Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 August 30

Guide to deletion

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

The result was keep. The sources that have been provided have not been adequately rebutted, and nobody has demonstrated sufficient problems with the article to require deleting it and starting it over. For any lesser degree of problematic content, WP:NOTCLEANUP applies. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:46, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Sexual racism

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

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

This is a 2016 group effort societal essay, and fundamentally and fatally WP:NOR. There are no broad secondary source sources for the topic. It is a term, a WP:NEOLOGISM that does not yet have traction at Wiktionary.

If an article can be written under this title, WP:TNT applies. It has taken the wrong path from the first edit, compiling information from disparate sources.

It does not belong in mainspace as an article. It could be moved to draftspace, on the understanding that it will not be returned, but instead to have sources removed for addition to other articles. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:53, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment The topic of the article seems like it is notable, not sure about the name tho.★Trekker (talk) 00:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
  • The title is tied to the scope. There is no source that is simply about the scope as defined. It can't be re-scoped, it is too old and way too far down the path of collecting overly narrow and primary sources. If you think it can be fixed by re-titling, see Talk:Sexual racism#Requested move 12 August 2020, but see all the other talk page posts too. The best explanation for the failure is Wikipedia:NEOLOGISM. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 00:46, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 00:46, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 00:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment This topic is, I expect, related to racial fetishism. pburka (talk) 01:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Also note that there appears to be quite a bit of scholarly discussion of this topic, e.g. "Is Sexual Racism Really Racism?" (Callander et al. 2015), "Sexual Racism: A Legacy of Slavery" (1994), "EXECUTING US SOLDIERS IN ENGLAND, WORLD WAR II: Command Influence and Sexual Racism" (Lilly & Thomson, 1997, "Sexual Racism: Intimacy as a Matter of Justice" (Bedi, 2015). These are just from the first page of Google Scholar hits. pburka (talk) 16:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
    • These are all WP:Primary studies that don't count towards GNG. And they also well illustrate that this is a neologism with no coherent scope. The first and fourth sources are about people's choices of partners (with the fourth explicitly coining the term independently), the second is about societal views of interracial relationships, and the third is about racism in military capital punishment out of fear of cross-sex cross-racial socializing. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
      • These are all WP:Primary studies that don't count towards GNG - please link to the guideline that says, for non-medical topics, a peer reviewed journal article on a subject doesn't count towards GNG. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:19, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
        • From WP:GNG: "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:58, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
          • You misunderstood what is primary and what is secondary. Primary are stuff like research notes, witness testimonies, interviews, etc. Research published on the basis of such works is secondary. And summarizing such secondary sources in an encyclopedia is tetriary. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
            • No, it is not the case that every published paper is a secondary source, with their "research notes" being primary sources. Research papers are primary sources for the outcome of their research, and secondary sources are review articles or books reviewing the literature. Per WP:PSTS: a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment. And: a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research. It also states that sources can be both primary and secondary sources, depending on the content within the source, while saying in a footnote, research articles tend to be more useful as primary sources and review articles as secondary sources. Something like this is a primary source for its author's philosophizing, and this is a primary source reporting the results of a social science experiment. This source's nature regarding the term is unclear; it could be an independent coining. I suppose this has some secondary aspects, but in any case, it is really about interracial marriage and does not demonsrate that this is a separate topic. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Delete. I checked and found no WP:Secondary sources about this supposed topic like WP:GNG requires. And even if it were a valid topic, WP:TNT definitely applies here. This article is rotted through and through by WP:Synthesis. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:29, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with nominator and User: Crossroads.Knox490 (talk) 06:58, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Delete: The article is focussed on the North American experience of racism and married the racism issue to sexual partner choices. There is some reference to this issue in online dating worldwide and so WP:TNT definitely applies. Blow it up. -- Whiteguru (talk) 12:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. pburka (talk) 18:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Keep. Scholar/Books clearly show that this is a notable term. And the article seems written well enough I don't see why WP:TNT is invoked. If it contains OR, please cite specific examples. A cursory overview suggests that while there may be small parts of the articles that are undercited, or even ORish, most of it seems to be summarizing scholarly works. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
  • User:Piotrus, yes, it attempts to summarize scholarly works, but it does it WP:SYNTH style, and none of the scholarly works are broad coverage of the topic. Can you address the WP:NEOLOGISM question? "Sexual racism" is a neologism, and not well defined, and not consistently defined. I read this article as taking the neologism, and then summarizing the work of every article that uses the term. In that sense, sources are being used as primary sources for the term, and worse, many of them do not even use the term, but are creatively woven into the body to support tangential points. No where is there a straightforward definition tied to a reliable source. An attempt to do this is made with the first source, but that source is clearly describing a neologism: "Discrimination between potential sexual or romantic partners on the basis of perceived racial identity has been referred to as “sexual racism.”" It goes on with "Today, “sexual racism” is popularly employed in media and research settings as shorthand for racial discrimination between sexual or romantic partners. There is contention, however, about whether this is an appropriate label ...", which clearly establishes that this is not an established term. Yes, there is something to this, but it is not for Wikipedia to lead the way in synthesizing what it is. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
    • In my experience, this is a common problem in social sciences - many works use a term without defining it well, or they use different definitions. Wikipedia articles have to combine such sources; and yes, there is a fine line between OR and proper synthesis here. As this article is cited, and not essay-ish, I think it meets our policies. And yes, there are some sentences in the article that can be discussed, revised and perhaps even removed, but again I don't see what merits a TNT approach here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
      • I agree, I understand, on the a common problem with the social sciences, "topics" are fluid, what is said about the topic depends on the speaker, and the underlying message can be almost unrelated. Disagree that the essay is not "essay-ish", it most certainly is. It is student essay-ish. It meanders without logical structure. However, that is not really the problem so much as it devoting so much more space to tangential matters than to the central concept. Much more critical is that this article gets no mention from the parent article racism, and sexual doesn't lead to an article that mentions it either. What merits the TNT is that the foundation of the article is unsound. The presentation is rich in sources, but there is no foundation. If someone could find one or two good foundational sources, WP:GNG-meeting sources, they could re-write the article, possibly re-use some of the current sources, but it would need to be a fundamental rewrite. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Strong keep: Articles about concepts are often much harder to write than articles about persons, places or other more concrete things. Especially since concepts in the humanities are often quite subjective. The article is a little flimsy at places which calls for fixing, not for the article to be destroyed! I find over a 1,000 articles on Google Scholar for the term "sexual racism" so I don't buy that it would be a neologism. It's a real scholarly subject. ImTheIP (talk) 22:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Can you provide a source that defines or describes it, not in scare quotes? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:05, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Delete. We need sources specifically about the topic. Not sources about other things cobbled together to create this topic. A decent article about the topic can perhaps be created in the future, but this one is not it. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 07:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
• Delete Having looked at it, it seems to posit multiple definitions depending on the specific context. I don't see any foundation that is backed by peer reviewed research. It would suggest not having an article is a better approach at least until the subject is better defined. It would be nice to have some kind of definition in the first paragraph after the lede, to set stage and backed by a couple of solid sources that define it explicitly, but it is not there. It needs to be much more rigorous as well, for an academic topic and not one that is US centric, nor one that devotes more than half the article to LGBT. scope_creep^Talk 16:55, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
• Keep. This article is (as is unfortunately the case with many social science articles) far from perfect and could use extensive reworking. But it has a number of scholarly sources to draw from, only some of which have WP:SYNTH issues, so per WP:PRESERVE I don't think WP:TNT applies. Speaking as a sociologist, I've seen this term around enough that I don't buy WP:NEOLOGISM as a rationale. I share *Treker's concerns about the title—"sexual racism" is a loaded phrase that does not have universal or even widespread acceptance. But we have no article on racial sexual preferences other than this except for racial fetishism, which is a separate enough topic that I don't think they should be merged, so this is the page to develop. WP:Deletion is not cleanup. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:40, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree very strongly with this, this is a notable topic, its just a sub-part article as of now with an even worse title. I do believe that there is content worth salvaging nonetheless.★Trekker (talk) 23:56, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
• Keep per Sdkb and possibly rename to "Racial sexual preference," as some people seem to have a visceral reaction to the word "racism." pburka (talk) 00:00, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:46, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Meadowsweet, California

Meadowsweet, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Durham calls it a location on the Pacific Northwestern RR. Another source says it was the site of the Meadowsweet Dairy. NO indication that it was ever a community. Does not meet basic notability standards. Glendoremus (talk) 23:26, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 00:37, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Delete: Agreed, there is doubt this ever was a community. As per nom, fails basic notability. -- Whiteguru (talk) 11:57, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• delete Interestingly, in the topos the name doesn't appear until the dense little subdivision immediately south shows up; before that, the spot on the railroad is labelled "San Clemente". Mangoe (talk) 21:14, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) TamilMirchi (talk) 15:54, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Arthi Venkatesh
• Articles for deletion/Arthi Venkatesh (2nd nomination)

Arthi Venkatesh

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

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

She has only acted in one film. WP:Too early. TamilMirchi (talk) 23:19, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 23:19, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 23:19, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Strong keep. Added sources. As she says herself, she's "a model, not an actress". In fact, probably Chennai's most prominent non-filmi model over the last decade. Neutral Fan (talk) 00:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment As a model, what makes her notable? Has she won significant awards? Per WP:Entertainer, does she Have a large fan base or a significant "cult" following or has she made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment?TamilMirchi (talk) 00:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Umm, (1) Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions - 250 runway shows and more than 350 photo shoots / New York Fashion Week / Solo (2017) / numerous shows - all taking place over a ten year period seems significant. (2) Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following - 346k on Instagram / articles outlining who she is prior to her acting debut etc suggest this (3) Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment - as a model, I guess she's done as much as she can? Neutral Fan (talk) 00:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I agree. Kindly keep this article.TamilMirchi (talk) 00:41, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

