe. If nothing else, one can make an argument for passing WP:GNG now. Nsk92 (talk) 18:17, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Another fairly substantive obituary [12] is published in the newsletter of the Wren conservation group. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:58, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for finding this source. I'll switch to weak keep then. Nsk92 (talk) 18:17, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per the two in-depth published obituaries and WP:GNG, even though the case for WP:PROF still looks doubtful. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Two substantial obituaries is a GNG pass, although one of them is in an obscure enough source that it is a bit weak. But the existence of the first speaks specifically to his impact for WP:NPROF C1, supported by other sources. (The WP:NPROF guideline says that a memorial volume suffices; the journal article is short of a volume, but is nontrivial and, as one would expect, supported by other sourcing.) The combination of the weak cases for GNG and for NPROF looks like a reasonably solid keep case to me. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:19, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) John B123 (talk) 07:28, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Olav Kooij[edit]

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

Previously deleted twice. last time in June 2020. The only thing that has changed since the last AfD is that the subject has signed for a top team, to start in mid-2021. Until he rides for the team, which may or may not happen, the article fails WP:NCYCLING. John B123 (talk) 18:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 18:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actually, lots has changed. He easily passes now. Signing for World Tour makes him notable, as does the 3 UCI wins he has also had since. Also has a UCI rank of 203, which is with mostly WorldTour riders, generally top 300 are all quite notable.--Seacactus 13 (talk) 03:02, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Won the 2020 edition of the GP Kranj, which is a 1.1 event, so passes WP:NCYC. He probably passes WP:GNG too, with articles such as this, this, this and this, to name but a few. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:22, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Comment - As per WP:NCYCLING, signing for World Tour, a UCI rank of 203 and wins at Trofej Umag & Poreč Trophy, both category 1.2, do not give notability. However the win at GP Kranj does as it is a category 1.1 race. I am therefore withdrawing the nomination. --John B123 (talk) 07:26, 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. Sandstein 16:52, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of TEDx conferences[edit]

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

A directory of non-notable conferences that anyone can organize if they feel like it, sourced almost entirely to primary sources like TED.com, Facebook, and YouTube. As TED (conference) puts it, TEDx conferences can be organized by anyone who obtains a free license from TED, and agrees to follow certain principles. TED itself claims that there are over 3000 a year ([13]). I briefly considered paring it down to just the conferences with links, but of those only TEDxAuckland, TEDxLagos, TEDxSanta Cruz, and TEDxWellington have even a hint of independent coverage, and they can be handled with a category or just linked to on a see-also at TED (conference). AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:02, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur with nom; anyone anywhere can put together a local TEDx event. List attempts to catalogue the annual events of 40 locations but there is well over an order of magnitude more of them, which are not widely covered to be listed as such. Not sure the four listed should even have their own articles. Reywas92^Talk 01:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable topic that fails WP:GNG for the list itself. An example of WP:LISTCRUFT/WP:FANCRUFT. Also violates MOS:EXTERNALLINKS with dozens of inappropriate external links including ext lnks camouflaged as pseudo-citations. Violates WP:Reliable sources by using its own website for citations. In total, violates WP:What Wikipedia is not. Normal Op (talk) 18:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Concur with nom and above comments. The list is pretty arbitrary in nature covering only a tiny fraction of events based on no observable criteria. Also it has lot of WP:PROMO intent by the use of good number of external links within the main space. The official TED website is far better for this purpose covering not only all the future events but also all the past events as well. - Roller26 (talk) 20:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This was created after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TEDxSanta Cruz. It's become a dumping ground rather than a curated list. The more notable TEDx conferences, as well as the TEDx concept, do get coverage in reliable sources and can individually meet WP:GNG and collectively meet WP:LISTN. I would recommend keeping, but establishing a strict set of criteria, and trimming the article. For example, each list entry would either use {{main}} to link to a standalone page that meets WP:GNG, or would need to have X reliable sources to have an entry on the list.This would get rid of almost all of the objectionable/promotional material in the article as well as a fair, objective, and non-arbitrary standard for inclusion other than which TEDx conference is savvy enough to edit Wikipedia. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:54, 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. czar 03:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolaus Kimla[edit]

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

Unreliable sources. Paid promotion. Non notable. Coriannakox (talk) 18:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Coriannakox (talk) 18:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. I can't find any significant coverage of this businessman, and the page creator has been perma-banned for undisclosed paid editing. A clear example of why WP:NOTLINKEDIN is necessary. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:49, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:56, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paritosh Tripathi[edit]

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

Unreliable sources. Not indicating significance. Coriannakox (talk) 17:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Coriannakox (talk) 17:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the following are generally unreliable/semi-reliable puff sources. Additionally, all are short interviews and aren't significant coverage. [14], [15] (Original bhaskar link is dead), [16], [17]. - hako9 (talk) 18:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rohishaw1999 (talk) 13:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC) He is notable, he has mentions in major newspapers of India, he works in a most watched TV show. His character is famous in the show.[reply]

Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 22:29, 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 delete. Tone 18:08, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ST. JOSEPH'S COLLEGE, JAKHAMA: Spring Fest 2018 - The Aftermovie[edit]

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

Basically an annual social and cultural festival which was celebrated and filmed. Fails WP:NFILM. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 17:45, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 17:45, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 17:45, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. - hako9 (talk) 21:55, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero coverage in secondary sources Spiderone 22:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Most of the references are theirs, to their own video. Which I watched for 37 seconds and gave up. Fails NP:FILM as per nom. -- Whiteguru (talk) 09:28, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:41, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Just because of the terrible title. Ok, kidding, delete because this fails WP:NFILM. AND because the title makes me hurt. A lot. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:21, 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 delete. Tone 18:07, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sandeep Mehta[edit]

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

A poorly constructed article that fails both Wikipedia:GNG and Wikipedia:NACTOR. The said actor's only major and notable acting credit is his supporting role in the long-running Indian soap opera Yeh Rishta Kya Kehlata Hai. All of the other listed credits, trivial by nature, are completely unsourced. This article was also listed as one needing major improvements to meet Wiki standards before it was removed not very long ago, without the issues being resolved. To sum it up, a single noteworthy acting credit hardly warrants a stand-off article. Sunshine1191 (talk) 17:39, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sunshine1191 (talk) 17:39, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sunshine1191 (talk) 17:39, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sunshine1191 (talk) 17:39, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article is of very poor quality and the subject doesn't seem to have any significant acting credits that have been sourced. Also, of the two references provided in the article, neither is certified as reliable by Wikipedia which basically renders their existence moot. Another quiet amusing problem with this article is how the information present contradicts itself. The lead states that the said actor is supposed to be 53 years of age (which is unsourced btw) but this article has been included in the category of 1947 births, ie: 73 years. This clearly indicates that the article is mainly a compilation of a bucket-load of unsourced original research which makes it harder to verify. Thus, deleting looks like the best course of action. TheRedDomitor (talk) 05:48, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Eligible for soft deletion. TheRedDomitor (talk) 16:48, 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 speedy keep. Fenix down (talk) 14:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FC Barcelona 6–1 Paris Saint-Germain F.C.[edit]

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

Another football match that fails WP:NEVENT. It wasn't the final of a competition, just a comeback. The problem is what makes this more notable than any other comeback in European Cup history? Considering Barca didn't win the competition, there's unlikely to be long-term articles talking about the match. Should be deleted as it's clearly doesn't meet the guidelines for a standalone article. NapHit (talk) 16:41, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:47, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per refs at the end of the lead (#5 and #6 currently). Biggest-ever comeback in the 60-year history of the European Cup / Champions League. It would be reasonable to add it in the appropriate section of the season article for the 2016–17 UEFA Champions League instead, but editors who 'control' those articles prefer to keep them limited to pretty much only the scorelines with minimal prose. It's s bit WP:CRYSTAL to say it's unlikely there will be long term interest. I could just as easily say the statistics indicate there won't be another four-goal comeback until the 2070s so it's a highly significant event in terms of pan-European football which is obviously of interest to many readers. Crowsus (talk) 19:59, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Crowsus Spiderone 21:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. S.A. Julio (talk) 22:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Crowsus.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have a personal fairly strong notability test for individual games, which this meets. Coverage is continuing and will do. Important game. Giant Snowman 07:33, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Less sure about this one, but given how unique and controversial this comeback was, it deserves to have its own article on Wikipedia. Govnery (talk) 08:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 14:44, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment everything here seems to be an argument to keep Liverpool F.C. 4–0 FC Barcelona. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 14:47, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Crowsus. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 01:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not many football matches have a special name ("La Remontada" that is recognized by a dictionary), and the fact that this does confers a different level of notability. Eumat114 (Message) 11:16, 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 speedy keep. Fenix down (talk) 14:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FC Barcelona 2–8 FC Bayern Munich[edit]

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

Another football match that fails WP:NEVENT. Quarter-finals aren't notable by themselves and I don't think the fact that Barcelona conceded eight goals confers notability on this match. NapHit (talk) 16:35, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:47, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. S.A. Julio (talk) 17:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question isn't this a record breaking game? Govvy (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was their biggest defeat in seventy years, but that doesn't qualify it for its own article as far as I understand the guidelines. NapHit (talk) 19:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The match was a quarter-final (not a semi-final). Barcelona is a major football club, given that this was their worst defeat since 1951, they sacked their manager afterwards, and one of the best footballers in history may now leave the club seems to support the article meeting WP:NEVENT/WP:GNG. S.A. Julio (talk) 18:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of that makes it worthy of its own article. But, that's why we have these forums, to discuss the issue. I think it fails GNG because the only thing notable about the match is the scoreline, which as you've stated, isn't their record defeat. Just the biggest in a long time. NapHit (talk) 19:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The match was in the biggest club football competition in the world, and resulted in the worst defeat in European competition for Barcelona, the second-most valuable football club in the world. The result and impact of the match is very significant, and as Walter Görlitz mentioned this information cannot fit elsewhere. S.A. Julio (talk) 19:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage of this unusual match and extended details mean a stand-alone article is required. We cannot merge the content into the tournament or any other page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ←A shocking result, the biggest defeat for Barcelona, which was well covered by sources. Kante4 (talk) 19:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per all the reasons mentioned above. Govnery (talk) 19:33, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above, although it could do with a bit of cleanup, the many sources for its long-term significance are there but mostly in the bottom section, they could be replicated nearer the top. Crowsus (talk) 20:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as per all the reasons mentioned above. FobTown (talk) 21:45, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments above Spiderone 21:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 00:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep highly notable game, especially since this match is likely to be the final nail that pushed Messi out of Barca RedPatchBoy (talk) 02:22, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have a personal fairly strong notability test for individual games, which this meets. Coverage is continuing and will do. Important game. Giant Snowman 07:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has significant sources. Barcelona's manager was sacked afterwards and it might be the game that meant messi will finally leave Barcelona. CreativeNorth (talk) 11:15, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A highly notable game, record breaking defeat for Barca and a major factor in influencing Messi's future with the club. TheRedDomitor (talk) 13:57, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everyone above. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 14:26, 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. By raw nose-count, this looks like NC, but I find the keep arguments to be particularly unconvincing. They generally do not cite policy-based reasons to keep, and tend to be from users with limited editing experience. I'd be willing to userfy this if somebody wants to work on finding sources which would satisfy WP:NCORP. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:26, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Snobette[edit]

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

Completely WP:REFBOMBed and any reliable source is at best a passing mention. GPL93 (talk) 17:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 17:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 17:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, the blog has multiple relevant sources. I have included a lot of references, but it's just because I found a lot. I stumbled across it when I was researching some rapper and I was surprised that they had such notable mentions, such as:

Bright Magazine https://issuu.com/brighttradeshow/docs/bright_mag_s09_en page 50

This talked about the lack of female and POC bloggers and how influential they are in the space

Yahoo https://www.yahoo.com/amphtml/Tlifestyle/white-nonsense-pradas-500-t-shirts-featuring-civil-rights-activist-angela-davis-come-fire-185640969.html

Yahoo article that spoke about a Twitter trend that started after an interview featured on Snobette.

Article on HIMYB

https://himyb.com/2013/06/17/how-i-met-highsnobette-thesnobette/

However, let me try to rewrite it. I think I can improve it.Juju (talk) 14:57, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize but the Yahoo article absolutely does not talk how influential they are. There is one mention in passing and even then its in reference to a subject that Snobette interviewed. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I also wanted to include more major POC and female blogs and I'd like to chronicle all the major streetwear blogs. I think it's important to not trivalize diversity and not think that just because women and POC do something that is worthy of deletion.

Even with the rise of streetwear, women of color fight to be heard and hired in fashion - Other reference: https://qz.com/quartzy/1370698/even-with-the-rise-of-streetwear-women-of-color-fight-to-be-heard-and-hired-in-fashion/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jujucabana (talk • contribs) 23:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Nobody said "just because women and POC do something that is worthy of deletion". The article subject appears to lack significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. The references are passing mentions (like the Yahoo link), blogs, or primary sources. Citobun (talk) 08:18, 20 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) 04:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete everything is trivial for now. Also written in an inacceptable promotional tone (not part of my argument, just something that must be improved if the article is kept). Sam-2727 (talk) 23:29, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Agree that the article is somewhat lacking substance and reads a wee bit promotional. However, that is the nature of the beast. Fashion and trendsetting is never going to conform to encyclopaedic rigorousness. You can laugh at some of the references, but again, that is the nature of the beast. The Yahoo reference doesn't fly. Nor do the Addidas or the WWD references. Keep for a cleanup of references. Whiteguru (talk) 12:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Except fashion and trendsetting are regularly covered by reliable sources (GQ, Vogue, Cosmo, Complex, etc.). This isn't even a case of WP:TOOSOON as this is a site that has been around for 13 years and there is still nothing more than unreliable sourcing and passing mentions. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:46, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wish there was some standardization for blogs. At Cision to be considered for its Help A Reporter, you have to have to rank over *300,000 on Amazon's Alexa Page Rank. This blog would qualify for its metric. There should be some standardization on noteworthy blogs. Juju (talk) 16:23, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jujucabana, in my opinion no. "Blogs" (under my definition at least) don't employ fact checking so aren't reliable no matter the amount of readers. Sam-2727 (talk) 16:27, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In this day and age, no facts are reliable. However, I think that some standardization for news website is probably needed. It could be 1) needs to rank at certain level 2) needs to employ fact checkers...et cetera. Otherwise, it seems very arbitary and racist imho what is chosen to delete and what remains. POC blogs and other sources will never have a chance to rank, if the qualifiers is to be seen by historically racist news media. Juju (talk) 16:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The blog hasn't been covered by reliable black-owned and run sources (The Root, Complex, the New York Amsterdam News) either though. Even if you want to move away from the criteria Wikipedia uses, Snobette's social presence (10.4k Twitter, 15.3k IG, 8.9k FB) and Youtube subscriptions (18.5k) are not indicative of a blog with high visibility or influence. Pretty much any site with these stats is not likely to have received enough coverage to merit an article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 00:47, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It actually has three references in complex that I am just noticing now.

https://www.complex.com/search?q=snobette#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=snobette&gsc.page=1 If they didn't break the story first, Complex wouldn't have had it. Juju (talk) 22:23, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But none of these are actually about the subject itself. And not that breaking stories means much in notability terms, but for at least the first reference Snobette didn't even break the story, the second story is just Snobette being included among bunch of imbedded tweets and vine reactions, the third is a passing mention.GPL93 (talk) 22:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages nor a platform for promotion. The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see significant coverage mostly passing mentions, but couple of in depth articles too, but it is meeting the definition of significant coverage WP:SIGCOV. Expertwikiguy (talk) 01:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me which of the references is significant, in-depth coverage from reliable sources? I can only find one and its part of a listicle. Multiple references do not even mention the subject. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:59, 8 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Malini Sathappan[edit]