TamilMirchi, if you would like to withdraw the nomination, you can follow the procedure for early close at WP:CLOSEAFD. - Roller26 (talk) 02:01, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Keep: Agree with Neutral Fan, the subject is clearly notable and meets WP:BIO. - Roller26 (talk) 01:59, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Delete Agreed with TamilMirchi, One film is not enough to pass notability. Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON. fails WP:NACTOR. Priyanjali singh (talk) 06:33, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment ...maybe because she isn't an actress. It's just a one-off thing. Neutral Fan (talk) 11:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Keep she is not enough for WP:NACTOR #1 because she has only one film. However she meets WP:BASIC as "multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject", already referenced in the article. Moreover; she has been walked the runway at the international level fashion show New York Fashion Week. I think there is sufficient evidence that she meets WP:GNG. VocalIndia (talk) 09:50, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:47, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

McDonald, California

McDonald, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This one was tough to research. a Google search returns thousands of hits on a certain fast food franchise. Buried in all that, there is one reference that says McDonald was a ranch on Tomales Bay. Durham doesn't mention it. No other hits and nothing that would indicate notability. Glendoremus (talk) 23:19, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 00:47, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Speedy delete Never appeared on USGS topo maps until they decided to import names from NOAA maps without bothering to check them. Just like the negligent user who mass-created these shitty articles by importing them here without checking them! Thanks for the false content! This mentions a McDonald Cove in Tomales Bay, but no hits on a community! Reywas92^Talk 19:31, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:47, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Manzanita, Marin County, California

Manzanita, Marin County, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Another former railroad station mistaken for a community by GNIS. Durham calls it a locality on the Northwestern Pacific RR. No other signs that it is a community or otherwise meets notability standards. Glendoremus (talk) 23:09, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 00:47, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Delete Not a notable communtity. Reywas92^Talk 19:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• delete A marshy spot that the railroad ran through on fill, and then had an early strip of freeway cut across that. There's no sign of any settlement until creeping urban infill overruns the area from the south. Mangoe (talk) 13:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:22, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Tommie Hughes

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

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

Non notable murderer who fails WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, and WP:CRIME. Inexpiable (talk) 23:04, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Inexpiable (talk) 23:04, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Inexpiable (talk) 23:04, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Inexpiable (talk) 23:04, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Delete, does not meet WP:BASIC or WP:GNG, nothing wikisignificant about this criminal or the crime he committed. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails GNG and WP:BASIC. If not for the 1E, they would be completely unknown.   // Timothy :: talk  04:07, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Scrabble with the option of developing some content towards a merger. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Scrabble Slam!

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Scrabble Slam!

Scrabble Slam! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Very short and unsourced article that has no potential for expansion. It hasn't been modified in years and I don't see why this can't just be summarized on the main Scrabble article under the editions section. I love TV and pizza! (talk) 02:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• Looks like [1] has a number of potentially reliable reviews. I'll try to come back and look more deeply later. Hobit (talk) 18:21, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
• Weak delete. There is a short review of a digital implementation(?) at [2]. While there are some other reviews out there, most look like blog-level ones: [3]. We are missing articles on quite a few notable board games, but IMHO this one is on the wrong border of notability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:01, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Delete or merge. A quick overview of WP:GAME left me with the impression that this game doesn't meet any of the criteria outlined therein. It is neither notable, covered in multiple sources or the recipient of any awards. Could possibly be simply merged with Scrabble as well? Both the original Scrabble and this variation seem to be developed by the same manufacturer so I don't see a reason why not include it with the four other variations listed on Scrabble. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 14:39, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
• Delete or merge agree with Nearlyevil665 the game isn't notable enough to warrant its own page, but could be added to the original scrabble page. Nightenbelle (talk) 20:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For whatever reason, this discussion wasn't properly added to the main AfD listings when it was created, so I'm relisting it to ensure there's at least a week of a wider audience looking at it before it gets properly closed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 22:58, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Merge with Scrabble or Delete: I'd say it's interesting and well known enough to merit a merge into the Scrabble article.   // Timothy :: talk  04:14, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: I left a neutrally worded mention of this AfD at the Scrabble talk page].   // Timothy :: talk  04:19, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:33, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Canadian University Software Engineering Conference

Canadian University Software Engineering Conference (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article has remained without cited sources since creation. Lack of available secondary sources, does not meet notability guidelines. BLDM (talk) 21:02, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 00:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 00:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 00:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Delete: Insufficient citations to conference events, keynotes, speakers and outcomes. Fails WP:GNG -- Whiteguru (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn (non-admin closure) Mhhossein ^talk 12:40, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Lumley Jones

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

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER. Lettler^hello 20:56, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^hello 20:56, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^hello 20:56, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Lettler^hello 20:56, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Lettler^hello 20:56, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Delete while his rank of Brigadier General satisfies #2 of WP:SOLDIER that is only a presumption that "they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources" however that is not the case here and so he fails WP:GNG. Being the last of 12 British Generals to die on the Somme, even if true, isn't notable, as there were apparently 11 others killed before him. Mztourist (talk) 05:01, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Keep. Clearly does meet WP:SOLDIER, so the nomination is incorrect. This recent trend of nominating articles for deletion even though they satisfy accepted notability guidelines (and yes, WP:SOLDIER is one) is getting a little tedious. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Keep I've add a reference to his UK Who's Who entry; also doesn't the fact that he was awarded France's Legion of Honour and his rank of Brigadier General give him notability? Piecesofuk (talk) 17:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Withdrawing nomination At the time of nomming this, I was in a rush and did not see that Jones was a brigadier general. Lettler^hello 18:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. [4] Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) ——Serial 08:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Edward Weld (Senior)

Edward Weld (Senior) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

local notable, involved in a few trivial incidents. No lasting influence on the historical record DGG ( talk ) 20:52, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Keep I think there's plenty of coverage among the sources cited in the article, along with ones from reputable journals such as this article in Urology; sure, maybe not the most important historical character, but definitely an interesting one with decent coverage. I don't see any harm in keeping the article. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 02:33, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Keep Article has been expanded significantly since this AfD was filed, with numerous sources to book and historical journals. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:35, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Keep As said above the article has been expanded since the AFD started. There are also enough sources provided for an article. CreativeNorth (talk) 13:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Keep Article content and supporting material speaks for itself. --Po Mieczu (talk) 21:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Keep - an important article that speaks to so many important things that are historic and well documented. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• 'withdraw the AfD nomination' I still think is sub- encyclopedic , but I know when I'm out!voted. DGG ( talk ) 23:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 06:16, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Prosecution of Marte Dalelv

Prosecution of Marte Dalelv (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is an article about a woman who was jailed in UAE for some weeks in 2013. Started by a now blocked editor: the whole thing is not worthy of an article Huldra (talk) 20:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Huldra (talk) 20:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - Without taking a stance right now. This article went through an AfD which ended in a overwhelming Keep consensus.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

User:BabbaQ Link, please? Huldra (talk) 22:51, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marte_Dalelv_rape_incident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trying to reconnect (talk • contribs) 23:35, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Keep - per the previous discussion. Trying to reconnect (talk) 23:36, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Keep - Per extensive coverage WP:GEOSCOPE. And WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 11:46, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:50, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Capital Mall

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

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

• Delete: The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Subject does not have coverage that meets significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. WP:BEFORE revealed advertising, annoucements, events, promos which any mall would have and directory style listings.

Here is a source table. None of the sources is about the mall.

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
"Bottom Of The 9Th -- But Frederick & Nelson Owner David Sabey Vows Game Isn't Over Yet". Seattle Times.			This iis not an article about the mall. It is an article about Frederick & Nelson	✘ No
"Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2013-11-15.	? Dead link with no indication of where it went or what it was about	? Dead link with no indication of where it went or what it was about	Dead link with no indication of where it went or what it was about	✘ No
Dick's Sporting Goods sets date for Olympia store grand opening". The Olympian.			This is an article about Dick's Sporting Goods. It is not an article about the mall.	✘ 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}}.

BEFORE showed no other sources that would establish WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD.   // Timothy :: talk  19:49, 30 August 2020 (UTC)   // Timothy :: talk  19:49, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  19:49, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  19:49, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  19:49, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Keep 106 store regional shopping mall in Washington State. Passes WP:GEOFEAT. There is much RS available. Lightburst (talk) 20:35, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• Keep for reasons cited by User:Lightburst. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:19, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Question @Lightburst:,

re: it is stated above "There is much RS available." but you didn't list any. Please list the RS you found so everyone (including the closer) can evaluate them. ISimply stating something exists is not enough. See WP:DISCUSSAFD.

re: WP:GEOFEAT states, "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." What significant coverage is there that show its historic, social, economic, or architectural importance?

I look forward to your answers; if you have new sources, I'll gladly add them to the table above so the closer can evaluate everything easily.   // Timothy :: talk  02:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Speedy keep, yet another faulty nomination by TimothyBlue. His breakneck pace here and failure to explain how any of the coverage in question is WP:ROUTINE even when other editors are clearly arguing in favor of keeping, and proving without question that the coverage is WP:NOTROUTINE, smacks of clearly disruptive behavior intended to make a point. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:14, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• The above table clearly addresses why each source mentioned does not show notability.   // Timothy :: talk  04:35, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• I have added even more sourcing that is clearly and specifically about the mall, showing its long-term impact on the community. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Keep Additional sources make this clear keep. MB 16:55, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:09, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Fateme Mohammadi Maklavani

Fateme Mohammadi Maklavani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, coverage appears to be limited to mere mentions and the awards won don't add up to WP:ANYBIO. Previously declined at AfC, the primary editors for the article appear to have conflicts of interest as well. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:44, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:44, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:44, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:44, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Delete going by their CV, the accomplishments seem to be run of the mill. I get no RS in an English search for "Fateme Mohammadi Maklavani". They received their master's degree in 2015, so it is likely WP:TOOSOON.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• Delete meets neither WP:CREATIVE nor WP:ANYBIO.Nightdevil (talk) 00:36, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Trying to promote the subject with claims that are no supported by the source isn't going to convince anyone. "recognized all around the world" is sourced to a website that lists awards for which the subject was nominated or other forms of recognition in Tehran, IRAN, Tehran, Tehran, Tehran, Tehran, Tehran, Golpaygan, Tehran, Tehran and, as Finalist for the Taipei International Design Award, Taiwan. Vexations (talk) 18:46, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Barbara Poppe

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

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

A government agency director turned private consultant in a niche field who have connection. When a government agency obtain reports, they often make it available to the public which is then picked up by the media and that's just how it is. The person does not pass the ANYBIO criteria. The article was also crated by someone working for as made evident by the "ich" suffix in the article creator's name.