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

Article about an actress who fails WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR. She has played small roles, mostly uncredited, in a number of films. This article was recently declined in AFC but the author yet ignored the review and created page in mainspace. Sources are all trivial and passing mentions of her. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 16:02, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 16:02, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 16:02, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 16:02, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources exist. TamilMirchi (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 22:29, 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 redirect to Iron Man. Tone 18:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative versions of Iron Man[edit]

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

Right now this is referenced only to primary sources (comic books themselves). I don't see any sources that suggest this topic is rescuable (just plot summaries). So this seems to fail WP:GNG/WP:NFICTION. Can this be rescued? I don't see how, given the 100% WP:PLOT/WP:FANCRUFT content, but maybe someone can figure this out. Good luck... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:56, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:56, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:56, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:56, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is obviously a split from the huge topic of Iron Man and excessive splits are addressed by merger not deletion. As a list of versions, it passes WP:LISTN – see CBR, for example. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That list is invalid as it includes versions of Iron Man from 'not alternate universe' which our article claims to be limited too. It is just a list of 10 random Iron Man armors. Can you find a list that is only about Iron Man from alternate universes? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:08, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The CBR article as a secondary source that does a specific cross comparison similar to this is compelling. Keep for all the reasons Andrew cited. Timmccloud (talk) 16:50, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is undoubtedly not encyclopedic content, in my view. It fails WP:NFICTION - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are tons of coverage of different version of this character, trying to cover them all in the main page would be a huge mistake, there is simply too much content.★Trekker (talk) 19:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Would be nice to see sources for this "ton of coverage". Reliable would be a plus. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:47, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - [18], [19] [20], [21], [22], [23], [24] Doing BEFORE is the nominators responsibility. It took me about a minute to find these sources.★Trekker (talk) 01:07, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Treker, and did you spend a minute to read them? [25] does not appear to be about this, it just a list of suits, not necessarily alternate universe versions (the article is badly named, but per lead " other fictional universes" it should be [[Alternate universe versions of Iron Man"). Same problem is with [26], [27]. [28] is about concept art for movie suit, which is a), in universe, and b), not relevant to this article? [29], [30] and [31] makes it rather obvious you didn't even read them as what is a connection between article saying that an Iron Man VR games gets new weapons and the topic of the article here? Second WP:TROUT goes to User:Wm335td. "Great work" indeed, can you guys pretty please read the links you google to see if they are at least semi-relevant to the topic being discussed? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:05, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge after reviewing the sources which seem to just be sources about Iron Man, who already has an article. There is also already an article for Iron Man in other media. There is no reason for a third article about essentially the same thing. I understand the desire to spinout more articles, but if they do not meet the WP:GNG then they should be cleaned up in a WP:SUMMARY style, not split endlessly into non-notable articles. Jontesta (talk) 15:27, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find the sources from Treker compelling ^ great work. WP:SIGCOV was presented to show that the subject is notable. Wm335td (talk) 19:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is something that should be built up as a prose-only section in the main article, and then split out should the prose section become too long with the inclusion of real world information. These neverending lists belong on Fandom otherwise. TTN (talk) 14:36, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to a lack of third party sources about this subject, independent of the Iron Man character as a whole. The main article is already heavily sourced to primary sources, and the answer is to use a WP:SUMMARYSTYLE instead of creating endless WP:CONTENTFORKs (Iron Man, List of Iron Man titles, Iron Man 2020, List of Marvel Comics characters named Iron Man, Iron Man's armor) that don't meet the WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a basic summary to Iron Man. BOZ (talk) 22:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question Are these "Alternative versions of XXX" being evaluated properly? Should they be trying to meet WP:LISTN as a whole instead of WP:GNG for individual entries? Likewise, should they be moved to "List of XX" lists? This assumes of course, that any of these actually meet LISTN as something discussed as a whole (if they're not serving blue-linked navigational assistance). -2pou (talk) 23:25, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @2pou: I think it depends on the article/list in question, and we will have to look at every one of them separately. But since Iron Man is one of the most famous ones, and even for him we couldn't find good sources (see my response to Trekker's links), well, I don't think LISTN will help much. This seems like fancruft that at best should be merged to the main article in an abbreviated form (and which also is already there in such a form anyway). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:15, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@2pou:: The ones I've looked at wouldn't meet LISTN, because they aren't discussed as a group by RS.

Delete: Article does not meet WP:GNG and WP:BEFORE showed nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV. Article itself is mostly (all) WP:OR based on primary sources. // Timothy :: talk 15:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Very, very few of the listed examples are independently notable, none of them currently have any reliable sources included talking about them, and none of the sources presented in this AFD actually show any kind of extensive coverage on the concept as a whole that would make this a valid stand alone article per WP:LISTN. I like the idea of a basic, summary style description of the concept added to the main Iron Man article, as BOZ suggested, but there simply isn't any content in the current article that should be merged in order to do so. Rorshacma (talk) 16:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge* because of many valid reasons to keep above. Timmccloud (talk) 13:35, 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. We are in-between keep and redirect here. Closing as keep, meaning "not delete", discussion can continue on the talkpage. Tone 18:07, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flags of the World (website)[edit]

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

This article is tagged that the article may not meet the general notability guideline. I tried finding reliable sources that can prove that this article is notable, however, I found none. I recommend that this article be deleted. Interstellarity (talk) 12:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 12:56, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 12:56, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a remnant of the old Wikipedia days where we just assumed most things are notable. It doesn't appear to have ever received any coverage to satisfy WP:NWEB despite supposedly being the largest database devoted to vexillology. Praxidicae (talk) 13:14, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No wonder. The article was created in 2004. Foxnpichu (talk) 16:43, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've come across links to this website many times while looking up stuff about flags. It's a widely-used resource, including being cited by a number of wiki articles, and seems generally respected by the community of people interested in such things. I will look for references tomorrow. FLHerne (talk) 22:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to International Federation of Vexillological Associations: Barely found anything about the site. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 15:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Superastig. Likewise, I was unable to find any significant coverage on this particular webpage, although there is a lot of search engine noise. Deletion seems a little drastic, given that this is a logical search term, but the keep !voter hasn't presented anything that would demonstrate notability. It looks like redirection is the best call here. I haven't found any WP:SIGCOV, and it doesn't look like anyone else has, either. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:36, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn’t seem to have much significant coverage, and therefore, doesn’t appear to be notable. Redirect to International Federation of Vexillological Associations. Foxnpichu (talk) 16:44, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to International Federation of Vexillological Associations --Whiteguru (talk) 09:34, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's hard to search about this website specifically because the name is so generic, but the German and Spanish versions of this article have sources that establish notability: ^[1]^[2] Tercer (talk) 15:06, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Robert Raeside (2004). "FOTW: The Ultimate Vexillological Encyclopedia or an Ephemeral Web Site?" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 30 December 2018. Retrieved 14 August 2017.
^ A. P. Burgers (2008). The South African flag book: the history of South African flags from Dias to Mandela. Protea Book House. p. 34. ISBN 978-1-86919-112-2. There are numerous websites on the Internet dealing with different aspects of flags. The most all-encompassing of these is without a doubt the website Flags of the World (FOTW).

Keep The sources mentioned above demonstrate notability; from personal experience, it is certainly the largest and most commonly used vexillogical database. Zoozaz1 (talk) 01:53, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 16:55, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neerthirai[edit]

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

This film has no sources online save for one review. Hence, the film is not notable and this page contains original research. TamilMirchi (talk) 19:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 19:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 19:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 19:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a review from Times of India and another source from Republic World exist. IMDB, YouTube links are also all there on the page. The sourced release section notes the unique reasons to keep the page. Neutral Fan (talk) 20:37, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Based on Wikipedia:Notability (films), there must be multiple reliable sources or at least two reliable reviews. The Republic World site simply mentions the film in a passing reference while Nett4vu doesn't qualify as a reliable review. If the film were to release at a later date, then an article can be created at that time. TamilMirchi (talk) 20:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG Spiderone 17:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete it seems to have two reviews. Which normally would be enough to make it notable. One of them is extremely short though and hardly goes into any details. So, I'm going with weak delete. Probably other reviews will come along at some point and the article can always be recreated if or when they do. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Salvio

15:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:55, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Notable people from a notable industry produced a work that has a review in a national newspaper (that from among the "Online" && "English" alone). It's not groundbreaking and it's not going to be of any interest to anyone hundreds years from now, which is true of almost all movies that we keep. But there is enough already available to support a very short standalone article, which would, if nothing else, bring completeness to our coverage of the notable people involved in the project. So, why not? Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:25, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, one review does not establish notability. The fact that there are notable people involved in it is irrelevant per WP:NOTINHERITED. Youtube and IMdB are not reliable sources. Fails WP:NFILM. Donaldd23 (talk) 19:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note - there are two reviews. Neutral Fan (talk) 01:08, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, however, only 1 of them meets the review guidelines. Nett4vu is not considered a reliable source. Donaldd23 (talk) 01:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Has any tried searching in Tamil-language sources? If at least one other review is found in any published newspaper, this article can be kept. --Ab207 (talk) 06:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 15:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment: No Tamil sources exist.TamilMirchi (talk) 19:14, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - new sources added including from The Hindu. Neutral Fan (talk) 23:25, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As the article mentions, the film was made and then screened for one day only. It is notable in the sense that it has (1) a completely notable cast - so creation would serve as a sense of completion for all involved - and (2) is the first Tamil film to tackle the concept of #MeToo. Here are some presumably live tweet reviews from the screening [32]. Here are some promotional posts [33] [34]. Moreover, there is a second review - and it's evident that the NettTV review is also someone who sat in that screening watching the movie. Neutral Fan (talk) 22:07, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- (1) Notability is not inherited. (2) Are there any sources (read that as reliable, published sources, not just social media) that say this is the first #MeToo related Tamil film. The first tweet cited here is from the author of the review already included from TOI. The other two are from primary sources and are not an indication of notability. BOVINEBOY2008 10:00, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Based on The Hindu Tamil and TOI review. I now vote keep.TamilMirchi (talk) 01:03, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

B. Edward Tankersley Memorial Bridge[edit]

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

Non-notable US highway bridge. The source in the article is a federal government bridge inventory, so it would likely be considered a primary source. This is primary source government legislation naming the bridge. It's not terribly uncommon for local/state governments in the US to officially name roadway structures; even nondescript highway overpasses can have names. Beyond that, I'm mostly getting mirrors and a handful of routine clickbait geography pages. When the creek the bridge crosses is so small it's a redlink, then it kinda says something about the bridge. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and is not notable per WP:NBUILD. In my search, I could only find the legislation listed by the nom. Google, JSTOR, ProQuest, Gale Academic OneFile, and NYT did not return results. Z1720 (talk) 17:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
oh, for Pete's sake, delete Named after an unremarkable county sheriff, it's a two lane plate girder thing of which there must be hundreds of thousands if not millions in the US. Frankly, I don't think simply naming a bridge makes it notable, but in any case the sheer ordinariness of this shows WP:NOTINHERITED in spades. Mangoe (talk) 14:33, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, neither here nor in the RFC referenced in the final comment. There's clearly an WP:NPLACE argument to be made for a shopping mall of this magnitude, although I am skeptical that any coverage of shopping malls would be anything other than routine coverage that any other large shopping mall would get. If the guidelines are clarified, deletion of this article can be revisited. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:54, 10 September 2020 (UTC)}}[reply]

3 Damansara Shopping Mall[edit]

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

Looks like a great place, but the article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Subject does not have coverage that meets significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. WP:BEFORE revealed advertising, WP:ROUTINE coverage of events and directory style listings. // Timothy :: talk 02:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 02:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 02:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. coverage is routine. LibStar (talk) 01:08, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep Any mall of 700,000 sqft and 200 stores in the US would be kept. We have over 3000 mall articles and this is similar to many of them. MB 03:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment MB You're argument is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If there are mall articles that don't meet WP:N, then they should be deleted. If you have sources that meet WP:SIGCOV for WP:GNG that address the subject directly and in-depth, please post them. !votes need to be based on sources, policies, and guidelines. I have nominated a lot of malls in the United States that lack WP:N from WP:RS.

No, I'm pointing out that consensus on notability is shown by COMMON OUTCOMES and that when it comes to non-western countries, we should be conscious of bias caused by the availability of online sources. MB 00:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Petaling Jaya is surrounded by the Malaysian capital, Kuala Lumpur to the east, Sungai Buloh to the north, Shah Alam , the capital of Selangor and Subang Jaya to the west and Bandar Kinrara (Puchong) to the south. It is in the middle of a developed area of 5,800,000 people with a GDP of US$55.5 billion. You think it lacks internet and online news sources? This is not some remote place. // Timothy :: talk 02:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 15:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, hsa multiple reliable sources, people calling for deletion have not proven how the sources are "routine" which itself is not a policy-based reason to delete. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:49, 2 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 09:12, 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. Clear consensus that this fails WP:GNG and possibly fails WP:V. If somebody wants to work on this, I can userfy it for you, but based on the discussion here, I'm not optimistic about it getting back into mainspace. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:32, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tavara[edit]

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

Quite simply: I don't think this is real (and so, a fortiori, fails WP:GNG). I would call it a hoax but there is a single source to what appears to be an RS, but it's in Turkish and only in "snippet" view so I don't know what it says. I tried searching both "davara" and "tavara" with no luck. This initially looked promising but I'm pretty sure it's unrelated and was picked up by Wikipedia-scraping software or an unscrupulous archivist. I would have prodded this if not for the one source. Oh, and the author apparently has a COI with Özhan Öztürk, the author of the lone source in the article. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 06:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 06:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 06:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Expand and merge Okay, it exists. According to this Turkish definition site, "Tavara is a kind of ghost that closes your mouth in the night". Similar definitions here saying here that it presses you (and a couple of other definitions unrelated to this): [35], [36], [37]. A thing that this article misses is the synonym word of it, known throughout Turkey: Karabasan (dark presser), which has an English page called Mare (folklore). So I say, merge it with Mare (folklore), since it has a "By region" section. Don't worry about the expanding, as I'm going to do it after participating in the AfD. ~Styyx ^{Hi! ^-^} 07:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind for Turkey related subjects: to search sources add "nedir" (what is) or "kimdir" (who is) behind the name, for example: Tavara nedir. You will get more sources. Also I found out that the original article (currently the first sentence), is a copy of this. ~Styyx ^{Hi! ^-^} 07:35, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The first two citations are just clickbait sites. The other two, TGRT and Sabah, are reasonably RS, but they make no mention of 'tavara'; they only talk about 'karabasar' (which AFAIK is just a generic word for nightmare, but I'm not 100% sure), and as we only have this article claiming that they mean the same thing, I don't see how we can use those as sources either. The book claimed as a source, I cannot read, therefore cannot verify. Also, while it doesn't prove anything as such, interesting to note nevertheless that the Turkish wiki has nothing on this, as in no article, but also no mentions of 'tavara' (well, two actually, but neither is relevant). I think this is either OR or just a hoax or some sort; therefore, unless considerably better references can be added, it has no place in an encyclopaedia, not even merged into a wider topic. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Salvio

09:33, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 15:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The sources do not address the subject directly and indepth. Some sources don't address the subject at all. BEFORE showed nothing that does. Above mentioned sources don't address the subject directly and in depth and search for Tavara nedir showed nothing. Searched some JSTOR journals (Journal of Folklore Research, Journal of the Folklore Institute, etc), a search brought this up [38] but doesn't address the subject.

Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.nedemek.org/tavara+nedir	? No idea if this is an authority for folklore	A dictionary. Tertiary. Not a secondary source providing direct and indepth coverage	✘ No
https://www.karakese.com/kelime/108715/tavara-tavara-ne-demek-tavara-anlami	? No idea if this is an authority for folklore	A dictionary. Tertiary. Not a secondary source providing direct and indepth coverage	✘ No
https://www.tgrthaber.com.tr/aktuel/karabasan-nedir-neden-olur-karabasan-kimlere-basar-karabasan-bilimsel-aciklamasi-2656335	? No idea if this is an authority for folklore	Subject of the article is nightmares and does not mention the topic	✘ No
https://www.sabah.com.tr/galeri/yasam/karabasan-nedir-kimlere-basar/8	? No idea if this is an authority for folklore	Subject of the article is nightmares and does not mention the topic	✘ No
https://www.sabah.com.tr/galeri/yasam/karabasan-nedir-kimlere-basar/18	? No idea if this is an authority for folklore	Subject of the article/photo gallery is nightmares and does not mention the topic	✘ No
Öztürk, Özhan. (Black Sea: Encyclopedic Dictionary) Karadeniz Ansiklopedik Sözlük. 2 Vol. Heyamola Publishing. Istanbul. 2005		Encyclopedic Dictionary. Tertiary. Does not address the subject directly and indepth.	✘ 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}}.

// Timothy :: talk 11:50, 9 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. Other than Ted Griffin, who seems to have a proprietary interest in the article, clear consensus the subject does not meet our standards of sourcing for biographies. Not that it really matters to this AfD, but looking at the subjects Ted Griffin has chosen to write about, I have to wonder if he's been hired by the Chen family to work on articles about Chen family members. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:50, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

T. F. Chen[edit]

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

This page has serious issues for over 10 years. The information is mostly promotional and either unsourced or sourced by dead links which are not reliable sources and mostly self published. | MK17b | (talk) 04:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 August 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:49, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Dps04 (talk) 09:25, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Dps04 (talk) 09:26, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Salvio

09:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: There is significant coverage from Taiwan, USA, and other sources.Ted Griffin (talk) 23:15, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mostly self-published sources. The New World Art Center article is potentially good, but the location of the article is somewhat suspect, perhaps a paid critique. Curiocurio (talk) 23:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Finished cleaning up some of the article, fixing sources and dead links. I'm going to double check the self-published sources and remove them if need be. But the artist does appear significant and merits an individual page. Will report back when finished.Ted Griffin (talk) 23:28, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the problematic self-published references have been removed. Otherwise, the remaining references are quite good and independent. Moreover, this artist already has significant coverage in French and Chinese. I stand by my original vote to Keep.Ted Griffin (talk) 23:46, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ted Griffin: How are the remaining references good? References 1 and 7 are to Qart, an archived dead page which is just an ecommerce site and def. not reliable. 2 is self published. References 3, 9 and 10 are to 123soho.com which is a (defunct?) advertising agency - again not a RS. Reference 8 is again a dead link. | MK17b | (talk) 05:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mk17b, I fixed reference 8 by putting the archive link. As for the other sources:

Qart: updated the link to a live page [39]. Based on [40], there is nothing saying that an ecommerce site is by def nonreliable, especially since the page seems to provide factual information.
123soho: the source [41] is written by another notable artist Thomas McEvilley, further boosting the subject's notability
According to [42], self published sources are acceptable so long as their coverage is limited to the subject and they are not used exclusively for the article. The source [43] satisfies these criterion so it is acceptable.

Ted Griffin (talk) 22:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting from RS: “Never use self-published sources as independent sources about living people”.

Regarding ecommerce: “inline citations may be allowed to e-commerce pages such as that of a book on a bookseller's page or an album on its streaming-music page, in order to verify such things as titles and running times.”

Qart is being used as a source about the artist, not the existence of a title or the like. | MK17b | (talk) 19:32, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

He also has numerous books written about him, constituting significant, independent, reliable coverage. [44], [45] [46] Just browsing [47] gives many books covering his art.
He also satisfies WP:ANYBIO, winning an award from the United Nations, the “Global Tolerance Award,” which absolutely makes him notable and significant.[48][49][50]

Thus, he won significant awards and has numerous books written on him, clearly demonstrating notability. Moreover, multiple significant artists that already have their own wiki pages including Jan Hulsker and Thomas McEvilley have commended his work. These accomplishments merit a Strong Keep. Ted Griffin (talk) 23:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

His award was from "Friends of the United Nations", not the UN. Have you heard of that organization before? | MK17b | (talk) 19:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 15:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article sources and those found in a search do not constitute independent critical recognition of his work. Most of what I saw in sources appears to be a self-generated effort, including the peace and culutral centre. I removed the user-generated qart.com source, as well as abebooks.com. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also removed the claims that he is one of the 20 most influential artists in the world (comical!), sourced to a local business organization, and that his work is like Van Gogh, sourced to his own web site. We do not need such information, which is plainly bullshit.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:34, 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 keep. Many of the keep comments fail to make policy-based arguments, but there's certainly no consensus to delete, and I'm not going to lose any sleep over the difference between closing this as keep vs NC. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:34, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dicky Moore[edit]

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

Notability is in question here. A search for "Dicky Moore Bearcraft" (the band that he is involved in that redirects to him) wields two results, one of which is a competition and the other of which is an independent music zine - searching Dicky Moore Yestreen (his only solo work) yields the exact same two results - which leads me to believe the subject isn't notable. He doesn't fulfil any of the WP:MUSIC notability guidelines from what I can see, and the sources for this article are passing mentions of him, blogs and dead links. ser! (let's discuss it). 22:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ser! (let's discuss it). 22:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:17, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notability is met due to involvment with Scritti Politti. timing is funny because the other band he is involved with is currently active if you search for it. DaneBelroseDane (talk) 14:27, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's no precedent for keeping articles for members of bands just because the band itself is notable. If you check the notabiblity guidelines for music it specifically says that 'members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases', and Moore has not demonstrated individual notability here. As for his other band, active they may be but not notable. ser! (let's discuss it). 17:41, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notability is met due to nomination for a Mercury award, Is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles (such as Scritti Polliti and Frank Sidebottom's band) also has performed music for a work of media that is notable for television work. scriven_j (talk) 3:20, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Moore has never received a nomination for a Mercury award - even if his band has, being one member of a band that has received a nomination for an award and not won it does not make him inherently notable. His notability needs to be determined on his own merits rather than falling to the arguments of WP:INHERITED, i.e ‘a band he is in is notable so he has to be’. As for composing for a work of media - he’s composed pieces for a non-notable TV show, a non-notable podcast and a non-notable movie. ser! (let's discuss it). 09:41, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Scritti Politti. Notability is not inherited. The only citation on the page that is really about Moore is on a blog, so not a reliable source. This fails the GNG. --Slashme (talk) 12:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep biographies of a musician who has been the member of two or more notable bands are usually kept as per criteria 6 of WP:NMUSIC, and he does have some solo work such as an EP and television and film soundtracks/themes, in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 23:40, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: for reference, the TV and film soundtracks were added after the deletion was proposed. Still, these films themselves are not notable enough to come under this notability rule in my eyes: the "TV Series" is actually a completely unnotable YouTube series, the movie and other TV series haven't attracted enough coverage to be notable under Wikipedia's own rules for their respective projects. I would be more satisfied to see this stay if there was literally any WP:SIGCOV of Mr Moore but there appears to be none, and the only reference that is actually about him is a blog, and thus not a reliable source. ser! (let's discuss it). 13:27, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The web series may be notable as in the article it is referenced to an article in the Independent directly about it and the TT series may also be notable considering it aired on ITV4, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Salvio

09:15, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I found an interview which was not referenced in the article (have added it now - http://www.aaamusic.co.uk/2010/08/07/bearcraft/) which might count towards WP:SIGCOV? scriven_j (talk) 13:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:scriven_j: please don't add new 'keep' votes when you have already voted. Add as a comment instead to avoid any confusion. Nevertheless, I can't bring myself to see this as an indicator of significant coverage because it seems to be the only article solely about the subject itself that isn't a blog, indicating a severe lack of coverage and notability as thus. ser! (let's discuss it). 13:48, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Improper second vote struck. Stifle (talk) 15:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 15:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This discussion has been open for a month (exactly) and relisted twice, giving users ample time to !vote, yet there has been a complete absence of discussion since 14 August. This makes it highly unlikely a third relist will generate any more discussion. No prejudice against speedy renomination. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:32, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SocialChorus, Inc.[edit]

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

completely and utterly promotional article about a non notable company. the only sources in existence are PR pieces, passing mentions and funding announcements (ie. WP:MILL.) Praxidicae (talk) 17:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The wsj article has two sentences in total, boston globe article is not sigcov, TechCrunch articles [51] and [52] contain little to no independent commentary. Other sources are either trivial mentions, or not RS. - hako9 (talk) 19:16, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the original draft of this article, following the protocol for the Afc process. I also disclosed my conflict of interest at WP:COIN and on the article talk page. I know one of the people who founded this company, though I personally have no financial stake in it nor compensation. Still, I get that this presents a COI so I've been careful to disclose that accordingly and refrain from editing this article - always leaving editing choices up to other editors. Other editors -- mostly through Afc -- reviewed it and approved it through that process. What I hope is worth considering is that for many software companies that are not publicly traded on the stock market, most of the events in the history of the company also coincide with rounds of funding. That is sort of the nature of that type of business. Acquisitions, mergers, funding round after funding round -- these are the things that are usually coupled with other events (growth in usage of the software, changing trends in the market for that particular software, etc.) that the media finds notable and worth reporting on. A mention of funds raised or companies acquired as a dry statistic is not notable as a standalone fact, but consider the reporting that is intertwined with these types of events.

This Digiday article in 2011 reported on how the business of internet advertising at the time was changing to evolve beyond just traditional banner ads, cited this company as an example of that trend, noting that it had recently merged with another company based on that trend.
This VentureBeat article in 2014 noted that the company raised a round of funding. It also reported on other trends that surrounded this funding. At the time companies were getting into compliance issues with the FTC because their employees were not properly disclosing when posting about their employer online (effectively, WP:COI). So, to address this, the reporter explains this new category of software by noting: "the company aims the platform at 'global employee advocacy' — that is, helping employees who are going to use social and other media anyway stay with brand-appropriate content and maintain industry compliance, such as the Federal Trade Commission requires."
This TechCrunch article in 2018 explained that the company raised $12.5M because of what the reporter described as "rising demand" for a new category of software that focused on internal communications within companies. Context like this goes beyond a mere funding blurb and explains what is happening / what the reporter finds notable about this company at this moment in time: "The funding comes at a time when platforms like Slack, Workplace from Facebook and Microsoft Teams are getting a lot of attention for how they improve communication among staff, especially workforces that might be spread across far-flung geographies. SocialChorus is addressing a different area: getting businesses to be able to create better communication out to its staff about the company itself, for example from an organization’s HR or IT or marketing teams, not only to employees but also to contractors, franchises and others."
This TechCrunch article in 2020 is not currently cited in the Wikipedia article, but I think unlike the prior three examples it is an example of reporting that is strictly about a round of funds raised and an ownership structure change.

Perhaps User:Kvng may be able to include their thoughts, as they happened to be involved in approving this article during the Afd process. Regards, JeffreyArthurVA (talk) 21:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JeffreyArthurVA Those are all press releases or press release adjacent and acquisition announcements. read WP:MILL. Praxidicae (talk) 21:13, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Improve, don't delete articles with WP:NPOV issues. COI here is readily surmoutable. WP:MILL is an essay, not policy. WP:ROUTINE is a policy and that's not what's going on here (raising millions or selling a company are more substantial). Sources are reliable and the articles have bylines so I assume they're not regurgitated press releases but will happily reevaluate if someone finds corresponding PRs. ~Kvng (talk) 21:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kvng: Agree with you. Too much dismissiveness among editors here to discount sources by citing WP:MILL and even WP:ORGIND/WP:CORPDEPTH, without offering an explanation, when pressed. Some editors, I feel, are too keen on deleting articles, of even billion-dollar m-cap cos. listed on major exchanges that comply with ORGCRIT. But in this case particularly, the nominator is right. Sources like ~~venturebeat~~ and digiday aren't reliable. And the coverage elsewhere is trivial. - hako9 (talk) 22:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Venturebeat is on Wikipedia:RSPSOURCES. (Beyond my understanding why this is reliable and many other finance/business sources aren't). I'll change my !vote if any more reliable sources with significant coverage are presented. - hako9 (talk) 09:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A few notes that may be of help:

--This article in TechCrunch should be considered original reporting by a reputable journalist. It was written by Ingrid Lunden, who is among the more noted technology reporters in the country. (The Techmeme leaderboard - a live list of "the most influential and prolific writers in technology today" - ranks her as the 5th most-cited tech journalist when sorted by Techmeme presence, and she is a staff writer and editor, not a contributor. An interesting quirk about TechCrunch is that they do a combination of in-depth reporting as well as more minor updates, and their feature report of the day typically receives a custom illustration (as this article does), whereas other less important articles use a stock photo. If an editor deemed it worth creating a custom illustration and Ingrid did the reporting, by no means is it the gold standard of the front page of The New York Times -- but these factors should signal that it is not merely a regurgitated press release.

--Above it was mentioned that some editors are keen on deleting articles of even billion-dollar market cap companies. While in this case not publicly traded, the $100M in funds raised in July 2020, which followed $47M raised during the prior decade, suggests a valuation well above that total figure. That's not to imply that a software company should be deemed notable purely based on valuation or funds raised, but it should help clarify that it is not a fly-by-night garage company.

--There is certainly a quirk in reporting on more notable software companies, in that companies of a decent scale and notability that produce consumer-facing software get press that reports on releases of new features, major launches, consumer adoption/reactions, and such. Whereas those producing software bought by businesses tend to have journalists report more on aspects such as funds raised, mergers, and acquisitions, since most companies don't tend to talk to the media about internal software they are using / nor do journalists review or test out business software in the way they do consumer-facing software.

-JeffreyArthurVA (talk) 17:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:32, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 15:28, 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 18:07, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Society of Chinese Medical Practitioners UK[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:ORGCRITE, coverage in independent sources seems limited to this relatively lightweight coverage in a local paper. Searching online for the organization's English name, abbreviation, and Chinese name did not turn up anything better. Previously nominated for PROD by me, dePROD by the initial editor without further comment. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:27, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:27, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:27, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mere stub with no indication of notability. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 11:32, 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 Mike Orlando. There is consensus that the band isn't ready for a standalone article yet, though it could very well be in the future, and that Mike Orlando was the most suitable target. Mackensen (talk) 15:36, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Her Chariot Awaits[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Possibly WP:TOOSOON. I've found a lot of blogs and zines that do not meet WP:RS that mention them, but nothing to meet our standards. See the AllMusic entry: https://www.allmusic.com/artist/her-chariot-awaits-mn0003913239 Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:08, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:08, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It is too soon for this new band for now. They got some buzz in the metal genre press because they have two previously notable members, but in their own right they have not yet received the necessary coverage to indicate notability. All that can be found are some softball introductory interviews and reprinted press releases. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Too soon indeed. Not notable. Yes, they are signed to a notable label and they have two previously notable members, but the sourcing is trash, the only site that indicates notability is Metal Storm, the rest is garbage (Youtube videos as sources...I have no words). The blank Allmusic page does not contribute to notability either. And like Doomsdayer said, all that can be found are interviews and press releases. Let's wait for that album and if it gets reviews from notable media, the article can be kept. But for now, I certainly think this article is too soon. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:47, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait for that album? Their debut already released to crickets. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:08, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for pointing out the youtube thing. It's seems obvious from a reliability perspective, but when that is how official music videos are often released now... It seems I should have used a media citation to directly cite the official music videos rather than the youtube webpage they were released on. Deathagent (talk)
Keep https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles states that "6. Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians" can be sufficient notability. Keeping the page allows anyone looking up Her Chariot Awaits to find more information on the notable members and their other projects. In addition, they have released one album (of the required two for notability) on a major label. I would also point out that since most music stores were closed and quarantines were (and some still) in place when the album released and the normal touring, etc has not been possible, that should be taken into account when considering availability of information in regards to notability guidelines. Deathagent (talk)
- MUSICBIO does not state that they are notable if they meet a specific criteria, they may be notable. There's not enough sourced content to support an article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "Their debut already released to crickets" - that's funny. Sorry, I overlooked the release date. I am aware May 22 is gone now. :) Still, let's wait, maybe they will get some coverage in the near future. But until then, delete. This is not a notable band - yet. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:48, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Deathagent, and (indirectly) per WP:ATD-R. The group contains two notable members, so if a standalone article is not yet appropriate (and other people here have a point with that), we should redirect instead. The question is - where? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:06, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No WP:SIGCOV, pure and simple. That there is no clear redirect target is why a redirect is not appropriate, per WP:XY. Ravenswing 11:51, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is against policy, which states, "A page can be blanked and redirected if there is a suitable page to redirect to, and if the resulting redirect is not inappropriate." In this case, there are two suitable pages to redirect to, and the resulting redirect is appropriate. I have removed that explanatory supplement, as it is contradicted by core policy. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:49, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a policy conflict here: ATD-R states that articles can be redirected if the redirect is not inappropriate, while XY is about one type of redirect that is commonly considered inappropriate. The point of XY, at least in the broad interpretation that's relevant here, is that if a redirect can equally well point to several articles, then instead of arbitrarily choosing one as the target, we can delete the redirect and so enable readers searching for the term to directly reach the search results, which will display all the relevant articles. This can work here, as the two articles that mention the band are displayed at the top of the results; in the meantime, the article can be draftified in anticipation of further coverage that would establish notability. The draft will also show up in the search results, so that's probably the solution that maximises reader utility. An alternative is to redirect to the article that has the most relevant content, but that will be an arbitrary choice that comes with the undesirable implication that we're judging one of the members of the band as more significant than the other. – Uanfala (talk) 16:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nor do I -- Uanfala covered it well -- and it's no surprise that your unilateral attempt to remove XY (an explanatory supplement that's been up for over six years) was reverted. Ravenswing 05:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 15:27, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now Musicians and bands are known for their work, and this band gets coverage in industry media outlets. Also we should look for WP:ATD as Ritchie has pointed out above. Wm335td (talk) 19:08, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Mike Orlando, as the band's founder. WP:TOOSOON based on current media coverage. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:51, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As per Timtempleton above - merge and redirect to founder in absence of band-specific SIGCOV. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:20, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Notable musicians can make bands notable, and notable bands can make musicians notable, so I'm generally skeptical of groups of articles that seem to rely on each other's notability. What I'm more confused about is how WPMUSIC considers, for lack of a better term, "the metal press". I've seen around Wikipedia for years that we seem to have a ton of metal band/album articles about which nothing is written outside of magazines, blogs, websites, etc. dedicated to metal. I haven't seen deference for niche publishing like that for any other musical genre (maybe classical?). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:27, 12 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 clear, and issues with the presentation of the content are a matter to be resolved by editing within the article. BD2412 T 20:24, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Averoigne[edit]

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

This fictional concept does not have more than a trivial mention in reliable third party sources, and cannot meet the general notability guideline. As is, the entire article appears to be original research and it is impossible to discern fact from fiction. I'm guessing it's written entirely in-universe, which means that it cannot meet WP:NOT#PLOT. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:12, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:12, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 20:10, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 20:10, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep CAS is a significant author in pulp in the 1930s and recognized as a part of the Lovecraft circle of writers "None strikes the note of cosmic horror as well as Clark Ashton Smith. In sheer daemonic strangeness and fertility of conception, Smith is perhaps unexcelled by any other writer.” - H. P. Lovecraft.Chikako (talk) 15:41, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is good material for a fan Wiki, but not an encyclopedia.TH1980 (talk) 01:38, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's an extensive body of critical literature on Clark Ashton Smith, including commentary on this story cycle. The problem here is that the article has been framed as one about the fictional setting rather than the story cycle itself, even though most of the content relates to the cycle. That problem is easily fixed, and certainly not a reason for deletion. Although not all of Smith's stories are individually notable, there's more than enough commentary, both in discussions of Smith's work itself and in reviews of books in which the stories appear, to greatly expand the article. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 00:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Plenty of sources. The OR and in-universe claims are clearly rubbish, as an actual look at the article will determine. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:27, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I added a few references from critical works. Critical Insights: Pulp Fiction of the '20s and '30s (Salem Press, 2013) has about four pages about Averoigne. It's also discussed in Modern Fantasy Writers (Chelsea House, 1995). I don't have access to Clark Ashton Smith: A Critical Guide to the Man and His Work (Borgo Press, 2013), but it's a 220-page book about Smith's work and it is certain that it includes coverage of Smith's Averoigne cycle. I agree with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz that the article should be edited to focus on the story cycle rather than the fictional location. — Toughpigs (talk) 05:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the available reliable sources."Visionary Star-Treader: The Speculative Writings of Clark Ashton Smith". Critical Insights: Pulp Fiction of the '20s and '30s. Encyclopedia Cthulhiana: A Guide to Lovecraftian Horror (2nd ed.). Modern Fantasy Writers. Wm335td (talk) 17:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Averoigne series or Averoigne cycle per Toughpigs and Hullaballo Wolfowitz, which would make this a much more encyclopedic article. The current list of references is all the fiction itself, and the article has no citations at all. But there are sources about this as a series of stories. It should be rewritten to focus on the stories as a whole, including a section for reception and a summary of the stories. I'm assuming there's a reception of the book series based on a brief look at the sources from Toughpigs. Worst case, this can be merged to a section about the author as a phase of his literary career. Jontesta (talk) 15:01, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a not notable fictional concept without enough coverage in reliable secondary sources, as per WP:GNG. I see Toughpigs point about re-framing the article about the books themselves, but that's a different article with very little content worth preserving from this one. A rename and rewrite is an acceptable second choice. Archrogue (talk) 17:47, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 15:27, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The current article lacks proper sourcing on the fictional element. Unless there is overwhelming sourcing for the cycle right off the bat, it should just be started as a section in the author's article and be split out when it can stand alone. TTN (talk) 23:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Clark Ashton Smith. The tiny reception section is poor but perhaps a source or two could be salvaged. Other than that, not seeing what makes this fictional land notable. Nobody has demonstrated that there is non-WP:TRIVIAL coverage of it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:25, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article has extensive literary coverage, and I do have to agree with Necrothesp. The nomination rationale lost me at "appears to be original research" and "I'm guessing it's written entirely in-universe". Guessing? Why are we here then? Dark knight 2149 23:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of nomination, the reader would have to read heavily between the lines to realize it's written in-universe, and you might almost think it was a real world location. It's no matter, because the real issue is that there are no sources that can give it meaningful out-of-universe context, which is a requirement of WP:PLOT. I'm not opposed to the merge solution, or to rename and rewrite it as the shorthand for a series of stories. But as is the third party sources have almost nothing to say about this fictional location, hence the AFD. Hope that answers your question. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:49, 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 delete per WP:G3 XOR'easter (talk) 19:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Sunny Rainbow Kids: Young Mohana[edit]

Moved from Wikipedia:MfD

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

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Seemingly entirely bogus/fake/fan-made television series, especially with the article stating, "The series is a Spin-off to Mohana Shashi by Markus Piller", and the user's name is 'MohanaShashi'. Also Wikipedia is not a webhost. Article/information has no encyclopedic merit. Magitroopa (talk) 03:59, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: Also worth noting that a quick Google search and this Wikipedia page is the only thing that comes up. Very clearly made-up information that does not belong here. Magitroopa (talk) 05:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Googletranslate text dump of this hoax was placed on nl-wiki today. Seems to me to be a bambifandisneyvandal try. Hoyanova (talk) 08:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like it's on da-wiki as well currently... [53] Magitroopa (talk) 08:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: Falls under G3 as a blatant hoax. Goose^(Talk!) 15:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced, even without checking accuracy. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:47, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:33, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Death Valley Days guest stars[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTDIR and WP:LISTN as the guest stars are only loosely associated with each other and the show. In addition, article is effectively unsourced (IMDb is WP:RS/IMDb/WP:NOTRS and does not count). Exact same case as similar articles deleted at WP:AfD, such as those on guest stars of The A-Team or ER or Desperate Housewives, etc. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are no sources that I can find that discuss the guest stars of this series as a whole in any way that would allow it to pass WP:LISTN, and as the multitude of actors listed here are not notable because of being a guest star in the show, it does not serve a useful purpose for navigation. The only source being used for every entry is just IMDB. This really looks to run afoul of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Rorshacma (talk) 16:14, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTIINFO. This is just a collection of bare mentions at IMDb. Ajf773 (talk) 21:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Series was an anthology, thus outside of the hosts, every single actor on this 452-episode series was a guest star (thus this goes beyond the ER/DH/A-Team lists as beyond absurd), and over-sourcing to IMDb is not acceptable. Nate • (chatter) 00:01, 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 and redirect to Last Night (band). Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Felix Noa[edit]

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

No particular evidence of notability, as defined by WP:MUSICBIO. For sources we have a YouTube video (can be safely ignored) and two links to the same press release, announcing that the subject has launched a single. Much more is needed to show that he is notable, per our standards. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:TOOSOON. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 19:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A guy who is just launching his solo career and has nothing outside of his former band but an announcement of an upcoming single. It is too soon, to put it charitably. This attempted article is probably part of his management's promotional blitz in social media. Note that you might get some search results for a business executive, who shares the singer's birth name. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, it anyone is overly concerned about alternatives to deletion, this guy's name could be redirected to his group, Last Night (band). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:37, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:40, 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 delete. Sandstein 07:34, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative versions of Black Panther[edit]

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG and WP:BEFORE showed nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV (all fancruft, passing mentions, etc). Article itself is mostly (all) WP:OR based on primary sources. There are no sources that discuss this as a group WP:LISTN that might justify making this into a list.

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Comment (post nom) If appropriate sourcing can be found, I have no objection to a merge; but it would need to be sourced properly. // Timothy :: talk 16:18, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

// Timothy :: talk 14:47, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 14:47, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a basic summary to Black Panther (Marvel Comics) and the other associated articles. BOZ (talk) 15:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While I can certainly appreciate wanting to limit the bureaucracy of needing to create a separate discussion for each of these similar articles, I'm afraid that this particular grouping is going to inevitably result in a WP:TRAINWRECK, as I imagine characters such as Batman and Captain America are going to cause considerable more debate and argument than characters like Riddler and Beast. Rorshacma (talk) 16:18, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rorshacma:: I did think of that and it's a valid concern. What made me try a group is the issues related to needing AfD are common to all the articles. I didn't nominate more because I saw this as a test of a group nomination. There very well might be sources I didn't find for some, and this might not work entirely, but the closer might be able to find a good resolution if there is a general consensus on most of the articles. But I acknowledge this is a valid concern. // Timothy :: talk 16:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. TTN (and some of the same recurring voters) seems to operating under the assumption that every content fork with the word "Alternative versions" in the title is automatic fancruft by definition, which is complete bollucks (Alternative versions of Batman alone is proof of that). If this banal proposal actually passes, I'll have to include all of these articles in with Judge Death and Goblin (Marvel Comics) in the list of articles that need to be rediscussed due to botched and poorly handled spam-AfDs. Dark knight 2149 19:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all or redirect all - These are completely unnecessary splits for the purpose of shoving off overly in-depth plot information, none of which appear to be backed by reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Batman and Superman are the only two I was thinking might have actual justification for articles, but it would be more of a scholarly discussion on the various interpretations and differences in personality and character. I have no idea if sources actually exist to back such a topic, so the current rendition of the Batman article definitely does not need to exist. TTN (talk) 01:17, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I read a thoughtful article once about the various incarnations of Batman. It discussed how the premise was a universal one that could be successfully applied to virtually any time or place in a way that Iron Man or Captain America couldn't. I don't recall where it was, other than it was in print, and I don't think it would justify the list we currently have. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have read several. Alternative versions of Batman is also a lot more than just plot. Dark knight 2149 19:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this has just reached the point of being absurd.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Yeah, I would split this up into about several separate nominations. "Alternate versions" content forks are not automatically fancruft by definition (especially for more iconic characters like the Riddler and Captain America), so I would suggest making the case for each. Case of point - Alternative versions of Batman doesn't pass WP:GNG? Really? Did you even look, lol. Dark knight 2149 19:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bundled nominations are not helpful but almost all of them are clear fails of GNG and such. Through it may be better to have Batman/CA in their own discussions, those have a slightly higher chance of getting a source or two. But even then, merge would be best. This is just excessive fancruft. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't checked for Captain America, but for Batman, there's a lot more than just two of them (the topic is covered extensively by media outlets). An administrator can go ahead and close this, but I can guarantee you that almost all of these are getting added to the rediscussion pile. Dark knight 2149 02:00, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - excessive fancruft with zero evidence of notability Spiderone 11:31, 9 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. Will salt. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Smruthi venkat[edit]

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

Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence fails WP:GNG. This source looks good but isn’t enough for WP:GNG. Furthermore, with less than 4 movies she certainly doesn’t satisfy WP:NACTOR Celestina007 14:44, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 14:44, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 14:44, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 14:44, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 14:44, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 14:44, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Salt Delete, It was earlier as Smruthi Venkat and still AfD is running at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smruthi Venkat. It was CSDed by one of its creators & deleted by Cryptic with note "Restorers should note the in-progress afd". - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 17:18, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even [54] isn't sigcov. Mostly just direct quotations. - hako9 (talk) 18:45, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt both titles: the creator of this page has been perma-banned for repeated disruptive editing. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:41, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt - has only just been deleted and this article is no improvement Spiderone 08:31, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a speedy. The creator wasn't blocked before creating the article (nor was his sockpuppet), so not a G5; and the previous AFD didn't run to completion, so not a G4. The previous version was deleted because its author thought it should remain in draft; it had been moved into mainspace without his consent by the author of this version. —Cryptic 09:29, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough coverage. At all. EverybodyEdits (talk) 04:46, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom . --SalmanZ (talk) 09:47, 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 11:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nurettin Sönmez[edit]

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. From WP:NPEOPLE: "For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" or "note"—that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"". Source in the article and WP:BEFORE revealed no additional WP:RS containing material that meets WP:SIGCOV: ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail" that would contribute to demonstrating WP:N. Some WP:ROUTINE coverage exists about the shows they have been in. Their roles do not meet WP:NACTOR. // Timothy :: talk 20:50, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 20:50, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 20:50, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The last two roles that he has had are actually pretty notable, considering the fact that both of those series have been sold to countries in the Middle East, Africa and even Europe. Wikipedia:NACTOR also mentions significant cult following as a factor, and he has enough followers on social media to satisfy that requirement. Regarding the sources, Sözcü, Milliyet and Takvim are among the well known national newspapers in Turkey. The sources that have been cited are in fact short biographies of the actor, not mere articles about the series in which he has played in. Keivan.f^Talk 21:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As said by Keivan.f, his roles in the last two series (Diriliş and Kurtuluş), were pretty major. This has led to the existence of a lot of Turkish sources: [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], as well as some international: [62]. Keep in mind that these Turkish sources are only the ones from major publishers, many more exist from more minor publishers. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 11:38, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the subject passes WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Abishe (talk) 01:22, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 04:56, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to: Styyx, I'll address each of the sources above:

[63] - This is a very brief biography of two short paragraphs, stating basic facts about his life. It does not discuss the subject directly and in depth as required by WP:GNG.
[64] - This is a promo article for a movie. It does not discuss the subject directly and in depth as required by WP:GNG.
[65] - This is a photo gallery with no details about the subject other than he was in Establishment Osman. This is a promotional article. It does not discuss the subject directly and in depth as required by WP:GNG.
[66] - this is essentially the exact same article as the above photo gallery. This is a photo gallery with no details about the subject other than he was in Establishment Osman. This is a promotional article. It does not discuss the subject directly and in depth as required by WP:GNG.
[67] - this is essentially the exact same article as the above photo gallery. This is a photo gallery with no details about the subject other than he was in Establishment Osman. This is a promotional article. It does not discuss the subject directly and in depth as required by WP:GNG.
[68] - This article is not about the subject. It is about a fictional character Bamsı Bey played by the subject. This is a promotional article. It does not discuss the subject at all, let alone directly and in depth as required by WP:GNG.
[69] - This is a one paragraph article that says the subject has a photo of his dad who passed away on Instagram. Nothing else. It's an article about the subject's tribute to his father. It does not discuss the subject at all, let alone directly and in depth as required by WP:GNG.