"The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times." - does not appear so.

"The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field." does not appear so. not widely recognized after doing google scholars search.

"The person has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication." - nope Graywalls (talk) 20:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 20:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 20:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Logs: 2020-08 move to → Draft:Barbara Poppe

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio 11:16, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 18:34, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Ghotki Jo Awaz

Ghotki Jo Awaz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The websites are empty and the Facebook page does not indicate any notability, so I suspect this fails WP:GNG. Sending to AfD instead of PROD because additional info might be available in the Sindhi language, which I do not read or speak. Raymie (t • c) 02:51, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 02:51, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 02:51, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 02:51, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 18:33, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Delete Lacks news sources. I could not find any news in Google news. Expertwikiguy (talk) 01:18, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:33, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Wild About Animals

Wild About Animals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article about a show with little notability, no sources, and a clear violation of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists --ZLMedia 16:22, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --ZLMedia 16:22, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio 11:21, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 18:29, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Delete: The entire article is nothing but a three sentence stub that has remained undeveloped since its creation way-back in 2009. Not even the network it aired on or its original air date have been mentioned, for crying out loud! TheRedDomitor (talk) 13:38, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: The article was truncated by its author shortly after I nominated it, as it had a list of the show's affiliates, albeit incomplete and unsourced. However, for this reasoning here, I still stand by my nomination. --ZLMedia 23:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Comment: Not that listing a bunch of unsourced affiliates for the series around the US would have helped in establishing notability, but by truncating the article the author has only further diminished its value. All the more reason for deletion. TheRedDomitor (talk) 02:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Delete As per TheRedDomitor, there is nothing there in the article; bereft of notability of any kind. --Whiteguru (talk) 12:51, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:13, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Saïd Akl

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

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

Very confusing. This entirely unsourced article is currently disambiguated from Said Akl. The Said Akl described in this article appears to be the father of the Said Akl described in [5] (in French) (appears notable). The Said Akl born 1888 (i.e., the subject of this article) is also mentioned in [6], but it looks like a namedrop and I don't read German. I can't find anything else about this one, so appears to fail WP:GNG. I suppose this article could be entirely rewritten to be about the Said Akl described in the obit I cited, but that would be a bizarre kind of ATD, wouldn't it? frwiki and arwiki seem only to have articles on the very famous Said Akl. Hopefully someone can help clear this up. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:51, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:51, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:51, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio 11:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 18:29, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. Two sources have been added since I nominated this. An auto-translate of the first gives a sentence or two about Akl; the second does not appear reliable. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
• Delete I cannot get the translation to work on the first source; the second source is pointless. Lacking suitable sources, its TNT time. --Whiteguru (talk) 12:54, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 06:17, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Sricharan Pakala

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

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

The subject fails WP:GNG as well as WP:COMPOSER or WP:ENT. Less Unless (talk) 14:30, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:16, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:16, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment This is the only source I could find.TamilMirchi (talk) 18:14, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio 11:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 18:28, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Keep His works as a composer in various films is a notability factor. I can see enough independent reliable references such as TOI, Thehindu, Priyanjali singh (talk) 07:05, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Keep: Per WP:COMPOSER, "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition.", which includes notable films and there are at least fifteen in this case. Also received coverage from sources such as The Hindu.--Ab207 (talk) 20:53, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Keep as he passes WP:COMPOSER as confirmed in reliable sources so deletion is not necessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:14, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Keep Well established musician with 18 movie credits in 2 indian languages and few Telivision music composition credits as well. Singharaju (talk) 00:25, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
• Keep Should be enough to establish notability, although in it’s current form probably needs maintenance. Eternal Shadow Talk 17:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 redirect's undeletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:02, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Tuncer Cakmakli Architects

Tuncer Cakmakli Architects (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable. evrifaessa ❯❯❯ talk 09:19, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. evrifaessa ❯❯❯ talk 09:19, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. evrifaessa ❯❯❯ talk 09:19, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:45, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Turns out, they actually won the award [7] (Page 36). I dont know how notable that award is, it only has a Swedish Wikipage [8]. ~Styyx ^{Hi! ^-^} 09:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio 16:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio 11:21, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 18:28, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Miss Earth 2020

Miss Earth 2020 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There is no evidence that this pageant actually exists; it is not listed at the sponsoring organization's website [9], and is likely to have been canceled like other 2020 pageants. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:57, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I can confirm that "the Miss Universe pageant has been postponed indefinitely" (Kim Velsey, Reuters, today), although it also has an article. Therefore am bundling it for deletion as well. ☆ Bri (talk) 13:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Miss Universe 2020 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Redirect to Miss Earth and Miss Universe, respectively, until details become clearer. It's very possible that both pageants will just be postponed to later dates. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 14:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Changing my vote to keep for Miss Earth 2020 per sources confirming it will take place, but I am now undecided on Miss Universe 2020. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 03:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Keep As per reliable sources, the pageant is not cancelled. The Philippine Star reported that Miss Earth 2020 will still push through in a virtual coronation night on November 29 despite the pandemic due to the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) while ABS-CBN reported that Miss Earth 2020 to push through with virtual pageant on Nov. 29. More reliable sources can be found at google news.---Richie Campbell (talk) 15:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Keep both articles. That the Miss Universe 2020 will be scheduled as planned and still in-person stage with a mandatory quarantine is required. Unlike the other two Big Four pageants, Miss International and Miss World, cancelled their 2020 pageants and their next pageants will be held in 2021 instead. ApprenticeFan work 15:14, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• @ApprenticeFan: I don’t follow. Is there a source that Miss Universe 2020 will occur? ☆ Bri (talk) 18:32, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Keep Miss Earth 2020 is good to go as a virtual contest as stated by The Philippine Star in another article regarding the Philippine delegate's preparation for the said pageant. ---Viridian80 (talk) 12:30, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• Keep - both. Miss Earth will happen. Digitally. And Miss Universe has not been cancelled officially as of yet. Sourcing are extensive for the material provided in both articles. WP:GNG applies.BabbaQ (talk) 11:48, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

To the contrary, Miss Universe 2020 itself is not referenced at all. Every reference in the article now is for national pageants only. We should not have articles about events which can not be demonstrated to exist or ever will exist. ☆ Bri (talk) 12:51, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• Keep - both. It has already been confirmed that Miss USA is going to be celebrated in November 9, that pageant is directly related to Miss Universe. The event is going to happend in 2021 (January, February or March). Is not the first time that the year's pageant is celebrated in the next. I think is exagerated to delete the article Mauriziok (talk) 11:35, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:11, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Barnard Public Safety Shuttle

Barnard Public Safety Shuttle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Only primary sources. Could be a redirect to the college, but an editor insists on recreating it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:52, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:52, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:53, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Jumpytoo Talk 20:42, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Delete Per nom. Bus lines are not presumably notable and I didn't find anything that indicates notability. Jumpytoo Talk 20:48, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• Merge I think that a Keep would be unfounded. However a merge to Barnard College would be good. Best, MTATransitFan^Chat! 14:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:01, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• Delete. Most universities and colleges have services like this. Maybe a mention in the college article is warranted, but this sort of detail is completely unnecessary. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
• Comment @Necrothesp: would a merge to Barnard College be warranted?
• Delete. Every major college in the US has one of these, and there is nothing to suggest that Barnard's is anything special. There is no reason to merge, as this is entirely routine. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:06, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Code For Host

Code For Host (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No indication of notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:49, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:49, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:49, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:49, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Delete per nom ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 21:29, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Delete: Barely found anything about the site. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --SalmanZ (talk) 14:17, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Forgotten Cats

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

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

A small (revenues under $1M/year per [10]) local charity doing excellent work that appears to fail WP:NORG. There is some coverage in The Times Herald, a small local paper (e.g., [11], [12]), but I'm not finding non-WP:ROUTINE coverage that clears WP:AUD requirements. Tagged for notability for over a decade. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:31, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:31, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:31, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:31, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Delete: Agreed, this fails WP:AUD ... too many of the references are primary. -- Whiteguru (talk) 11:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Delete Fails AUD, too few quality sources. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:16, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Prince Eudes of Orléans-Braganza

Prince Eudes of Orléans-Braganza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article was deleted from Wikipedia in Portuguese. He is not notable because the Brazilian imperial throne does not exist any more since 1889 (and that's one of the reasons the article about the succession to the Brazilian throne was deleted) and according to the article, "He renounced any rights of succession to the defunct Brazilian throne for himself and his descendants on 3 June 1966". Bolhones (talk) 15:02, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bolhones (talk) 15:02, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Bolhones (talk) 15:02, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Delete: The Brazilian Imperial Throne has been defunct for over a 130 years and the article is mainly a genealogical record with zero notability of its own. TheRedDomitor (talk) 15:09, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• Keep An informational article about a prince must not be deleted.Priyanjali singh (talk) 07:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment There are several precedents for deletion of "informational articles" about Brazilian Princes: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. In Brazil, monarchist movements are very weak. The Brazilian imperial family has basically zero political power after more than 100 years that the throne does not exist. That is the reason why articles about them are frequently deleted from Wikipedia in Portuguese: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 (AfDs Wikipedia in Portuguese). Nowadays members of the imperial family are basically normal people, most of them are not even close to be celebrities. Bolhones (talk) 12:37, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Delete- Nothing but a geneological record. Sunshine1191 (talk • contribs) 09:36, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, purely genealogical article. VocalIndia (talk) 10:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 07:19, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

1994–95 Newport A.F.C. season

1994–95 Newport A.F.C. season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Clear WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG failure. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 14:51, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 14:51, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - playing well below pro level and nothing remarkable about this season Spiderone 16:35, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 16:36, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - fails NSEASONS. GiantSnowman 16:42, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 57 20:34, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Eternal Shadow Talk 18:13, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Seeta Aur Geeta (TV series)