I'm sure the subject is a wonderful person and a talented actor, but this is solely about Wikipedia guidelines. None of the above is anywhere near WP:SIGCOV for meeting WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. // Timothy :: talk 12:08, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to: Keivan.f, I'll address the sources you mention from the article:

[70] - As indicated above, This is a very brief biography of two short paragraphs, stating basic facts about his life. It does not discuss the subject directly and in depth as required by WP:GNG.
[71] - this is about the TV series, not about the actor. It only mentions his name in the cast list.
[72] - This is a very brief biography of two short paragraphs, stating basic facts about his life. It does not discuss the subject directly and in depth as required by WP:GNG.
[73] - This is a very brief biography of two short paragraphs, stating basic facts about his life. It does not discuss the subject directly and in depth as required by WP:GNG.
[74] - As above, This is a photo gallery with no details about the subject other than he was in Establishment Osman. This is a promotional article. It does not discuss the subject directly and in depth as required by WP:GNG.

I'm sure the subject is a wonderful person and a talented actor, but this is solely about Wikipedia guidelines. None of the above is anywhere near WP:SIGCOV for meeting WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. // Timothy :: talk 12:08, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to: Abishe, give the above, what sources that have WP:SIGCOV per WP:GNG are you basing the subject meeting WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR? I'm sure the subject is a wonderful person and a talented actor, but this is solely about Wikipedia guidelines. // Timothy :: talk 12:08, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TimothyBlue: Your concerns are totally understandable. That's why I decided to dig further deep into the sources and see what I can find. The first thing that I noticed is that he has a separate hashtag / column on the websites of national newspapers such as Hurriyet (1) and Milliyet (2), and short biographies of him have been published on their websites from time to time. Some of these newspapers and national networks have also published interviews with him, including this 3 with Ömür Gedik, this one on 4 on ATV, this one 5 on Milliyet and this one 6 on Aksam. Why would these newspapers and networks bother themselves to interview someone who is not notable after all? That's why I think he meets the criteria for a standalone article. Keivan.f^Talk 16:05, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I do think the closer should give weight to people that have a familiarity of the subject from living in the region; if they believe this is notable, that carries weight. If its kept (which I expect it will be), it will be after a rigorous discussion, and therefore unlikely to be challenged in the future, so this is good for the article. I can see an argument from WP:NPEOPLE based on the subject being, ""significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" and from WP:BASIC, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". The coverage, even though it doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV does mean something. I definitely don't mean to bludgeon this. I actually hope the TV series becomes available in the States, it seems like a interesting series and the subject does seem like he is a talented actor. Best wishes, // Timothy :: talk 17:06, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Padavalam ► 14:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I don't see how we can keep after that source analysis showed there are no in-depth reliable sources. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:38, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - he has supporting roles in Turkish TV series, but that's not enough. WP:NACTOR requires multiple significant roles. Absent that, the media coverage has to suggest that he's notable, which means in depth profiles, not just entertainment photos and info about the shows. I translated and read the Turkish articles, and I agree with the nom's assessment that they are limited benefit to show notability. There's almost no biographical coverage in them. The malicious link doesn't help - I marked it as dead. I think this is perhaps WP:TOOSOON - we'll have to see if other roles get additional coverage. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:19, 10 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. There is consensus to keep. See the advice/analysis of Guliolopez et al. with relation to privacy and/or legal concerns Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:31, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Goold v Collins and Ors[edit]

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

This article breaches the data protection laws of the Court of Justice of the European Union on 13 May 2014, the Irish General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) law of 25 May 2018 and the Supreme Court in Ireland.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Privacy Check (talk • contribs)

How? Can you be more specific? AugusteBlanqui (talk) 11:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Order published has been superseded by the High Court ruling of 3rd July 2019; the article currently published is out of date and irrelevant. Additionally Mr Justice Garrett Simons specifically requested it not to be published on any website. It would be a breach of Court rules to publish this Order on a public forum. Therefore it is suggested that the author/publisher contact Ms Justice Marie Baker for clarification on this matter

This publication has been used to undermine the parties' professional reputation within the Irish Universities; it is noted that the law educator in Maynooth University failed to consider redacting the names of the parties. Should the publisher wish to use the Order for teaching purposes it does not require publication in public forum. Processone (talk) 14:15, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not allow me to upload a copy of Order whereby Mr Justice Simmons ordered not to publish

Perhaps there is an email address where I can send a copy instead?

thumb — Preceding unsigned comment added by Processone (talk • contribs)

If, @Processone:, you have concerns about the content of the article being contrary to libel laws or related rulings, then there is an email address mailbox, [email protected], you can contact. The Wikipedia:Contact us/Article subjects page has more information about what the people manning that mailbox will need to see (and context they will need to have) in order to review your concern. In that email you will, frankly, need to be more specific than you have been to date. In particular, proposing that contributors or representatives of the project directly contact the three separate judges you have mentioned is not going to be considered helpful or have the result you seem to expect. Guliolopez (talk) 15:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Curt ordered that namies of parties are not to be published (12th July 2004) and High Court ordered that order was not to be published on website (3rd July 2019)

This page does not allow the copying and pasting of Court Orders but if a trusted email address is supplied, verification of the Orders not to publish article/names of parties will be provided. These Orders are not accessible be link as they are in-cameraProcessone (talk) 09:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Processone. As per previous notes, if you have evidence of this, please email it to the address above. And the relevant team members will review. Guliolopez (talk) 10:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The following claim was made by the nominator on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Goold v Collins and Ors:

The content published in

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goold_v_Collins_and_Ors your websit[2016] IELCA 3 - Eileen Goold v Mary Collins a Judge of the DM District Court &%

breaches the data protection laws of the Court of Justice of the European Union on 13 May 2014, the Irish General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) law of 25 May 2018 and the Supreme Court in Ireland. The immediate removal of these URLs and any other related URLs from the public domain generally should be deleted:

The content published contains, in-camera and outdated information about an Irish citizen’s private life including matrimonial proceedings and the illness and death of her child. The Supreme Court ordered that the names of the parties therein would be kept confidential. Additionally the Order has been superseded by a High Court ruling of 3rd July 2019, whereby Mr Justice Garrett Simons specifically requested it not to be published on any website. These publications have caused the individual particular distress and they have especially been used to blacken the person’s name in the workplace Privacy Check (talk) 21:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I can find absolutely no evidence to support this legal threat/claim. The website of the Courts Service of Ireland has, itself, published multiple extracts from related court proceedings. If a judge (as has been claimed) made baring orders in respect of this case, then it seems highly unlikely that the court itself would be acting in breach of those orders. The website of the Free Legal Advice Centre also publishes details of the case. And the case/decision record is published by the British and Irish Legal Information Institute. The claims made (that the publishing of the details of this case are contrary to law, regulation, statute or court order) are not supported by any evidence, precedence or otherwise. The claim that there is a barring order is unsupported, the claim that the GDPR applies is unsubstantiated, and the suggestion that implied suggestion/threat that the CJEU's Costeja judgement somehow applies is also unqualified. Guliolopez (talk) 10:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator appears to have made no other edits on Wikipedia other than attempt to have this article deleted. If the nominator can provide a link to the relevant orders then the article can be edited to comply. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 11:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Indeed. The nominator also went from claiming that the reason for deletion was "article breaches GDPR" and "article breaches Costeja ruling", to "article is out of date", to "article breaches a suppression order". If there was/is a suppression order, then why not start with that? Why make vague and nonspecific claims about the GDPR if there were concrete and specific court orders at play? Guliolopez (talk) 13:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's this from the High Court but it does not support any of the claims made by the nominator: https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/f16c1904-c4e2-4edd-a6f3-35e76c258d3e/2015_IEHC_766_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH AugusteBlanqui (talk) 09:23, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. I had made the same point (and linked the same document) immediately above. In short, if there was some kind of privacy or publication barring order (in relation to this case), then it seems likely that the court itself would be aware of (and responsive to) that order. It seems implausible that the court system itself (and several other legal advice and legal education bodies) would be acting in breach of such an order. If there was one. Guliolopez (talk) 09:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry-missed that link! AugusteBlanqui (talk) 10:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Following the discussion above, and my own WP:BEFORE efforts, I do not support deletion based on the argument(s) made by the nominator. The argument (that the retention of this article constitutes a breach of privacy legislation or court protection order) doesn't stack up. And the argument (that the "article currently published is out of date and irrelevant") is not typically considered a valid reason for deletion. If there are other arguments to be made, then I am not aware of what they might be. Absent a valid or substantiated deletion argument, mine is a "keep" recommendation. Guliolopez (talk) 11:05, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. The nomination appears to have been specious. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 13:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't believe this nom has any merit whatever, and if it did, an AfD wouldn't be an appropriate way to pursue it. But the legalese, the officious approach and the fake-official user name of the nominator all do waft in a distinct smell of a rat. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:26, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Putting aside the legalese, this appears to be a request for deletion of the article on the grounds of privacy and one can have sympathy with that if well founded. However, the deletion arguments are not convincing - the decision of the CJEU of 13 May 2014 concerns the right to suppress links generated by internet search engines, and Irish law and rulings of the Irish courts are not enforceable outside Ireland. The decision of the Irish Supreme Court in 2004 is a matter of public record, has seemingly been so for 15+ years and it’s hard to see how the genie can now be stuffed back into the bottle. If there are genuine privacy concerns, this is not the way to go about it - Guliolopez has given appropriate advice above and it can be considered further there. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:14, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:37, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Derek DeCosty[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NHOCKEY. Only play six games in the AHL and was never a First Team All-Star in the ECHL, BISL or in College. May have passed previous guidelines with over 200 ECHL games but only preeminent honours count for that league now and subject has none. Tay87 (talk) 13:35, 29 August 2020 (UTC) Tay87 (talk) 13:35, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 13:35, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 13:35, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 13:35, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 13:35, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:HOCKEY guidelines. Flibirigit (talk) 16:06, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article has existed for 13 years and not a single source? SMH. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:40, 8 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 18:11, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative versions of Two-Face[edit]

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG and WP:BEFORE showed nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV. Article itself is mostly (all) WP:OR based on primary sources. // Timothy :: talk 13:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 13:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unnecessary article split that fails to justify its existence through reliable sources. It's a plot summary-only mess that belongs on Fandom. TTN (talk) 13:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - None of the individual entries are particularly notable on their own, and I am not finding anything discussing the overall concept of Two-Face's alternate universe versions that would make this a valid independent list article. A short summary could be added to the main Two-Face article, but as most (if not all) of these examples appeared only in a single story, I'm not even sure which ones would even merit a mention there. Rorshacma (talk) 16:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 18:11, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Haywood[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NHOCKEY. Has not been a First Team All-Star in the EIHL and was not in Great Britain's 2019 World Championship roster. Tay87 (talk) 13:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC) Tay87 (talk) 13:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 13:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 13:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 13:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 13:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:HOCKEY guidelines. Flibirigit (talk) 16:05, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:40, 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 18:11, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Phillips (ice hockey)[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NHOCKEY. Has never been a First Team All-Star in the EIHL and while his brother Dave Phillips HAS played in the World Championship for Great Britain, Kevin has not played for GB since 2010 and thus was not a member of GB's 2019 World Championship roster. Tay87 (talk) 12:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC) Tay87 (talk) 12:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 12:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 12:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 12:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 12:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:HOCKEY guidelines. Flibirigit (talk) 16:04, 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. I think sufficient arguments have been made in favour of keep - especially regarding meaningful content that could be used in the article. Tone 18:09, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Aimone, Duke of Apulia[edit]

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

Mostly routine genealogical information and the like, even disputed that his father is heir to the Italian throne. PatGallacher (talk) 11:11, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 11:54, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:58, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete , non notable person. Smeat75 (talk) 18:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please elaborate on this what you mean by "non notable". Aimone di Savoia is the first and so far only member of the former royal house who have been awarded with the Knighthood of the Order of Merit of the Republic of Italy, this due to his longstanding professional career in Russian-Italian buisnessrelations. He recieved this order last year in 2019. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 21:26, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the matter of dispute about the headship of the house of Savoy (former royal house of Italy and former royal house of the Kingdom of Sardinia) is of encyclopedic relevans, and this guy is a central figure in that dispute. Furthermore this article dosen't merely consist of genealogical information. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 10:19, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that in the article. Maybe his business activities could make him notable but other than saying he heads Pirelli in Russia, the article does not address that but waffles on about nonexistent, abolished royal titles and positions. Smeat75 (talk) 22:32, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As of October 2019 he is also the official representative of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta to the Russian Federation. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 23:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete matters about deposed houses with no actual power have absolutely zero encyclopedic relevance.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:26, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares about this stuff anyway? Is that your best argument for deleting an article? If soo it's not realy a proper argument. The article is well sourced, both on the matter of the headship of the house and on the personal details about Aimone Umberto Emanuele Filiberto Luigi Amedeo Elena Maria Fiorenzo di Savoia-Aosta and his life and professional career (President of the Russian branch of the company Pirelli among other things). Normaly we deal with these articles on the principle on how well sourced they are or not. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 20:50, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I would like to see some more input here. So far, the two notability claims are being a businessman and being a diplomat (none of which is by-default notability). Those should be evaluated more in detail, perhaps it is enough.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 12:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep well-sourced article. This individual is notable either from his involvement in the dispute about the headship of the House of Savoy or his business activities. As Oleryhlolsson mentioned, he is the official representative of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta to the Russian Federation and has many business pursuits in Russia. If kept the article should mention these. There is much more to this article than genealogical information and there is the potential for more. Most of the delete votes seem to be WP:PPOV WP:WHOCARES. --Richiepip (talk) 23:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The House of Savoy is a royal dynasty that spans over a thousand years. The throne of Italy may be defunct but the house still exists. Thus, the Duke's dispute over precedence as the head of the house is a matter of encyclopedic relevance. The article is also well sourced in non-royal matters and WP:WHOCARES is hardly a valid enough reason to get rid of an article with potential. TheRedDomitor (talk) 05:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As for notability I can point on these matters that would be of importance in some way or another:
- Is part of the dispute in the family of Savoy about the headship for the family, and has since 2006 styled himself as "Crownprince" of Italy (or the title equivalent of that).
- Participated in the Gulf War on board the frigate "Maestrale".
- 1994: Moved to Moscow to work for Tripcovich Trading Company.
- 2000: Hired by Pirelli as CEO, responsible for the market in Russia and the countries of the former USSR.
- 2001: Joined his father on a trip to the North Pole in commemoration of Luigi Amedeo of Savoy's arctic expedition 1899-1900.
- Since 1 July 2012 he has been CEO of Pirelli Tire Nordic, responsible for all markets in the Scandinavian countries.
- Since 1 September 2013, Executive Director of Pirelli Tire in the Russian Federation and Northern Europe.
- Since 2017 he has been president of the Italian entrepreneurial council, the liaison body of the Italian business associations operating in the Russian Federation.
- Since November 2019 he has been ambassador of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta to the Russian Federation.
Awards and decorations:
- Awarded the Order of Friendship by President Vladimir Putin in 2018.
- On 7 May 2019 awarded with the Knighthood of the Order of Merit of the Italian Republic (first member of the family of Savoy to get this award from the Italian Republic).
Sources:
If one only search in the English language you are not likely to find the best sources on these matters. You have to search in Italian and Russian to find the most reliable and important sources on these matters, and sources on all these matters can be found in the Italian and Russian Wikipedia articles. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 23:26, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:34, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ghatiya YouTube Channel[edit]

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

PROD was declined. Clearly not notable as absolutely no reliable source coverage. Article was created by an SPA as a likely COI. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 12:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 12:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 12:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 12:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with the nom as the page fails WP:GNG as the sources provided are not reliable. The only source which could be considered reliable (social blade) does not even mention the channel. Nothing comes up when searching for the page. Another problem with the page is that they link their social media which under WP:ELNO is not allowed. Finally as the nom suggests, there might be a conflict of interest as to who wrote the page based on the information provided CreativeNorth (talk) 13:45, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional spam. I agree that declining PROD was a poor decision. TheodoreIndiana (talk) 06:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete :per nom -- Padavalam ► 13:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, definitely WP:TOOSOON. Sources aren't the best. EverybodyEdits (talk) 17:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Promotional rubbish. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 02:41, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about the channel or the owner. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete One of the least notable subjects I've seen on Wikipedia so far.★Trekker (talk) 23:50, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Per nom. I can't even remotely imagine a 1K subscriber channel meeting notability standards. Some WP:SOCKING in the edit history as well. Jumpytoo Talk 05:00, 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 18:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ChariTarth Unagar[edit]

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

The person fails to pass either of WP:LIVE or WP:GNG. There is no reference available over net. The references given in the page is solely self-created and one is WP:CIRCLE. Even there is a deception in wikilink of the content CSUCCESS Technologies, which is a redirect to the It companies list. Mamushir (talk) 12:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC) Mamushir (talk) 12:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mamushir (talk) 12:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly non-notable. fails WP:GNG. Priyanjali singh (talk) 15:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another in a very long line of articles on non-notable businesspeople.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:16, 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 clearly to keep the article, but note that a number of editors are concerned about the quality of the current writeup. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:59, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Friendlyjordies[edit]

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

I'm definitely not sure if this is notable enough for an article. Most of the references seem to be links to his own YouTube videos and as such, looks more like an promotional/advertisement rather than something that is of encyclopedic value. Edit: the fact that the great majority of the article is dedicated to his supposed "controversies" is also a major red flag in my view. Geelongite (talk) 12:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

opposed to deletion. I live in Australia (though from the name i would guess @Geelongite: does to) and follow politics quite closely, this youtuber definitely well know even by people who are not fans. The article probably needs a bit of improvement but not deletion. Why is a focus on controversies a red flag? Irtapil (talk) 14:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to add some references, but i had a look and there's already references from lots of outside sources, even international sources like [the BBC]. Irtapil (talk) 14:36, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article's quality is poor at present but notability exists. Shanks' content has been covered by multiple RS on several occasions.[75][76][77][78][79][80][81] — CR4ZE (T • C) 13:34, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep significant media coverage of him and his impact by multiple reliable sources with the Crikey article giving a comprehensive overview. -- Paul foord (talk) 01:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep (otherwise will not oppose deletion) He is fairly notable now, however despite the fact I've made the point that the "Controversies" section is the bulk of the article, the bigger problem is the over-reliance on his self-published sources (primary youtube channel). This is part of why I put the "overly detailed" tag in that section of the article. I've since marked all of his videos (and the instagram post source) as self-published to raise the awareness of it outweighing the ratio on secondary sources. -- Tytrox (talk) 10:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per WP:NOTCLEANUP. With reliable sources indicated above, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 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 redirect to Discrete dipole approximation#Discrete Dipole Approximation Codes. Content has already been merged according to nom Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:33, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discrete dipole approximation codes[edit]

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

I wrote this page originally together with another one: "Discrete dipole approximation". But I merged them together recently and extended table of codes. Therefore this page is obsolete and should be now deleted. I think it can be speedy deleted. Puncinus (talk)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 August 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: I agree that the description of the method (DDA) and the codes are better together in a single page. But instead of deleting this page, I propose to make a redirect to Discrete_dipole_approximation#Discrete_Dipole_Approximation_Codes, as described in Wikipedia:Redirect. This will keep the existing links to this page operational. But I am not sure how exactly the redirect should be implemented (accompanied with removing content from this page) (User:Myurkin) —Preceding undated comment added 03:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Myurkin: I have explicitly marked your contribution as a redirect !vote in order this debate can continue in a regular manner. If at the end of the debate the closer determines the result should be a redirect they will likely do that; but in that instance if you need help refining that to a redirect to section then feel free to contact me on my page or ping me on the article page talk. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:36, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:16, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect If the content was merged, then per WP:MERGE, the page should be redirected to preserve attributions and history. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 17:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: I think it would be appropriate to redirect it to the DDA article if they are already merged. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 19:25, 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 speedy withdrawn. I, the nominator, have been convinced by many great arguments brought to light from individuals such as a pseudo-anonymous person only known using the moniker and Ipv4 address 61.239.2.250; I must withdraw. (non-admin closure) Ysangkok (talk) 15:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OKEx[edit]

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

notability not established for yet another Bitcoin exchange with only business-media sources (sourced from press releases) Ysangkok (talk) 08:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 08:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 08:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 08:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 08:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 08:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it seems this article is up for deletion but after reviewing the reason, it says the references are "sourced from press releases" but I checked all the links and none are press releases. There was one broken link which I was able to find a suitable replacement for. The rest are major news publications like Bloomberg, Insider, Forbes, and others. Lastly, I don't think this article should be deleted as there seems to be many cryptocurrency exchanges listed on Wikipedia with similar notable references written about them[1][2][3], when Okex appears to be one of the most staffed^[1], most popular^[2], and biggest volume exchanges in the cryptocurrency exchange space.^[3]

Keep - I agree that we should keep the page as well, especially given that we see the one reason provided for the removal request is now found to be inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.239.2.250 (talk) 15:28, 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.

References

^ "Number of Employees". The Block. 2020-01-23. Retrieved 2020-08-31.
^ "Alexa ratings". Alexa ratings. 2020-08-31. Retrieved 2020-08-31.
^ "Volume". Volume. 2020-08-31. Retrieved 2020-08-31.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus has shifted to delete with new arguments. Tone 18:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of conglomerates in Maharashtra[edit]

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

Not a notable topic, doesn't meet WP:LISTN or WP:GNG. Has been in CAT:NN for over 3 years. Boleyn (talk) 18:18, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

KEEP Aids in navigation, plenty of blue links there, so its a valid list article. Dream Focus 19:46, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. There's a lot of original research in there. The list needs to be cleaned up so it only contains links, no ranking of any sort. Ajf773 (talk) 20:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Lot of research here, and probably needs updating. Whiteguru (talk) 12:16, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes LISTN provides information and navigation for the users. Wm335td (talk) 19:26, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG and WP:LISTN. Azuredivay (talk) 05:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Article fails by its own premise and horribly misguides readers. A "conglomerate" is, apologies for appearing to insult all of you, is a group or collection of companies or firms. Almost all the entries are just companies, and, so, don't belong here. "Conglomerates" - which take a lifetime to build - in Maharashtra can be counted on two hands (Reliance, Larsen and Toubro, Tata etc.). For example: If it's listing Tata Group, which is a conglomerate, why is it also listing other Tata companies? Defeats the point of the article. All the rest are subsidiaries or standalone companies. Not well-researched at all and, most importantly, gives a false idea of the situation. If you cut everything out, only a handful will be left, which does not deserve an article. And if it is renamed "List of companies in Maharasthra", then what's the point as we already have Category:Companies based in Maharashtra. This list is plain wrong, unsourced, unwarranted, un-factual and un-needed. Best, MaysinFourty (talk) 07:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable and seriously out-of-date. The figures aren't ~~dated~~ marked with dates, but they haven't been updated in over 9 years! The citations are over 10 years old (2010-11-15), older even than the figures; the figures were updated at some point long after the citations were put in place. There are only about a dozen citations for a list of several dozen companies. Sadly useless, this WP:LISTCRUFT needs to be deleted. Normal Op (talk) 19:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the excellent reasoning from the two delete comments above mine Spiderone 14:48, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the reasons nom, Normal Op and MaysinFourty provided above. // Timothy :: talk 04:31, 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 no consensus. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:55, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yasmina Siadatan[edit]

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

Delete The subject appears elsewhere in contestant listings The Apprentice (British series 5). This additional article is minimal and adds nothing of value. It has got smaller and smaller in the ten+ years it has existed; it now comprises just seven sentences (excluding references).Tomintoul (talk) 11:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and not transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion of my own on the nomination at this time. --Finngall ^talk 15:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete although this person has been on the BBC and the Telegraph, there is not enough coverage to keep the page. CambridgeGraduate (talk) 19:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:GNG. Sources such as: [82], [83], [84], [85], [86] etc. Keith D (talk) 09:05, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Keith D You need to add these references to the article if you are using them as justification for keeping it. Of the five existing references listed in the article, three are dead (1, 3, 5). Tomintoul (talk) 15:59, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment 2 have been now been replaced & 1 switched to use archive URL. Keith D (talk) 18:54, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Tomintoul: AFD participants aren't obliged to improve the page under discussion. See WP:NOTCLEANUP and WP:NEXIST. pburka (talk) 12:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Maybe not, pburka but it's helpful to all concerned, so thank you Keith D Tomintoul (talk) 17:03, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:16, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:02, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Keith D - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 13:12, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. WP:ONEVENT case to me, not much to say about her. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:09, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: (weak) I think Keith D sources (except for the Sun) squeaks this article just past the line. // Timothy :: talk 11:29, 9 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 withdrawn--Ymblanter (talk) 08:02, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Dhou[edit]

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

The footballer never played in a fully professional league, thereby failing WP:NFOOTY. The only referewnce is an interview and, I am afraid, is not sufficient for him to pass WP:GNG. Ymblanter (talk) 07:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - @Ymblanter:, He meets WP:NFOOTY because he played 16 matches in Ukrainian Second League which is in the list of fully pro leagues. See his Soccerway Profile. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 07:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, you are right. Withdrawing.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:01, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:51, 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 merge to Presbyterian Church of Belize. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unity Presbyterian Church, Belize City[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRIT. WP:BEFORE showed no WP:SIGCOV that addresses the topic directly and in detail // Timothy :: talk 07:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 07:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belize-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 07:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of churches in Belize. † Encyclopædius 06:21, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Presbyterian Church of Belize which built it WP:ATD. MB 00:33, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: My first choice is delete, but Merge is acceptable as a second choice; it works as well as a delete and editors at the merge target can work on it. // Timothy :: talk 02:58, 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 18:12, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Faith Temple Christian Academy[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRIT, WP:NSCHOOL. WP:BEFORE showed no WP:SIGCOV that addresses the topic directly and in detail // Timothy :: talk 07:06, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 07:06, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 07:06, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Barbados-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 07:06, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Did not find any significant coverage. --Alan Islas (talk) 16:12, 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 redirect to The Railway Series. Redirect as an alternative to deletion. Tone 18:13, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Annie and Clarabel[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. PROD was removed by User:DGG who in edit summary asked for merge or redirect. There is, however, no referenced content to merge. I have no objection a redirect, but please propose a target, there are too many lists of characters related to this show (through recent AfDs also suggested that it would be best to merge them all into a single one). Anyway, there is no valid rationale I can see for this remaining as a stand alone article (which is a generous way of describing this piece of WP:PLOT+WP:OR=WP:FANCRUFT). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:45, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:45, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

two obvious plalces : The Railway Series or Thomas (the Tank Engine) & Friends DGG ( talk ) 09:30, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the coverage is not of a level to justify having this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:46, 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 52 (comics). Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sobek (character)[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. Skipping PRO as this had a 'no consensus' AfD in 2007. Can anyone find anything that is not a plot summary to rescue this? Or suggest a redirect target (maybe to 52 (comics))? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:34, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:34, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:34, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:34, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The character really only had a somewhat important role in one storyline, 52 (comics), and made only a few minor appearances after that. I searched for additional sources, both under the "Sobek" name as well as his real name of "Yurrd", and came up with very little that was not from fan sources, or just brief plot descriptions. I was initially considering suggesting a merge to Ancient Egyptian deities in popular culture#Sobek, but ultimately decided that would not be appropriate due to the fact that - A: as mentioned, "Sobek" is not the character's real name, and B: the character was not actually the god Sobek, just named after him. If anyone else can come up with a good argument for a valid Redirect/Merge target, I would probably be willing to go with that, but as I can't really justify any myself, I am going with Delete. Rorshacma (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of minor DC Comics characters because he meets the definition. I'm not opposed to deletion either, but might as well redirect. Rhino131 (talk) 17:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect - Does this character have any coverage anywhere? Dark knight 2149 06:25, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of any significant coverage. If redirected, 52 (comics) is likely best target. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 15:31, 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 merge to Qaqortoq. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:41, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gertrud Rasch's Church[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRIT. WP:BEFORE showed no WP:SIGCOV that addresses the topic directly and in detail, only WP:ROUTINE coverage. // Timothy :: talk 06:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 06:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 06:39, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:12, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Qaqortoq where it is, by adding an additional section "religion" under infrastructure. This relates to a town of 3000 or so people. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:58, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above, not enough coverage for an independent article but is relevant to the town article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:16, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree with merging as per above. Reposted as this was not signed properly. --FULBERT (talk) 13:36, 8 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 18:12, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative versions of Black Canary[edit]

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

I PRODed this with "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.". This was dePRODed by User:Pikavoom with an edit summary "from Black Canary#Other versions and some of this material should stay either in this article or Black Canary (where it would be overly long)." Thank you for the explanation, but I am afraid this doesn't address my PROD concerns regarding notability of this topic. Excessive plot detail belongs on fandom/wikia, I am afraid. And this is pure PLOT, no analysis, no reception, no significance shown. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pretty much per nom. There seems to be a consistency with this kind of cruft (see, for example, List of My Hero Academia characters and its associated talk: fandom-fests such as these become troll magnets very quickly). This is the best way. ——Serial 06:39, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Black Canary is long enough. At the very least Merge to Black Canary#Other versions where some of this material (as you can't ignore all the alternative Black Canary versions when writing on Black Canary, some of them are significant) should be and currently points at this article. I take umbrage at Piotrus mangling my edit summary (omitting "This is a split from..."), as this article is a WP:SPLIT from Black Canary and the question here isn't notability or deletion but rather whether WP:MERGE is appropriate. Pikavoom (talk) 07:18, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article splits are justified only when splitting necessary content. This is all plot information not backed by reliable sources to establish the topic's notability. There is no particular value in merging this content, so that section should be started from scratch using summary style. TTN (talk) 14:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The argument that the main Black Canary article is too long is countered by the fact that this information does not actually need to be included there. None of the individuals versions are notable on their own (with the sole, possible exception of the Arrowverse version, who already has an independent article), and there are no real sources discussing the concept of her alternate versions as a group or set. A few sentence summary of their being alternate versions of the character can certainly be added to the main Black Canary article, but nothing here needs to be merged or kept to do that. Rorshacma (talk) 16:42, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TTN. The main article is still well within a readable size, and we shouldn't be creating endless non-notable spinouts. If you have a well sourced section that isn't just a collection of primary data, a spinout will naturally meet the WP:GNG. This one does not. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if something is actually a useful split, it passes GNG in its own right. If it does not, than it's just a bunch of useless cruft that does not need to be on Wikipedia. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:52, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Pikavoom. Dark knight 2149 06:23, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I agree with Shooterwalker. This article is badly sourced, in-universe fancruft and there hasn't been a good justification as to why a spinout is necessary or even a good idea. Reyk _YO! 08:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an unjustified content fork.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:44, 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 delete. Participants conclude there are not enough good sources to demonstrate notability. ~ mazca ^talk 22:38, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Captive Minds Communications Group[edit]