Seeta Aur Geeta (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A stub article that fails to meet Wikipedia:GNG and does not cite a single reference to verify its contents. The said series is an exact remake of the movie of the same name it is inspired by, on whose page its existence and important info regarding the series have been noted. This completely eliminates the need for a stand alone article. Sunshine1191 (talk) 14:45, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Sunshine1191 (talk) 14:45, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sunshine1191 (talk) 14:45, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia should not have any articles sourced only to the subject's own website.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Keep I have expanded and improved the article with reliable references and information. Noobie anonymous (talk) 07:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
• Keep per article improvements. This is sufficiently referenced now. matt91486 (talk) 08:15, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
• Keep - appears to meet GNG now Spiderone 22:27, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
• Keep. Per the notes above, and the additions to references that have been made. Going forward, I would recommend that the nominator consider additional sources that might exist (and not just base their nominations on the references that have been included in the article) before triggering an AfD process. This could have been handled with tags on the page to expand sourcing. e.g. Sources Exist tag. Ktin (talk) 18:13, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Replying to Ktin (talk · contribs): My nomination is not completely based on the lack of references in the article and I still stand by it as I don't feel that a stand-alone article is required for the series. The article does not contain anything that makes it notable and distinct from the movie it based on. The primary information in the article; cast names and broadcast history (90 episodes instead of 260) can easily be convered under a section of the parent movie. Also, the article has an average traffic of less than 500 views per month and majority of the edits to the article since the show's conclusion in 2009 have been either template fixes or vandalism, which would have basically made tagging for clean-up useless. However, if the general consensus is towards keeping the article then so be it. Sunshine1191 (talk) 02:36, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

    Sunshine1191, I think there is a misunderstanding. When you say "converted under a section of a parent movie," I think you might be missing the point that there is no parent movie. This is an independent series. Also, I don't agree that traffic views should be a reason to delete an article. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 02:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

    • @Ktin (talk · contribs) No...it isn't. Seeta Aur Geeta is a 1972 Indian movie with Hema Malini playing the double role of twins separated at birth. The above stated series is an exact frame to frame remake of that movie with nothing distinct. That is the entire reason why I started this discussion. The reason I mentioned the traffic views is that in your entry above you stated that instead of starting an Afd, tagging for sources would have been wiser. The point I was trying to make is that for a page with less viewers as this one, improvement tags generally go unnoticed for years on end, which makes adding them useless.Sunshine1191 (talk) 03:35, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

      Sunshine1191, I see what you are saying. You are suggesting a remake / adaptation. But, I wouldn't call it a parent movie, and no fundamental relation between the two other than one taking the story of the other. I dont think that will be reason to club the articles. Irrespective, I think this article has references as pointed above (and now in the article) that indicates that this notable as a television series. That is my perspective. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 03:50, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I have further added references and contents and also listed few related categories.Noobie anonymous (talk) 12:16, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. . Note that Cewbot is incorrect; a soft deletion can only be inappropriate if deletion such as PROD was previously challenged, which has never happened. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:54, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Kendall Stewart

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

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

The article is about a local city council member who doesn't seem to be notable for anything. The only coverage he has is for a single scandal and some extremely trivial mentions about other things that are barely related to him. None of it passes WP:GNG and his position isn't politically high enough for him to pass WP:POLITICIAN. It's also worth mentioning that this article was deleted through an AfD in 2006 (apparently it wasn't enough notable for the lax rules back then) and was recreated without being improved at all. Apparently it wasn't even notable enough for the lax notability guidelines that were around back then. As far as I'm concerned, it should be deleted a second time. As he's not notability now either. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:28, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it was previously discussed at AfD and the result was delete. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Previous discussions: 2006-08 ✗ delete

Logs: 2006-08 ✗ deleted

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Chiratae Ventures

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

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

WP:PROMO: Content made for Advertising, marketing, or public relations purposes. A spinoff VC firm cannot have the notability of it mother company. Qualifies for WP:TOOSOON. Calling for an AfD discussion. Hatchens (talk) 10:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 10:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 10:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• Delete non notable --Devokewater@ 21:57, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

  Hey Devokewater, you might have to give more than 'non notable'. Did you have chance to look at the below notability assessment? Are you agreeing with the nomination that this is WP:PROMO or even WP:TOOSOON? Please substantiate your vote. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 03:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ktin (talk) when I first researched this company I felt that it failed WP:COMPANY maybe it was a case of WP:TOOSOON however with subsequent reviews my opinion has changed, let the article be improved + developed. Regards --Devokewater@ 09:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• Keep. The subject of this article is clearly notable and meets the WP:GNG guidelines based on a simple assessment below of just a handful of sources. Furthermore, the nominator is making an assumption that the subject is notable only for its spinoff from a global venture group, and that is not accurate. The subject is a venture capital firm with significant investments in the Indian startup ecosystem. The range of their investments can also be seen at prominent venture tracking pages including Crunchbase [13], Bloomberg[14], and Pitchbook [15] to name a few. Further more, this article has been written with an eye towards being factual and meeting the WP:NPOV guidelines and does not qualify as WP:PROMO. In summary, the [WP:GNG] emphasizes a) reliable sources b) Independent of the subject c) signficant coverage d) multitude of those sources -- all of whom are met by this subject.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktin (talk • contribs) 02:04, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.livemint.com/companies/news/chiratae-eyes-first-close-of-150-million-for-latest-india-focused-fund-1568221688692.html	Independent reporting with named author	Livemint is a reliable financial newspaper in India	Entire article dedicated to the subject's news item. viz. close of funding.	✔ Yes
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/small-biz/startups/newsbuzz/chiratae-ventures-out-with-a-fresh-seed-fund-of-35-million-for-new-bets/articleshow/71177877.cms	Independent reporting with named author	Economic Times is a reliable financial newspaper in India from the Times of India group	Entire article is dedicated to news about the subject and not just a passing mention	✔ Yes
https://www.thehindu.com/business/Industry/idg-ventures-india-re-brands-to-chiratae-ventures/article25177283.ece	Independent article with dedicated correspondent	The Hindu is a reliable newspaper in India	Entire article is dedicated to the subject and the news related to the subject	✔ Yes
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}}.

• • Comment I note you have not referred to the relevant guidelines for companies which is WP:NCORP and as such, your analysis completely missed the two vital sections of WP:NCORP - WP:CORPDEPTH which requires in-depth information on the company and (relevant to your sources) WP:ORGIND which has this to say in relation to "Independent Content": Too often a related party produces a narrative that is then copied, regurgitated, and published in whole or in part by independent parties (as exemplified by churnalism). 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. The template you are using is a generic GNG template. The livemint reference is based on "anonymous" sources and fails even as an RS. The indiatimes reference is based on an announcement, fails ORGIND. The thehindu reference is based on an interview with a company executive. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• Keep per sources table above. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Expanding on my keep !vote per Ktin's recent ping. All of the sources in the sources table above—The Economic Times, Livemint, and The Hindu—are major Indian newspapers, at least one of which (The Hindu) is described at Wikipedia:Perennial sources as generally reliable and should be treated as a newspaper of record. While it is true, as noted below, that the articles listed in the sources table are sourced primarily to quotes with people close to the firm, that's not fatal in my view because these are major newspapers that publish serious journalism. And, although they do feature quotes from those close to the firm, they are not merely repackaged press releases, as they include analysis that goes beyond the quotes provided. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 04:50, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• Delete Not a single reference cited meets the criteria for establishing notability. References are either based on company announcements, or announcements of their investments by partners, etc, or interviews, none of which meet WP:ORGIND. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion or a substitute for a corporate website or the Yellow Pages. I am unable to locate a single reference which meets the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP/GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:07, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Per the guidelines allowed at WP:APPNOTE, I am tagging the following users who have been active in recent topical AfDs to expand the available views. @Ab207:, @Tayi Arajakate:, @MaysinFourty:. Copying Admin @Eddie891: to ensure transparency. Ktin (talk) 19:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• Delete: I don't share the positive view of the sources discussed above, instead regarding these as announcement coverage which falls under the trivial coverage category at WP:CORPDEPTH. My own searches find these and more of the same, including coverage in the past week of investment by CDC Group in a fund, all of which confirms this as a firm going about its business, but I am not seeing evidence of attained encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 20:39, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: I'll have to agree in part that the coverage of the company does not seem to meet WP:CORPDEPTH at least with the sources shown till now which have a greater requirements of coverage than WP:GNG to be considered notable. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 01:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. WP:NCORP emphasizes the need for coverage about a subject (a company) to be a) Significant b) Independent c) Reliable d) Secondary. All of the news articles about this investment fund meet the above criteria. Now, specifically to the point on WP:CORPDEPTH - Corpdepth can be tested by running the articles against the listing of trivial coverage and proving that this is not trivial coverage. E.g. trivial coverage as WP:CORPDEPTH notes are 'simple listings or compilations', 'standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage', and 'brief or passing mentions'. You can see that the news items that have been highlighted are clearly not trivial at least based on above criteria. Specifically to the statement about this being a 'firm going about its business'. Absolutely. Almost all firms go about their business, and do not set out with a stated objective to be encyclopedic. But, 'going about their business' in turn can create value that will translate to notability, like this one. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 03:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

*Delete: I'm sorry to say that despite appearances this VC lacks significant and independent coverage. Most of the links I found were primary sources/interviews/announcements (which, shockingly, I discovered is the case for everything at Category:Venture capital firms of India -- but, sigh, that's another story..). The Hindu, too, is not infallible, as we've seen multiple times on these pages. Their story is based on this press release with direct quotes picked up from it. I can find mentions of the company but, honestly, not the kind of significant coverage associated with encyclopaedic notability. This seems to me to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Let some time pass; let it breathe; let it affect the zeitgeist. Allow it to make a mark in the industry, to dictate business trends, and be independently reported on, something that captures its relevance -- apart from the bread-and-butter funding stories found in the pink papers. (As an aside, to understand what significant coverage looks like in this sector, one can observe Sequoia Capital India backed by articles like this Bloomberg Quint piece and even better and solid academic sources like this Venture Capital Investments (SAGE Publications, ISBN 9789353884161). The time will, perhaps, eventually come when the reliable sources for Chiratae Ventures will shout "notable". But that time, in my humble opinion, is not now. Best regards, MaysinFourty (talk) 07:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Delete: Agree with MaysinFourty's reasoning. CORPDEPTH needs "the level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements." It does not seem to be the case here, the sources more or less speak about the same thing. While they may not be trivial, they are routine for any investment fund. --Ab207 (talk) 15:23, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

MaysinFourty is a sockpuppet. Mohanabhil (talk) 14:09, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Withdrawing my vote. The firm has received reliable and non-trivial coverage even after a year. It is to be assessed whether they would meet CORPDEPTH. Ab207 (talk) 12:40, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

• Keep Meets WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. These sources[16][17] are fairly recent. Mohanabhil (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
• Keep Agree. Meets WP;GNG and WP:NCORP due to recent sources.

TruthLover123 (talk) 06:39, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. The nomination has been countered with the provision of sources, although claims of promotionalism in the nomination were not addressed much in the discussion. The nominator has not commented on the sources provided later in the discussion, and the user that !voted to delete after the nomination stated later in the discussion, "I will not re-analyse further referencing, it's hard work". As such, it appears that the sources presented later in the discussion were not addressed by either. Conversely and relative to this, there is an overall consensus here that the subject meets notability guidelines per the sources presented herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:18, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Ravi Venkatesan

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Straightaway PR/Advertising WP:PROMO. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. Hatchens (talk) 10:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 10:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 10:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• Delete AfD is the correct venue, though this would normally be a speedy deletiin candidate, AfD provides protection against re-creation.

None of the references are worth anything in establishing the alleged notabiity of the gentleman. We have pasisng mentions, blogs by him, one that is 404 error. This smacks of editing for pay, so I have applied a warnng template to the creating editor's talk page. The revision acceptd at AFC had a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion procrss (AFC brief to reviewers) so was a correct acceptance by the reviewer. Indeed no-one saw any problems with it for over a month, and after several more edits. I do not suggest we revert to that version, just to delete it Fiddle Faddle 10:44, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• I have taken some time to analyse the references in detail from this permalink current at the time of analysis

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.bloomberg.com/profile/person/3502939	Bloomberg has an excellent reputation, though it is also a news aggregator and carries verbatim press releases	Bloomberg has an excellent reputation	? This is an external verification of the subject's resume, but has nothing to do with his notabiity	? Unknown
https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/people/ravi-venkatesan/	~ 404 error	~ 404 error	404 error	✘ No
https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2018/sep/28/ravi-venkatesan-appointed-unicefs-special-representative-of-young-people-1878383.html	this ia a paced PR article - press release	PR	Good coverage, but PR	✘ No
https://massentrepreneurship.org/about-us/ravi-venkatesan/	He founded the org	This is the founder's profile	Good coverage, suitable for uncontested facts	✘ No
https://unitus.vc/team/	He is a ventyure partner	Thsi is almost certanoly created by the subject	Good coverage, suitable for uncontested facts	✘ No
https://www.livemint.com/Companies/CrzMaOAEiGUAOAggo9vNFK/Let-PSU-manage-themselves-says-BoB-chief-Ravi-Venkatesan.html	The is a press release via Bloomberg	Press release	By definition a press release is not significant coverage	✘ No
https://www.livemint.com/companies/start-ups/arkam-ventures-gets-rs-325-crore-for-its-fund-to-invest-in-early-stage-technology-startups-11591559097123.html	Named writer	does not appear to be a paid article	Passng mention	✘ No
https://www.financialexpress.com/industry/sme/msme-eodb-30-per-cent-of-stimulus-package-must-be-released-for-micro-and-small-units-says-game-task-force/2007496/	Named writer	Named writer	Passing mention	✘ No
https://smefutures.com/nitin-gadkari-announced-recommendation-report-to-boost-the-msme-sector/	Named writer	Presuned relaibale	one passing mention, and some interview statements by the subject	✘ No
https://www.livemint.com/news/india/fixing-msmes-crucial-for-atma-nirbhar-bharat-taking-on-china-ravi-venkatesan-11593347760776.html	Named writer	Interview with the subject	The interview is the main thrust of the artticle	✘ No
https://www.amazon.com/Conquering-Chaos-Win-India-Everywhere/dp/1422184307?donateandsmile=1	Sales site for a book by the subject	Book sales are not reliable	Self promtion book blurb	✘ No
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/blogs/author/ravivenkatesan/	Blog blurb by the subject	Blog blurb by the subject	Blog blurb by the subject	✘ 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}}.

Unfortunately this shows that the creating editor and I differ about the qualifty of sourcing. This is the level of diligence Wikipedia requires when assessing references, though it is not often formalised in this manner. I have not sought additional references. The onus is on those who wish to verify notabikity to provide those, so I ask them to use the same diligence Fiddle Faddle 18:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Responding to above comment, I want to call out that the above post is not truly evaluating notability because the post is looking at links that have been used to prove specific points rather than links that point to the subject's general notability. E.g. The link to his book, was a link from a bookstore. The link showing his current designation is a link to his profile on a related website. Those should not be reasons to disallow his notability. However, I have taken a shot at filling a table proving that there are significant sources to prove notability and all with mainstream reliable media sources. With this I believe that the subject definitely meets the WP:GNG guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY and should continue to remain. In summary, the WP:GNG guidelines emphasizes a) reliable sources b) Independent of the subject c) signficant coverage d) multitude of those sources -- all of whom are met by this subject. Please see table below.

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.financialexpress.com/industry/ravi-venkatesan-quits-infosys-board-a-look-at-his-professional-journey-so-far/1164597/	Financial Express w/ Named Author	Financial Express satisfies reliability tests for Financial News in India	Article fully devoded to subject, and not just a passing mention.	✔ Yes
https://indianexpress.com/article/world/indians-abroad/ravi-venkatesan-joins-rockefeller-foundation-board/	Syndicated article from Press Trust of India	Reliability checks for both Indian Express as well as Press Trust of India (news agency akin to Reuters, AP etc. but focused on India)	Entire article devoted to subject being inducted into the Rockefeller Foundation with quotes attributed to key existing members and leaders of the foundation	✔ Yes
https://www.livemint.com/news/india/fixing-msmes-crucial-for-atma-nirbhar-bharat-taking-on-china-ravi-venkatesan-11593347760776.html	Source is a named author independent of the subject	Livemint is a reliable publication in India for Financial news	Entire article is dedicated to subject's views as opposed to just a passing mention	✔ Yes
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/company/corporate-trends/ex-infosys-independent-director-ravi-venkatesan-in-talks-for-a-big-role-at-amazon-india/articleshow/64151465.cms	Article by named author independent of the subject	Economic Times is a reliable Financial newspaper in India and part of the Times of India group	Entire article is on the subject and is not just a passing mention	✔ Yes
https://www.livemint.com/Companies/LJ63TYZl75qUsnnWZgeXWJ/Ravi-Venkatesan-resigns-as-independent-director-of-Infosys.html	Source is a named author independent of the subject	Livemint is a reliable publication in India for Financial news	Entire article is dedicated to subject's views as opposed to just a passing mention	✔ Yes
https://www.thehindu.com/business/Industry/ravi-venkatesan-who-is-bridging-the-gap-at-infosys/article18446789.ece	Source is a named author independent of the subject	The Hindu is a reliable newspaper in India	Entire article is dedicated to subject and subject's actions as opposed to just a passing mention	✔ Yes
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}}.

Ktin (talk) 01:23, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. Before I respond with the reasons why this article should be 'kept', I want to first answer the COI / Paid editing charge above. I have responded both on my talk page User talk:Ktin#August 2020 and on my user page that I do not have a COI with any of the articles that I edit and I also certify that I am not paid for any of my actions on this site. Ktin (talk) 15:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Ktin, I accept the assertion made here and on your talk page. I have left you a personal comment not relevant to this AfD there Fiddle Faddle 15:51, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• Keep. The subject of the article is a prominent business executive and passes WP:NBIO requirements as well as WP:NOTABILITY. Specifically, he has been the Chairman of Microsoft India, Chairman of Bank of Baroda, and co-chairman of the board at Infosys Technologies amongst a few other. These are significant leadership positions. Furthermore, he has significant media coverage, over and above passing mentions. This meets the notability guideline as called out at WP:NOTE.

Some examples of coverage that is notable and are independent of the topic:

Newspapers and Web based media

1. - LiveMint [18] [19]
2. - The Indian Express / Financial Express [20] [21]
3. - The Economic Times [22] [23] [24]
4. - The Hindu / The Hindu Business Line [25] [26] [27]

All of the above sources are independent of the subject, and are more than a passing mention.

He is in the similar category of Indian Business Executives as the following folks (just indicative) -- S. D. Shibulal, Kris Gopalakrishnan, and most folks in this Category:20th-century_Indian_businesspeople and Category:21st-century Indian businesspeople.

Quality Concerns - This can be a legitimate concern. However, the article has been written with WP:NPOV in mind, without making it seem like a WP:PROMO. However, if there is targeted feedback / recommended changes - these can be worked in parallel when this article is live. This article is a stub, or a start class article, and that can definitely be expanded.

Cheers.

Ktin (talk) 18:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Ktin, If you care to scroll up you will see that we have a different opinion of the referencing. I do not say, nor does the table, that I am correct. What I say and it says is that our opinions differ. Fiddle Faddle 19:00, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Timtrent,

Yes, these seem to have been added after my last edit. I am sure we can rewrite the table based on the ten links that I have just added. So, if it is a matter of augmenting these links to the article -- we can definitely do that. Ktin (talk) 19:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Ktin, I will not re-analyse further referencing, it's hard work. I'll leave it to you to seek to ensure that the notability is correctly asserted and verified It is better references that are required, not more. And some may usefully be set aside. Fiddle Faddle 19:10, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Summarizing my note: In summary, the WP:GNG guidelines emphasizes a) reliable sources b) Independent of the subject c) signficant coverage d) multitude of those sources -- all of whom are met by this subject. Please see the source-assessment-table (pasted below again, for readability).