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

Almost all sources are press releases or tangential. Does not pass notability standards for a company. Balle010 (talk) 05:06, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Guardian looks like a decent source, but it's more about Marchus Chidgey than Captive Minds, and it's the only one that's not worthless as a WP:N source. Not surprising that this was created by an employee of the company. It's not bad enough to be G11 material, but it's a good example of why COI editing is strongly discouraged. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing can be found to go toward notability. Wm335td (talk) 20:29, 9 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 18:15, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Guglielmucci[edit]

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

Failes WP:BLP1E. Guglielmucci came to brief attention in 2008 after falsely claiming to have cancer, and was in the news for a brief time. However, no charges were ever laid. He had some success as a member of a Christian band, but wasn't of any note except for this one event, and when he is mentioned online it seems to be only in reference to the fraud. Bilby (talk) 04:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Bilby (talk) 04:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete Pernom. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the subject of multiple independent sources so meets GNG. At worst should be merged/redirected to Hillsong Worship (his work there was the basis for the fraud claims).Redirect to This Is Our God which is an article on the album itself (that more than adequately covers the relevant events and is a much better place to put any sourced content). I've merged some sourced content onto this page. Deus et lex (talk) 00:27, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nick-D (talk) 07:37, 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. Stifle (talk) 13:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vitthal Kale[edit]

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

A non-notable supporting actor, no significant and reliable coverage found for the subject. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. All the refs are to the films they have played minor/supporting role. Zoodino (talk) 04:42, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 04:42, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 04:42, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 04:42, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject seems notable. I found few reliable references such as TOI and Indian Express but article needs improvement. IMDB is not allowed as a reference which i removed already.Priyanjali singh (talk) 15:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero evidence of notability; no evidence of sources actually addressing the subject in any depth at all really Spiderone 22:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet NACTOR or GNG. Found a lot of mentions, but nothing SIGCOV that addresses the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 11:22, 9 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 per [87] (WP:SKCRIT #1) (non-admin closure) SD0001 (talk) 09:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Berserker Raids[edit]

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

Reviwe of reputation 🆔 APO ^Discuss✍ 04:14, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. 🆔 APO ^Discuss✍ 04:14, 29 August 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

Procedural keep. No valid reason for deletion has been given. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The nominator notified me on my talk page that they did not mean to edit this article, but in case there is a notability concern, I found three more reviews aside from the one that I have cited in the article. BOZ (talk) 05:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The three reviews in the external links are all in-depth, which means this game passes WP:GNG effortlessly. There is also a coverage of it in Chicago Tribune [88]. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:42, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:34, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also undid the outrageous placement of this AfD at the Businesspeople list, which didn't make sense at all. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:36, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT #1 (non-admin closure) SD0001 (talk) 09:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ebru Timtik[edit]

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

Reviwe of reputation 🆔 APO ^Discuss✍ 04:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 🆔 APO ^Discuss✍ 04:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep. No valid reason for deletion has been given. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is clearly notable. Mccapra (talk) 05:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Pokelova (talk) 05:39, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No reason for delation good references in national press --Pierrette13 (talk) 09:30, 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 female librarians. The merger has apparently already been made. Sandstein 16:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Female librarians in Ghana[edit]

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

New page review: this is an unusual article. The topic itself may possibly be notable, but that’s not clear. In this case it is being used as a coatrack for summary bios of individuals who don’t appear to be notable on their own. There is one bio of a notable person but the article can’t really be turned into a list or it just becomes a directory of non notable people. I can’t see any way forward other than deletion but maybe someone else can. Mccapra (talk) 03:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 03:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 03:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 03:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Selective Merge. A list of people whose notability is not demonstrated. I suggest the creator first construct the BLP of each person before making a list of them when notability is established. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Merge ONLY those librarians with articles to List of female librarians and just the content that fits with the format of this article, none of the resume fluff. Ajf773 (talk) 08:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Ajf773's suggestion. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:16, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
According to Category:Ghanaian women librarians there are just three entries with articles, and one has already been merged. Ajf773 (talk) 21:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Selective Merge just the ones with articles to List of female librarians. This article, if it were cut down to actually fit guidelines, would be so short it would be useless. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:50, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the notable librarians per the above comments, but note that the List of female librarians already includes the notable librarians, so this is effectively equal to a delete. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 02:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: List of non-notable people. Violates notability guidelines for stand-alone lists. Only the first entry in this list has its own article, and that one is already in List of female librarians. This stand-alone list, however, can be deleted. Normal Op (talk) 19:35, 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 Stern Pinball. Users can merge any content if they would like to from the page history Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:29, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Walking Dead (pinball)[edit]

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

Looks like a non-notable pinball machine. The Polygon reference is reliable and in-depth, but I'm not finding much else. The Realm of Gaming source link is dead, but since "interview" is in the title, it's a pretty good guess it's a primary source. The internet pinball database, which is external linked, is user-generated. This is a primary source, since it's from the maker of the game. This looks user-generated. This rules sheet is a primary source. IGN is listed as generally reliable at WP:VGRS, but it also states that some content on the site should be avoided, as it is user-generated. The IGN piece about this game is user-generated, so it falls under the exception in VGRS. This is a primary source press release. TV Tropes is user-generated. I'm taking this one to AFD, instead of PROD, since one good source has been found, but I'm not expected to find that this is notable. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Stern Pinball. Verified pinball title from notable company. --Masem (t) 13:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Stern Pinball. The machine does not have enough coverage in reliable sources to maintain an independent article, but redirecting it to the company's product list, where it is already included, would be an appropriate WP:ATD. Rorshacma (talk) 16:45, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Stern Pinball - Definitely seems to be the best decision. Foxnpichu (talk) 16:47, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Stern Pinball Lightburst (talk) 18:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT #1 (non-admin closure) SD0001 (talk) 09:35, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of presidents of Hirshabelle[edit]

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

Reviwe of reputation Credibility is questionable AppoWeb (talk) 02:34, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AppoWeb (talk) 02:34, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Unclear rationale, no obvious reason to delete. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:49, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nominator @AppoWeb: is a new account who has decided to launch straight into multiple AfDs. Mccapra (talk) 05:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mccapra: My friend, I did not have a specific purpose for tagging. I tagged the articles due to their shortness, and because I am a newcomer, I have a little trouble using Twinkle. Do not personally attack newcomers.Read Wp:newcomer better than once.🆔 APO ^Discuss✍ 05:51, 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Fravor[edit]

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

WP:FRINGEBLP famous for WP:ONEEVENT mostly, but interviewed as a subject-matter expert in other media. That does not consistute WP:BIO notability. jps (talk) 02:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ජපස: Just want to let you know he has a military career which is notable even without the UFO incident, though the UFO incident does add to his notability. He was extensively featured in the documentary Carrier (TV series) which has nothing to do with UFOs. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 02:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- As indicated above, he's really not known for his military career. jps (talk) 02:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least four sources which speak of his military achievements as well as being feature in a documentary completely unrelated and created before his UFO was brought to light. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 02:22, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are four sources that mention he was in the military. That doesn't rise to WP:MILNG. People who are featured in documentaries do not inherit notability. C'mon. You've been here long enough to know these are not good arguments. jps (talk) 02:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When combine with his multiple features in mainstream media regarding his UFO encounter it does elevate his notability. The result of such is a heavy documentation of his military career. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 02:34, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to mention he does pass WP:MILNG, which is an essay, not a guideline.

Held a rank considered to be a flag, general or air officer, or their historical equivalents; or
Commanded a substantial body of troops in combat (e.g. a capital ship, an army division or higher, a Commonwealth air group, United States air wing, Soviet/Russian aviation division, or other historical air formation of equivalent size, generally two levels above a squadron) Valoem ^talk ^contrib 02:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He passes neither of those criteria. Not sure why you think otherwise. jps (talk) 03:49, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As a commander, he doesn't meet WP:NSOLDIER (I don't think? I am not up on my military ranks. But none of the articles on the rank of commander describe it as a flag officer position, which is the NSOLDIER standard.) His role in an alleged UFO sighting is not enough for a standalone article. Maybe a redirect to Pentagon UFO videos, but in any event delete. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:30, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Paleo Neonate – 10:34, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Paleo Neonate – 10:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. —Paleo Neonate – 10:39, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable low-ranking officer who appears in a video. Fails all measures of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 10:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 12:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Nika2020 (talk) 12:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As written above, this is a WP:FRINGEBLP associated, sort of, with WP:ONEEVENT, and the WP:COATRACK is obvious. The military rank and service is to be respected but does not rise to encyclopedic notability. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:15, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SOLDIER, WP:BLP. Notability of people mentioned in coverage of Pentagon UFO videos is not inherited. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails SOLDIER and GNG, also quite a COATRACK. Should be mentioned in the article about Pentagon UFO videos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peacemaker67 (talk • contribs)
Keep, It is rather disheartening to see an respect commander and war hero be removed from Wikipedia when he clearly passes WP:NSOLDIER. He passes:

Held a rank considered to be a flag, general or air officer, or their historical equivalents; or

Having held the rank of Commander (United States) in the United States which is a flag/insignia rank. This ranks him above Tammie Jo Shults.

Commanded a substantial body of troops in combat (e.g. a capital ship, an army division or higher, a Commonwealth air group

Having commanded 12 planes and 330 members.

He also has had a 24 career in which he flew tactical aircraft for the Navy with "over 3,500 flight hours and was a graduate of the Navy Fighter Weapons School, better known as TOPGUN". [89] He is considered an expert on the F/A-18F Super Hornet and works in California for Fidelity Technologies as a simulator instructor, teaching new pilots how to fly the F/A-18. [90] I can't help but notice some editors here are from Fringe Noticeboards and seem to ignore his prior accomplishments which makes him more notable then Tammie Jo Shults and Chesley Sullenberger when their incidents involving plane malfunction occurred. His UFO sighting only adds to his notability not diminish it. The POV here is also sufficiently neutral, having both a skeptically analysis and skepticism from Fravor himself. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 15:10, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Valoem, the US Navy rank of commander is O-5 and is not a flag officer rank. Schazjmd (talk) 15:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Under General Usage: "A flag officer sometimes is a junior officer, called a flag lieutenant or flag adjutant, attached as a personal adjutant or aide-de-camp". O-5 appears to be a rank above LCDR below Admiral. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 16:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: COATRACK, FRINGEBLP, ONEEVENT, SOLDIER. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Commander" is too low a rank to satisfy WP:SOLDIER, commanding a squadron is clearly below the standard that asks for commanding a formation two levels above a squadron, and the WP:ONEEVENT concerns raised above are valid. XOR'easter (talk) 21:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
XOR'easter, indeed. There are notable people of that rank. For example, Lt. Cdr. N. S. Norway RNVR. But few, if any, who are notable for their actions at that rank. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:BLP1E and WP:COATRACK. I am sure he is a fine person who served his country selflessly, but there are no sources independent of the UFO brouhaha. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At this point it appears to be a lost cause, but per WP:NSOLDIER, even if we accept that he does not pass O-5 as a flag officer he certainly passes the final criteria It is important to note that a person who does not meet the criteria mentioned above is not necessarily non-notable; ultimately, this determination must be made based on the availability of significant coverage in independent, secondary sources he certainly passes GNG. I feel particularly strongly about this because he is a war hero, who in the eyes of the fringe noticeboard has lost notability because he was an unwillingly witness in a UFO encounter, one which he was himself a skeptic. Above all, this man is far more creditable than Bob Lazar. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 00:42, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've imparted the wrong motive to the good people of of FTN. If anything, the guy is notable for his UFO report because that's what the vast majority of sources about him discuss. However, I think he fails WP:FRINGEBLP. The question can then be turned to whether he is notable as a "war hero" or not. If he were notable as a war hero, we could easily marginalize the fringe aspects of this BLP and move on. But he doesn't seem to be notable as that either. So the alternative for Wikipedia is to write a biography that is focused on fringe aspects in a way that seems counter to the best practices of WP:BLP. To be clear, I am not arguing that every mention of this person be excised from the 'pedia. I am arguing that this standalone article is inappropriate considering the sourcing, notability, claims, and balance of NPOV. It's not anything more than that.

And, perhaps your last sentence is most telling/problematic as an argument. The goal of Wikipedia is not to determine who is credible or more likely to be correct or worthy of, say, inviting to your pod cast. The goal of Wikipedia is to summarize third-party sources. Lazar, for better or worse, has had so many sources written about him he is clearly WP:FRINGEBLP material. This particular officer just isn't as notable. I probably would much rather have a discussion with Fravor than Lazar, but that doesn't have any bearing on our decision process here. jps (talk) 04:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that FRINGEBLP says this person who is an unwilling, but credible witness in a UFO encounter will never be notable regardless of the number of sources which cover him and his career. This argument is fundamentally flawed and violates GNG. An example would be Chesley Sullenberger and Tammie Jo Shults who lives receive significant coverage because of one event, both people in fact receive less coverage prior to their incident than David Fravor and were of lower rank in the military. Fravor has been covered by Vice, ABC, NBC, nymag, JRE etc. each source mentions his career with Vice and JRE going into extensive detail. Therefore based on our policies his witnessing to an unexplained event would increase his notability, but strangely we are saying he is less notable here. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 15:08, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have now made eight posts here, within which your points have been clearly presented. Repeating those points multiple times verges upon WP:BLUDGEON. Additionally, the claim above that "some editors here are from Fringe Noticeboards and seem to ignore his prior accomplishments" and the reference to "the eyes of the fringe noticeboard" could be interpreted as aspersions and/or assumptions of bad faith. I now suggest that we all let the AfD process proceed to its conclusion without repetitive debate/discussion/argument. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:56, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If someone makes a response which does not represent my views, I must make a response. This is not WP:BLUDGEON as much as WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I've made a clear response regarding how a person without fringe attribution would have an article here is not bad faith, but facts. Your accusation of bludgeon "could be interpreted as aspersions and/or assumptions of bad faith". Valoem ^talk ^contrib 17:18, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my post again. I did not accuse you of WP:BLUDGEON, and I did not, in any way, suggest that "a clear response" is "bad faith." Please strike those false claims. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:51, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did and you certainly did. I was going to quote you, but its right about what I reply so there isn't a need to even respond. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 00:46, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pentagon UFO videos: He doesn't seem to meet WP:NBIO outside of this one event, but a mention at that article is certainly merited, and he is a plausible search term. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the outcome of delete, a redirect would indeed make sense. —Paleo Neonate – 23:16, 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 withdrawn. (non-admin closure) SD0001 (talk) 09:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Haji Yusuf Barre[edit]