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.financialexpress.com/industry/ravi-venkatesan-quits-infosys-board-a-look-at-his-professional-journey-so-far/1164597/	Financial Express w/ Named Author	Financial Express satisfies reliability tests for Financial News in India	Article fully devoded to subject, and not just a passing mention.	✔ Yes
https://indianexpress.com/article/world/indians-abroad/ravi-venkatesan-joins-rockefeller-foundation-board/	Syndicated article from Press Trust of India	Reliability checks for both Indian Express as well as Press Trust of India (news agency akin to Reuters, AP etc. but focused on India)	Entire article devoted to subject being inducted into the Rockefeller Foundation with quotes attributed to key existing members and leaders of the foundation	✔ Yes
https://www.livemint.com/news/india/fixing-msmes-crucial-for-atma-nirbhar-bharat-taking-on-china-ravi-venkatesan-11593347760776.html	Source is a named author independent of the subject	Livemint is a reliable publication in India for Financial news	Entire article is dedicated to subject's views as opposed to just a passing mention	✔ Yes
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/company/corporate-trends/ex-infosys-independent-director-ravi-venkatesan-in-talks-for-a-big-role-at-amazon-india/articleshow/64151465.cms	Article by named author independent of the subject	Economic Times is a reliable Financial newspaper in India and part of the Times of India group	Entire article is on the subject and is not just a passing mention	✔ Yes
https://www.livemint.com/Companies/LJ63TYZl75qUsnnWZgeXWJ/Ravi-Venkatesan-resigns-as-independent-director-of-Infosys.html	Source is a named author independent of the subject	Livemint is a reliable publication in India for Financial news	Entire article is dedicated to subject's views as opposed to just a passing mention	✔ Yes
https://www.thehindu.com/business/Industry/ravi-venkatesan-who-is-bridging-the-gap-at-infosys/article18446789.ece	Source is a named author independent of the subject	The Hindu is a reliable newspaper in India	Entire article is dedicated to subject and subject's actions as opposed to just a passing mention	✔ Yes
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}}.

Ktin (talk) 02:27, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment While I imagine it will conclude too late for this deletion discussion I have started a discussion about Livemint in the Reliable Sources arena. My opinion clearly differs from that of another editor. Consensus is required from editors wise in assessing sources for futire reference. Fiddle Faddle 07:46, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  Without making this a referendum on Livemint, I want to say that the link / article being considered seems to be a syndication of an article with a named author by-line from Bloomberg viz. this one and not a press-release. I am assuming that just like with any other syndication, there are due partnering agreements in place - Nothing wrong with that per se. Now, if there is an assertion that the latter article is not a piece of original reporting, that charge should be attributed to Bloomberg. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 12:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment In addition, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS is important when assessing sources. Fiddle Faddle 07:52, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 04:45, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:02, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Keep: I agree with Ktin, the subject seems to an important person in Indian business circles. He meets WP:GNG and WP:BIO with or without LiveMint being treated as RS. However LiveMint is definitely one of the top business newspaper in India. His chairmanship of three companies itself is enough to make him notable according to WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE (Infosys is the 5th largest Indian company by market cap being part of both SENSEX and Nifty-50 index, Bank of Baroda is the 3rd largest Bank in India by its business size, Microsoft has a large presence in India due to its market size and talent). His departure from Infosys itself seems to made a huge noise in Indian financial papers. --Roller26 (talk) 00:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Keep: The stature of this fellow in India is significant by way of the corporations he has headed up. Infosys and the Bank of Baroda are huge institutions, and I find that this fellow passes WP:BIO and WP:GNG. I am not terribly taken by the references, but there are other - most significant reasons - to find this fellow passes WP:BIO and WP:GNG -- Whiteguru (talk) 11:38, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Keep - I agree with all the keep arguments made above. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 15:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:42, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Louisville–West Virginia football rivalry

Louisville–West Virginia football rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG. This is one of the dubious "rivalry" articles created by the notorious User:CalebHughes and/or his myriad sockpuppets. It has been tagged for notability for more than two years with no significant improvements made. My searches reveal a lot of mirrors of the Wikipedia article but do not reveal significant coverage in reliable, independent sources of the type required by GNG. Further, the series lacks other indicia of a rivalry: no trophy; no game name; no lengthy history (first game in 1984; last game in 2011); infrequency of play (13 total games); and lack of competitiveness (WV dominated the series, 10–3). Cbl62 (talk) 14:06, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:57, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:57, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:57, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• I'm unconvinced that this is a rivalry notable enough for inclusion in this encyclopedia. Not ready to go either way on this one, but based on the article as written it doesn't look promising.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:02, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. If we included rivalry articles for every pair of teams in the same conference, we'd have a lot of them, 132 for the Pac-12, for instance. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:23, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Both of these teams have real rivalries elsewhere, and this ain't it. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Delete Per all above. Though I should point out to Clarityfiend that if every pair of teams in the same conference had a rivalry article, we'd have 66 from the Pac-12, not 132, since we still wouldn't have duplicate articles for Team X-Team Y rivalry and Team Y-Team X rivalry. Still a bad idea. Smartyllama (talk) 12:49, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• Sigh. Well, at least I was half right. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:43, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Taxi Driver (1981 film)

Taxi Driver (1981 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable film, nothing found during WP:BEFORE to substantiate notability claim. Almost everything found was for the American film of the same name and its relation to the 1981 assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan. PROD was removed because of "notable cast", but notability isn't inherited WP:NOTINHERITED, film must be notable itself, not for the cast. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - concerns around WP:NFILM and WP:GNG Spiderone 14:05, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom. Are you talkin' to me....? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Hey, you're not the only one here. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Delete As I`m an Indian, this film is not notable, so fails WP:NFILM . VocalIndia (talk) 09:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Delete: As this is a 1981 film, Other evidence of notability on WP:FILM applies, and this article fails that criteria. Whiteguru (talk) 11:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to List of AdventHealth hospitals. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:50, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Parker Adventist Hospital

Parker Adventist Hospital (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This hospital doesn't seem notable. The only non-primary sources in the article are about a mass shooting that wasn't connected to the organization except for a few of the victims being taken there and notability isn't inherited. I couldn't find anything about it in a WP:BEFORE either. Except some brief mentions in trivial articles about Covid-19. Which most hospitals are getting coverage for right now. So the subject of this article fails both WP:GNG and WP:NORG. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:55, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• Merge to List of AdventHealth hospitals.Djflem (talk) 05:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Redirect to AdventHealth this is the best thing for this article, this hospital could become notable in the future. A list is a list not an article and shouldn't water down it like that. Catfurball (talk) 16:23, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

What do mean watered down? A list on Wikipedia should be complete as possible given the information available. A redirect to the main organization would dilute that article, wouldn't it?Djflem (talk) 08:45, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Organizations. Djflem (talk) 09:06, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't get how it would dilute the article. Plenty of articles contain lists and have redirects pointed to them. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:46, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

• Merge to List of AdventHealth hospitals. --Whiteguru (talk) 13:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:31, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Prayashchit

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

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

Non notable film with no verifiable reviews found in a WP:BEFORE search, only things found were film database listings and youtube videos. Tagged for notability for over 1 year. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:54, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:54, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:54, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - concerns around WP:NFILM and WP:GNG Spiderone 14:05, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 07:18, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

2010–11 Newport County A.F.C. season

2010–11 Newport County A.F.C. season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NSEASONS as the club was playing non-league football that season. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:53, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:53, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:39, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:39, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Delete per nom; also fails WP:GNG Spiderone 14:39, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 14:47, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Delete fails NSEASONS. GiantSnowman 15:08, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:01, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Keep NSEASONS states that an article should be well-sourced prose, which this is. It does not state that non-league seasons are automatically non-notable. Owain (talk) 09:38, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

It clearly states that the league should be professional in the first line. Aside from that, the article is sourced to nothing more than routine match reports. There is nothing remarkable about this season that will allow it to pass on GNG or NSEASONS. Spiderone 12:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 57 20:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 07:16, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

2002–03 Gateshead F.C. season

2002–03 Gateshead F.C. season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Playing well below the professional level so clear failure of WP:NSEASONS. I can't see anything more than routine match reports so fails WP:GNG as well.

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the exact same reason:

2003–04 Gateshead F.C. season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2004–05 Gateshead F.C. season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2005–06 Gateshead F.C. season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2006–07 Gateshead F.C. season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2007–08 Gateshead F.C. season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Spiderone 13:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:57, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:57, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:57, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 13:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:08, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Delete all per nom. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 14:48, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• Delete fails NSEASONS. GiantSnowman 15:08, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• Delete all per Spiderone.   // Timothy :: talk  18:34, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• Delete all per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 57 20:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Delete all These don't pass the GNG test. So an easy delete from me. HawkAussie (talk) 06:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:31, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Paanch Papi

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

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

Non notable film with no verifiable reviews found in a WP:BEFORE search, only things found were film database listings and youtube videos. Tagged for notability for 4 years. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:51, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:51, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:51, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - concerns around WP:NFILM and WP:GNG Spiderone 14:05, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia needs to end unsourced articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:59, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:41, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

John Fleetwood (curator)

John Fleetwood (curator) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The subject is fairly accomplished, but I can't find any significant secondary coverage about him; all available coverage is mere mentions and interviews. Searching online didn't turn up anything better. Doesn't meet WP:GNG _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:37, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:37, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:37, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Too strict?

I think the strict application of WP:GNG in this category would almost certainly discard any African based art curator, as most would do worst compared to this one, his google search hits ("List of South African Curators + John fleetwood") were quite revealing for me. This curator is definitely notable having worked in at least 3 countries in the African continent. This a good place to start if we are to document African curators. --Thuvack | ^talk 15:41, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