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

Reviwe of reputation his reputation questionable AppoWeb (talk) 02:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AppoWeb (talk) 02:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nominator @AppoWeb: is a new account who has decided to launch straight into multiple AfDs. Mccapra (talk) 05:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mccapra: My friend, I did not have a specific purpose for tagging. I tagged the articles due to their shortness, and because I am a newcomer, I have a little trouble using Twinkle. Do not personally attack newcomers.Read Wp:newcomer better than once.🆔 APO ^Discuss✍ 05:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:CSK # 2–3. No valid reason for deletion has been given. @AppoWeb: Please stop nominating articles for deletion without providing a rationale or performing a WP:BEFORE search. It is highly disruptive. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@AleatoryPonderings: My friend, I made a mistake in tagging a few articles. How can I report that I made a mistake so that the editors can correct my tag?🆔 APO ^Discuss✍ 05:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AppoWeb: You are free to withdraw your nominations per WP:CSK. If you put a new bullet point—*—and the text '''Withdraw''' beneath the points that other users have put any of the discussions you have started, along with ~~~~ to identify yourself with your signature, another user will shortly close them for you. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 06:02, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

—*—'''I declare my withdrawal from this request''' 🆔 APO ^Discuss✍ 07:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@AleatoryPonderings:Did I do it right.🆔 APO ^Discuss✍ 07:22, 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 18:15, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sonnie Johnson[edit]

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

There is no substantive RS coverage of this individual. There are off-hand mentions of her (usually when several people are listed) in a RS reporting on organizations and individuals which are actually notable. For example, a lot of her coverage seems to be in RS coverage of Stephen Bannon or Breitbart News where she is listed among several people. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:27, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:27, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable writer and radio personality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:10, 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 speedy keep. (non-admin closure) SD0001 (talk) 09:33, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Wilson (director)[edit]

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

Reviwe of reputation AppoWeb (talk) 01:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AppoWeb (talk) 01:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nominator @AppoWeb: is a new account who has decided to launch straight into multiple AfDs. I regard the multiple nominations as vexatious. Mccapra (talk) 05:33, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mccapra: My friend, I did not have a specific purpose for tagging. I tagged the articles due to their shortness, and because I am a newcomer, I have a little trouble using Twinkle. Do not personally attack newcomers.Read Wp:newcomer better than once.🆔 APO ^Discuss✍ 05:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Mccapra, WP:CSK #2–3, and the absence of any rationale for deletion. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:36, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. WP:SK1 appears to apply from the comment alone, and this and WP:SK3 is confirmed by AppoWeb's followup. Length or the lack of it is not a valid reason for deletion, and even a one sentence stub article can be retained if the claim to notability is strong enough and its sourcing is sufficient (WP:ATA might be useful reading). No need for SK2 unless things continue -- WP:AGF and all. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:26, 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 Flash enemies#Modern Age Flash enemies. (non-admin closure) Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 19:31, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peek-a-Boo (comics)[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. PROD removed with the usual meaningless copy-paste rationale by usual mass dePRODDer, so - let's discuss. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:33, 29 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} 01:33, 29 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} 01:33, 29 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} 01:33, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NOTPLOT and WP:GNG. It lacks reliable sources to establish its notability. TTN (talk) 14:01, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Flash enemies as an alternative to deletion. Rhino131 (talk) 14:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with List of Flash enemies. If it's the latter, have it redirected to the section that mentions the character. --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:11, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Flash enemies#Modern Age Flash enemies, character clearly does not pass GNG, with all sources being primary or unreliable and no better ones existing. Article in its current state also fails WP:NFICTION. The section at the target contains all the information needed considering this character's irrelevance. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:45, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:45, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Godspeed (character)[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. PROD removed with the usual meaningless copy-paste rationale by usual mass dePRODDer, so - let's discuss. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:33, 29 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} 01:33, 29 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} 01:33, 29 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} 01:33, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTPLOT and fails to establish notability per WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 21:33, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Let this page stay. He is notable for being the first Flash villain to be introduced during the "DC Rebirth." In addition, he was able to be adapted into the Arrowverse. --Rtkat3 (talk) 16:59, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The character is notable according to whom? Sources, please. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The character has been receiving plenty of third party coverage, especially after his role in the Flash TV series. He was also one of the more critically acclaimed characters to come out of DC Rebirth. All it needs is someone to improve the article. And as is pointed out a lot recently, WP:GNG refers to the existence of sources, not the quality of sourcing in the article, so "fails to establish notablity" isn't valid. Dark knight 2149 06:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GOOGLEHITS is not a very strong argument. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - My argument isn't Google hits. My point is that the character has received extensive coverage from third party sources and that coverage isn't difficult to find in a simple Google search (even on the first couple of pages). There's easily enough there to turn this into a GA-class article. Dark knight 2149 10:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - But if you just link google search results, the top of which are clearly unreliable (wiki, fandom), then it is, well, GOOGLEHITS + WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. If you saw a good source there, or several, at least link those, and preferably, tell us what makes them valid (since so often people just link stuff here without reading them...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:08, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm not making the argument that "There must be sources", I'm pointing out that there are sources and I'm beginning to wonder if you performed a WP:BEFORE test at all. I counted several on the first few pages alone. Dark knight 2149 06:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        first 10 google hits: 1) Wikipedia article 2) Fandom 3) Fandom 4) official site for DC comics 5) a blog on 4) 6) another fan wiki or a copy of Wikipedia article 7) 24 Best Godspeed images 8) 22 Best GodSpeed images 9) Facebook post. Ok, 9 hits since that's what I see on the first page of your results. Which of those are among your "several" good sources? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Not only does this character have extensive coverage, and was one of the more acclaimed villains to come out of DC Rebirth, but we have detailed coverage, episode recaps of his media appearances, creator interviews and articles detailing his history, ETC. To say that this doesn't pass WP:GNG, is frankly reaching.

https://wegotthiscovered.com/comicbooks/exclusive-interview-joshua-williamson-talks-flash-teases-rogues/

https://www.cbr.com/the-flash-godspeed-comic-series-comparison/

https://screenrant.com/flash-season-6-godspeed-new-power-speed-explained/

https://www.newsweek.com/flash-season-7-spoilers-godspeed-villain-august-heart-1507779

https://ew.com/tv/the-flash-grant-gustin-godspeed-mystery/

https://tvline.com/2020/05/31/the-flash-season-7-real-godspeed/

https://comicbook.com/dc/news/the-flash-who-is-godspeed/

https://www.dccomics.com/blog/2019/04/16/the-flash-godspeed-is-here

https://www.denofgeek.com/tv/the-flash-season-5-episode-18-review-godspeed/

https://io9.gizmodo.com/heres-your-first-look-at-the-flashs-godspeed-and-his-u-1834062134

https://www.digitalspy.com/tv/ustv/a32728821/the-flash-season-7-godspeed/

https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/godspeed-joshua-williamson-on-seeing-his-flash-characters-on-tv

https://www.cinemablend.com/television/2471772/the-flash-isnt-done-with-the-villain-godspeed-yet-thank-heavens

https://www.comingsoon.net/tv/news/1082137-flash-season-6-set-photos-return-of-godspeed

https://www.cbr.com/the-flash-joshua-williamson-finish-line-interview/

https://comicbook.com/dc/news/dc-kills-a-speedster-in-the-flash/

https://www.cbr.com/flash-joshua-williamson-explains-godspeed-always-going-die/

https://bamsmackpow.com/2018/09/19/flash-joshua-williamson-writing-different-speedsters/

There are many professional comic book reviews that critique the character as well. Not only has this character received extensive coverage, but also an especially impressive amount for a comic book villain that didn't exist before 2016. Dark knight 2149 06:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first link is a WP:INTERVIEW that contains 3 or 4 sentences that don't go beyond a plot summary. As for others - googlehits. Explain why those references provide in-depth, non-trivial, independent coverage, please. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really about to play the "nitpick the sources" game? Because we have an entire assortment of reliable primary and secondary coverage, news articles, interviews, and reviews that go into detail on the character's backstory, history, reception, the creator's interpretation, and adaptations into other media. Literally anyone could turn this into a GA-class article, but by all means, pick out a couple of specific links and nitpick them to death.

Likewise - TV Line, ComicBook.com, ComingSoon.net, Comic Book Resources, Cinema Blend, Entertainment Weekly, i09 Gizmodo, Screen Rant, SyFy, Digital Spy, and Den of Geek are all examples of reliable community-vetted sources on Wikipedia. If you have a problem with any of them, I would suggest taking it to WP:RSN. Dark knight 2149 06:54, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"The first link is a WP:INTERVIEW that contains 3 or 4 sentences that don't go beyond a plot summary. As for others - googlehits." - By the way, that's not what WP:GOOGLEHITS means. Dark knight 2149 06:59, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OMG.. throwing 18 random links at the discussion, possibly expecting some might stick, is not a helpful argument. I need to open every one now and read it... Per WP:V responsibility to show they are relevant is on you, please... - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GizzyCatBella: Substantiating notability by demonstrating extensive coverage from reputable sources is not a helpful argument? Per WP:ITSCRUFT, maybe you should have clicked on them before ignorantly declaring them "random". I really hope the closing administrator is taking note of how unbelievably silly the opposition is being. Dark knight 2149 19:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GizzyCatBella: I did that, and posted links to three of those sources below. I agree that posting bare links with no explanation is impolite. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An explanation was given - "reliable primary and secondary coverage, news articles, interviews, and reviews that go into detail on the character's backstory, history, reception, the creator's interpretation, and adaptations into other media" and "we have detailed coverage, episode recaps of his media appearances, creator interviews and articles detailing his history, ETC. There are many professional comic book reviews that critique the character as well." Per WP:BADGER, no one is obligated to hold the proposer's hand through each and every individual source, particularly when it's the nominator's job to substantiate why the topic isn't notable or worthy of deletion. 19:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

That’s okay, I’m almost done reading them. - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the sources. There is clearly lots of information about the creation, development, and reception of this character in both the comics and the TV show. Many more reliable sources than most comics characters nominated for deletion recently. Rhino131 (talk) 10:49, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: From Darkknight2149's sources, I think that "The Flash: Joshua Williamson Explains Why (Godspeed) Was Always Going to Die" from CBR is a real-world bit of reporting on creative decisions made by the writer. "Flash boss reveals which main villain will return in season 7" from Digital Spy demonstrates that Godspeed is important enough to be a teaser for the upcoming season. "Here's Your First Look at The Flash's Godspeed, and His Uncomfortable God-Crotch" from iO9 is similar; even Godspeed's costume is important enough to be a teaser. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:49, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I ddo appreciate that you (and GCB?) took time to read through those and suggest which are the best. [91] has the problem of being half plot summary and half WP:INTERVIEW with the artist who wrote the story - I think such sources are fine to expand the article, but not for establishing notability. [92] is a brief 2-3 sentence mention that this character may appear in a TV show. So is [93], except it also seems to make some joke about his appearance. I am sorry, but are those really the best we can find? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - The coverage checks off all of the boxes at WP:GNG and WP:NFICTION, and there is a enough coverage between critical reception, behind-the-scenes information, the writer's intentions, in-depth coverage of his adapted appearances, and plot information to properly flesh out the article. Likewise, interviews and statements from the creators are perfectly usable when there is adequate secondary coverage. iO9 is also considered a reliable news source on Wikipedia, so this feels more like a WP:RSN issue. The coverage is a lot more than just plot summaries and passing mentions, as much as you trying to make it sound that way. I have to echo what Rhino131 said - If not a single one of the 18 examples above are reliable to you (as you told Dream Focus), your standards are simply too high. Much higher than the community's. Dark knight 2149 07:06, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Significant coverage found in reliable sources. Dream Focus 00:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you mind telling us which particular sources you think have significant coverage? I have yet to see a single one. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:11, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe spend more time clicking on the links and looking. https://comicbook.com/dc/news/the-flash-reveals-first-official-look-at-godspeed/ https://www.cbr.com/flash-joshua-williamson-explains-godspeed-always-going-die/ etc etc. Dream Focus 03:52, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Which I already discussed above, if you'd care to read something from the discussion above? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:06, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Since you argue nonstop with everyone else no matter what in these many AFDs you are constantly starting, and never like any sources found no matter how many others state they are acceptable, why would I waste time reading anything you write anymore? Dream Focus 13:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus, could you refactor your comment? I find "never like any sources found no matter how many others state they are acceptable" particularly problematic because it isn't true. Thanks - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:35, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In several of these nominations, that actually has been the case. Judge Death is another one of the more egregious examples. Without naming any names, there is a degree of confirmation bias in many of the nominations from specific recurring nominators. Dark knight 2149 21:06, 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 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert B. Tucker[edit]

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

Promotional article for an apparently non-notable business personality. Of the refs in the article, all are dead except for [94] (interview), [95] (another interview in the same publication), [96] (interview apparently from CNBC hosted on his YouTube channel).

I think the best bet for notability is WP:NAUTHOR, but I've had a really hard time finding reviews. There is one decent-sized review of Winning the Innovation Game (ISBN 9780425115312), which he co-authored in 1987, in the LA Times for March 5, 1987, but that's about it. I found this surprising, since Driving Growth Through Innovation (ISBN 9781576751879) has 300 cites on Scholar. All the other hits I could find were unreliable profiles from the speaking agencies he's affiliated with. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 01:18, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 01:18, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 01:18, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2011-03 ✗ G12, 2007-04 ✗ CSD G11

Comment. I looked up the 'Tucker Innovation Model,' and it seems to be used as a strategy framework. I think exploring something on that front might yield something of interest. I will look further. Ktin (talk) 18:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did some search on 'Tucker Innovation Model'. This seems like a proprietary strategy framework. i.e. most of the sources lead back to the subject's firm / practice. I did find one paper that references the framework [97]. However, I do not think this might be sufficient for our purpose though. Ktin (talk) 04:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ktin, Yeah, definitely confirms that it exists, but I agree it doesn't seem like enough for GNG/NAUTHOR. It's weird! I was expecting to see a lot more coverage than there seems to be. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:19, 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 G10'd . Amortias (T)(C) 18:30, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Michael Stanley[edit]

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

Violates WP:BLP1E and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 00:01, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 00:01, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 00:01, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Woah, major WP:Wall of text and fails violates WP:BLP1E. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 00:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. BLP1E and abuse of Wikipedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Violates WP:CRIMINAL in multiple ways (no conviction, no evidence of significance to the case, and we generally don't make articles about perpetrators or alleged perpetrators of misbehavior). Plausible G10 speedy. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with nom and above participants. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are situations where we cover criminal allegations before conviction or trial (certaily the Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse cases story comes to mind). But they concern the cases of public figures, where there's been a lot more evidence and the allegations themselves were notable. That is not the case here. The subject of the article is not a public figure of any kind, not notable for anything else, and the only coverage this story received seems to have been in relation to the subject having been a college roomate of the actor Jim Parsons. Basically does look like a G10 case to me. Nsk92 (talk) 14:18, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination - Wikipedia is not the place for this sort of agenda-pushing. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most accused abusers of minors are not notable for this enough to justify having an article on them on Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G10. I have tagged the article accordingly. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:21, 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.

[1] Robert Raeside (2004). "FOTW: The Ultimate Vexillological Encyclopedia or an Ephemeral Web Site?" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 30 December 2018. Retrieved 14 August 2017.

[2] A. P. Burgers (2008). The South African flag book: the history of South African flags from Dias to Mandela. Protea Book House. p. 34. ISBN 978-1-86919-112-2. There are numerous websites on the Internet dealing with different aspects of flags. The most all-encompassing of these is without a doubt the website Flags of the World (FOTW).

[Number_of_Employees-3] "Number of Employees". The Block. 2020-01-23. Retrieved 2020-08-31.

[Alexa_ratings-4] "Alexa ratings". Alexa ratings. 2020-08-31. Retrieved 2020-08-31.

[Volume-5] "Volume". Volume. 2020-08-31. Retrieved 2020-08-31.

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]