KEEP

Agree with Thuvack, this is a problem that plagues many African articles. Although in this case, there are more support reference articles for this subject than can usually be found. There is not enough coverage of notable people within the art world - and other professions - across Africa (and other developing communities) for these reasons. Please reconsider. Isla Haddow (talk) 04:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is drowning in articles that do not meet GNG. We barely have the resources to maintain articles that actually meet GNG. There is no reason to embrace articles that do not meet GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: Johnpacklambert, you say "There is no reason to embrace articles that do not meet GNG"; but Thuvack and Islahaddow have just provided a reason for accepting this one. You are of course free to reject it for one reason or another; but you might at least acknowledge its utterance. My problem with this article is that it sounds both like a CV (with even a list of "panel discussions" participated in (!)) and promotional: "Fleetwood has been noted for his 20 years of experience in understanding the role of photography and arts practices for social change" (Noted by whom, and where? How does "photography and arts practices" differ from plain "photography and art"? Is understanding [whatever] something of which one has experience?) Perhaps Moenirah would like to return to their creation and remove the excess stuff, and also the promotionalism. -- Hoary (talk) 08:13, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Their reason boils down to "we need to right wrongs" which is not one of the goals of Wikipedia, and explicitly stated as one thing Wikipedia does not try to do.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
    • If the "keep" comments above had read "There's a northern-hemisphere hegemony in curatorship worldwide; we need more articles on Africa-based curators in order to do away with this", I'd agree with you. But they don't. Instead, they're talking about (claimed) weaknesses within Wikipedia. I'd thought that strengthening the weak areas within Wikipedia -- if they really are weak; if strengthening them wouldn't produce more problems -- would be an admirable goal. What do you think of the essay "Wikipedia:Systemic bias" -- is it incompatible with the goals of Wikipedia? -- Hoary (talk) 12:39, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• Keep I also have to agree with Thuvack - if we were to apply WP:GNG to the strictest degree, most curators from Africa would not be eligible. Going through the linked sources and my own research on Google, Mr. Fleetwood might be indeed one of the most prolific and impactful curators in Africa, a fine example for future entries about African curators. However, I do also agree with John regarding the "20 years of experience" sentence - this should either be further elaborated or left out altogether according to WP:PROMO ParanoidAndroid83 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:47, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• update (still keep ;-)) -- as suggested by Hoary and others above (thank you), the writers of the article have worked on the language to reduce the perception of promotionalism. Please can you review and decide accordingly. The article is being written by members of the Art on Our Mind collective being run out of Witswatersrand University in South Africa to ensure that Africa's notable artists and curators are indeed given rightful visibility on global platforms. Although "northern-hemisphere hegemony" and systemic bias were not mentioned in my defence above, this article and others like it are part of a concerted and long term effort to fill the gaps, however they do come up against significant issues with regards to citations, as well as being new-ish editors. Mentorship and guidance would definitely be appreciated. Thanks! Isla Haddow (talk) 08:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. These "new-ish editors": are they students at Wits? If so, they really ought to know that when you make an assertion and follow it with a reference, the reference should back up the assertion. Not just part of the assertion, still less just say something that's vaguely compatible with the assertion. I looked at one "reference": it turned out not to be a reference. I then looked at two more: same thing. Whether or not a biographee meets the requirements for "notability" is something that might be negotiable. But it's simply unacceptable to misrepresent what look like references but in reality are not. -- Hoary (talk) 12:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is consensus here for deletion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:46, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

David Pollard Independent

David Pollard Independent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable single-candidate party which has failed to win any election yet. Mvqr (talk) 13:29, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Doesn't help that the creator of the article is apparently David Pollard himself (at least, the username indicates this). Jmertel23 (talk) 14:04, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• Keep - I hope I am using this "talk" area properly - this is my first time here. Please let me know if I miss any conventions.
  • Regarding "non-notable": I would argue that by following the prescribed registration process with the local Electoral Authority (Elections ACT), that the threshold for notability has been met - at least as much as all the other parties. Further, this article was redlinked from the article on a State level election, indicating the author there felt the article should be created.
  • Regarding "single-candidate": While there are other unannounced candidates running for this party, I don't believe that running a single candidate would be grounds for deletion. There are other parties world-wide built around a single candidate.
  • Regarding "failed to win an election yet": Of the 16 parties contesting this election, 13 have so far failed to win a seat. They have articles given they have a history spanning multiple elections, but so has this candidate.
  • Regarding the autobiographical nature: this article was red-linked from the General Election article 2020 Australian Capital Territory general election, and a user whom I do not know requested I create the article. I did read the guidelines on autobiographical content, and believe I wrote an article that was impartial.

DavidJPollard (talk) 14:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@DavidJPollard: "Notable" does not merely refer to an abstract concept of significance, but to the Wikipedia Notability Guidelines, which this party does not meet. That being said, it appears to have been written impartially, which I appreciate. Happy editing, Noahfgodard (talk) 04:37, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 00:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 00:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:BIO#Politicians_and_judges "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability....". Also, this reads more like an internal party document than an encylopedic summary. Teraplane (talk) 01:35, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Delete no secondary sources, a vanity political party that appears to have 1 member, who isn't personally notable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Delete no demonstration of notability. Noahfgodard (talk) 04:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Weak delete/draftify. Our general practice has been to include articles on all parties registered for federal, state or territory elections (the way our results pages work you really need the link to go somewhere, but I can't see anywhere useful to merge this at this point), but we have made exceptions in the past and this seems like it might be another one, as I can't see any independent coverage whatsoever. This is also not a real "party" as such but a tool for an independent to get his name more prominent on the ballot; normally we'd redirect those to the person, but in this case he isn't notable either. Really any useful independent coverage of the party would probably get me over the line to keep. It may well be that more coverage will be forthcoming as the election draws nearer, so draftifying would also be an appropriate option, although I'm not sure the current content makes that worth it. Frickeg (talk) 08:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Delete, appears to be a WP:PROMO article written in the lead up to the 2020 Australian Capital Territory general election. Cavalryman (talk) 23:31, 31 August 2020 (UTC).
• Delete, does not meet WP:POLITICIAN (has not held office), also WP:NOTPROMOTION, and being an WP:AUTO is not a good look. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Rogermx (talk) 18:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. If there was more coverage on David Pollard, there should be a page for him with the party as a subsection, similar to the precedent of the Tim Storer Independent SA Party. Catiline52 (talk) 09:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
• Delete, per points from Coolabahapple and Frickeq JarrahTree 10:59, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
• Delete, unless he wins an election. I would like to note that this is nothing personal, and ask the candidate to please not be disheartened. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 11:56, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Macao Sam Yuk Middle School

Macao Sam Yuk Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This school doesn't seem notable. All the sources in the article except for one are primary and the one that isn't doesn't even mention the school. I wasn't able to find multiple in-depth reliable sources about it in a WP:BEFORE either. So, this article fails both WP:GNG and WP:NORG.

• Delete - as per WP:NSCHOOL, schools are not inherently notable and need to pass WP:GNG; this school doesn't pass Spiderone 13:55, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:56, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:56, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Kowloon Sam Yuk Secondary School

Kowloon Sam Yuk Secondary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This school doesn't seem notable since all the references in the article are primary. Except for a trivial blog post. I couldn't find anything in-depth in a WP:BEFORE either. All I could find was passing mentions of the school in articles about other things. So, this doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Secondary schools aren't inherently notability either. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - as per WP:NSCHOOL, schools are not inherently notable and need to pass WP:GNG; this school doesn't pass Spiderone 13:55, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:55, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:55, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Delete per above; the school's Cantonese Wiki page is a one line stub, and doesn't even have an article in Chinese. Corachow (talk) 15:40, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• Delete: Per WP:NSCHOOL / WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES this article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. WP:BEFORE revealed only WP:ROUTINE coverage and brief mentions, nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV which addresses the subject directly and in depth   // Timothy :: talk  18:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:50, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Hesham Sallam

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

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

Fails WP:GNG (cites Sallam's CV), his publication record probably doesn't pass WP:PROF (his only significant contribution was naming a single dinosaur that, although it appeared in many news websites, isn't quite popular even amongst paleontology enthusiasts), and it appears to be used as an autobiography by Sallam himself (a User:Mansourasaurus used the edit summary "adding more of my bio" on this page) Atlantis536 (talk) 12:52, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:53, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - this is of course not an argument based on Wikipedia guidelines, but I think that since we have so few articles about non-western scientists, we could be more lax when it comes to articles about them. Otherwise, we risk being unbalanced in favour of western subjects. Remember, many sources about him are probably in Arabic, so it is perhaps misleading that we can't find more sources in English. FunkMonk (talk) 14:20, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Article subjects should be notable, and should not exist for the sole of purpose of trying to promote diversity. If we want to do that, we can create articles on notable non-Western scientists   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:33, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

We should do that, yes. But I'm wondering if there isn't much more about him in Arabic, but I don't remember what the guidelines about this are. Here are some Arabic articles found by searching his name in Arabic, a Scientific American biography it appears:[28] And various other long features:[29][30][31][32] Maybe we can get some Arabic speaking editors to look the sources over. FunkMonk (talk) 14:40, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure, he isn't very notable, plus, his discovery of Mansourasaurus isn't notable either. What do others think? JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 14:58, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I'll try a "tentative keep" for now. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 18:58, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Keep - I have also found an article in German that talks about Sallam.[33]. Between this and some of the Arabic articles, I think that counts as multiple independent published sources with non-trivial information on him, so he appears to meet notability guidelines to me. As far as his significance, he's also the founder of the first vertebrate paleontology program in Egypt, not just the discoverer of one dinosaur. That all said, the article clearly needs considerable improvement. If that improvement turns out to be impossible, I am open to reconsidering my stance, but for now I think we should err on the side of "keep". Ornithopsis (talk) 17:41, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I've made a go at rewriting the article. How does this look? Ornithopsis (talk) 00:26, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Looks good to me, I think the video interview could be put back? It also shows significance. FunkMonk (talk) 07:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

• Keep - adding my formal vote, per Ornithopsis. Naming dinosaurs is not the only way to be a significant palaeontologist, he seems to be doing a lot of things to further paleontology within Egypt (which has otherwise been dominated by Western scientists), and he seems to be supporting many female scientists there as well, which is quite important. There seems to be much more relevant coverage of him in languages other than English, so the article just needs a bit of work. FunkMonk (talk) 17:47, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• Tentative Keep: Agreed with some of the comments above, but if the article doesn't get expanded as expected, I'll probably change my opinion again. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 18:58, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I've added two of the sources above, there seems to be a lot of good stuff about his importance to Egyptian paleontology and where it is heading. Looks like a lot more can be used from these sources. FunkMonk (talk) 20:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

The sources do seem reliable and have a lot of essential info that can be added to the article. I can't understand German, much less Arabic, but luckily there's Google Translate, so it should make things much easier, at least in the translations that is. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 21:51, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)(added to list by Hemiauchenia a couple of days ago.) Coolabahapple (talk) 01:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• Weak keep. With the article contents only, it seems this would be a case of WP:ONEEVENT. But looking around in the web and according to the comments of Ornithopsis, it seems to me that he does pass the average professor test of WP:NPROF. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 01:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Keep: he is not a western scientist, he is an Egyptian palaeontologist with a discovery, a new species of sauropod, Mansourasaurus shahinae. --Whiteguru (talk) 13:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Nilja

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

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. The 1st and 3rd sources are interviews with the actress, other sources are all passing mentions. She hasn't worked in multiple films as lead actress to qualify for WP:NACTOR either. Note that this article was recently created under the name RJ Nilja and was deleted as WP:A7. Also user's edits suggest a COI as the subject's pic being uploaded as own work. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 11:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 11:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 11:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 22:28, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:19, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Zindagi Kahe – Smile Please

Zindagi Kahe – Smile Please (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article is a mere stub that completely fails to meet WP:GNG. Not a single source has been cited throughout the entire article, not to mention that it has been tagged for cleanup for the past eight years without any results. TheRedDomitor (talk) 11:40, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TheRedDomitor (talk) 11:40, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Delete: As per norm. Article about an insignificant series with no reliable references. Sunshine1191 (talk) 13:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:52, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 13:52, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:34, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello Wood

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

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

Promotional article, does not pass WP:NCORP. Most of the sources are not independent. 1292simon (talk) 08:59, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• They seem notable to me. It is true that 6 of the 29 sources are from their websites, but the rest of them aren't (Architect's Forum http://www.epiteszforum.hu is a respected & independent source, as is index.hu, mucsarnok.hu etc.) They won several awards, and even inspired a similar project in Argentina. – Alensha ^talk 15:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• 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, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Logs: 2020-07 ✍️ create, 2020-06 ✗ G11, 2020-06 ✗ deleted, 2020-06 ✗ deleted

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Swoosh. Tone 06:19, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Ari Forman

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

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 09:12, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• Merge to Swoosh. The artist appears to have done just one notable things that gained coverage: the menthol shoes. There is indeed coverage over time on these shoes, but that's about all there is to talk about here. the Swoosh article pretty much already covers it. ThatMontrealIP talk 20:49, 24 August 2020‎ (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Merge- as per ThatMontrealIP 1292simon (talk) 05:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 06:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

War of the stop signs

War of the stop signs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

trivial one event DGG ( talk ) 10:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Keep This is a particular instance of the broad topic which was discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Occupation crossing recently. In my own local area, there's now street warfare over the imposition of low traffic neighbourhoods, in which roads are blocked to through traffic. The BLM protests seem to involve obstructing traffic too and this is causing tempers to rise too. Anyway, the particular topic here is notable – see El Pais. Declaring that it is "trivial" is WP:RUBBISH and so not a valid reason to delete. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:13, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:15, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:15, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Merge to Cerdanya#Modern times. The matter is cited already in the article, and discussed in the context of the divided Cerdanya / Cerdagne (i.e. across the French-Spanish border) in the Epilogue pp278-298 of Boundaries: The Making of France and Spain in the Pyrenees by Peter Sahlins. I doubt there's enough for a whole article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:15, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I think the merge would be acceptable. DGG ( talk ) 20:44, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Keep, not trivial and has continuing coverage: [34], [35], [36], [37].--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 10:36, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Merge to Cerdanya#Modern times per above Reywas92^Talk 18:34, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Keep Passes GNG.★Trekker (talk) 21:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Keep per the sources identifed by Eostrix. — Toughpigs (talk) 21:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• KEEP sources found to prove it passes the general notability guidelines. Interesting to read, seems significant enough for an encyclopedia with no shortage of space to include. Dream Focus 03:15, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:28, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Rialto (programming)

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

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

Unsourced article about a JavaScript library that appears to fail WP:NSOFT. It's my sense that hits like [38] are not about this particular product because "rich Internet application toolkit" appears to be a generic term for a family of products and not specific to this one, but I could be wrong. I considered redirecting to List of JavaScript libraries, but that is a list of libraries with articles and it's specifically described in the lede as a list of notable JavaScript libraries. Notability tagged for over 11 years. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:59, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:59, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:59, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• Delete Needs more RS, if there is any fails notability. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:14, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
• Keep: It has received some coverage in the books & scholar: [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44] and [45]. The article needs some expansion. However, with reliable sources indicated, it's good enough to pass WP:NSOFT. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 05:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Superastig: Thanks for finding those sources! I'm a little confused, though—sources like [46] seem to be about an operating system, and [47] is apparently about a programming language, whereas this article is about a JavaScript library. I am far from a computing expert, but I would think that these are different topics? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:41, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Delete What these links above seem to be describing is not a Javascript toolkit. Rather multiple research papers are talking about "Rialto is a behavioral description language" that is unrelated to this. Rather this page is pretty much exactly Rialto Toolkit which according to the description has been defunct since 2012. Since none of the links work (and I can't seem to get an archive.org query to even load right now), I don't see how this page won't get deleted along with its duplicate. Evaders99 (talk) 10:56, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• Delete Doesn't satisfy WP:NSOFT Charmk (talk) 13:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:50, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Morgan Reynolds

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

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

Weakly sourced WP:FRINGEBLP of a subject who may nonetheless meet WP:NPROF. He co-authored a book ([48]) with a very large number of cites, so there's a decent case for NPROF#1. I don't think WP:NPOL applies to someone who was chief economist for the US Dept of Labor for one year, but perhaps it does. His status as a conspiracy theorist is interesting, but I don't think there's evidence that he's notable as a conspiracy theorist. Bringing this here for consensus. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 22:11, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 22:11, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 22:11, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 22:11, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 22:11, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• Delete If this guy passes the first prong of academic notability we have defined it too broadly. To adequately pass it you need a whole body of work that is cited, not just one book you co-authored. Reynolds does not pass any reasonably understood academic notability criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't see any evidence that he's notable as a 9/11 truther, but one can be notable for other things and still become a crank (see also Alexander Dewdney for another such case). In this case, I think he passes both WP:PROF#C1 (enough highly cited publications, not just the one book, which I agree would not be enough by itself – he has three other publications with over 100 citations each) and WP:AUTHOR (multiple books with multiple published reviews each, not even counting the well-cited one). —David Eppstein (talk) 07:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio 10:39, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Keep. While the citation numbers don't seem particularly high for his field, the number of reviews on his books establishes notability per the average professor test (WP:NPROF). Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 05:26, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 21:53, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Regional Theatre: the Revolutionary Stage

Regional Theatre: the Revolutionary Stage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable book with no significant coverage. The entire article is sourced to the book itself. Fails WP:BK. SL93 (talk) 22:19, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:38, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:38, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - The largest section of this article is dedicated to the regional theatre movement itself, which I believe has its own article. The sources reference back to the book. EverybodyEdits (talk) 01:37, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable book. No significant coverage of the book itself. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:30, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, though I wouldn't be surprised if the author is indeed notable. desmay (talk) 14:14, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: Taking a clue from desmay I did a newspapers.com search for the author and I believe he is notable. I propose keeping the article, Renaming it as the author and expanding it and providing better sourcing for the book material.   // Timothy :: talk  23:25, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

You could put it in Draft space, expand it and then move it to main space once you're satisfied that it covers the person's life adequately. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:15, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• Keep Look at Google Books, there's at least a few journal articles that review it, loads of references to it as a significant contribution, and the 2019 book America in the Round: Capital, Race, and Nation at Washington D.C.'s Arena Stage calls it "the central text of the field" of scholarship on US regional theatre. Looking at context it's enough to pass WP:NBOOK Boneymau (talk) 01:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio 10:39, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Delete: As per the nomination, the article fails on WP:NBOOK due the references relying wholly on one source. --Whiteguru (talk) 13:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:16, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Timothy J. Edens

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Timothy J. Edens
• Articles for deletion/Timothy J. Edens (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Timothy J. Edens (3rd nomination)

Timothy J. Edens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This page was nominated for deletion in 2019. While his rank of Brigadier General satisfies #2 of WP:SOLDIER that is only a presumption that "they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources" however that is not the case here and so he fails WP:GNG. I would also draw everyone's attention to this discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 152#Commodores and brigadiers, that shows that just acheiving the lowest flag rank is not an automatic pass on GNG. Mztourist (talk) 10:35, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 10:40, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:SOLDIER. This recent trend of nominating articles for deletion even though they satisfy accepted notability guidelines (and yes, WP:SOLDIER is one) is getting a little tedious. And the conclusion of the discussion cited above certainly wasn't that one-star officers don't count. In actual fact, it wasn't even about that subject, but about whether the guideline should specifically include Commonwealth brigadiers and commodores (who aren't technically general or flag officers, but hold equivalent rank). I would also note that the previous AfD on this article, which was almost unanimous keep, was only nine months ago. Why are we having another? To beat those of us who approve of WP:SOLDIER into submission? -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:40, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Because WP:SOLDIER is being misrepresented by you. A low tier flag officer like Edens who lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS does not meet GNG and does not warrant a page. The discussion is relevant because it addresses those issues and disproves your claimed consensus that just acheiving one star rank is a pass on notability. Mztourist (talk) 04:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
  • You should also read Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_90#Notability_Military_Biography the discussion which led to the WP:SOLDIER essay, particularly the comment that "significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources is non-negotiable; without this, a person is not notable and can't have an article." Mztourist (talk) 10:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
    • And? You quote a single comment because it supports your particular point of view. That doesn't make it gospel. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:09, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:SOLDIER. --Whiteguru (talk) 13:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
  • You think that he has significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources? Mztourist (talk) 03:05, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Once again, you have to be reminded that a presumption of notability is not a presumption of non-notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:06, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
      • Once again, you have to be reminded that meeting one of the 6 heads of WP:SOLDIER is just a presumption that "they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources", it is not an automatic pass on notability. Mztourist (talk) 10:43, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 History of Bristol Rovers F.C.. Fenix down (talk) 07:15, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

1883–84 Black Arabs F.C. season

1883–84 Black Arabs F.C. season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I saw this being used in a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument in one of the Gateshead season article AfDs and I don't see how this article is actually one that has been kept for so long unchallenged. It clearly fails WP:NSEASONS as they weren't playing in any league and I can't see how WP:GNG is met. People will argue that there is important info that shouldn't be deleted but anything worth saving could be merged into History of Bristol Rovers F.C. but we certainly don't need a bunch of results against other non-notable clubs. Spiderone 10:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:17, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:17, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:17, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 10:19, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:09, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Merge into History of Bristol Rovers F.C.: The club has a long history playing professional football, playing in various fully professional leagues as far as the 19th century. As this was the inaugural season for Bristol Rovers it is significant to the club's history, but there is probably not enough documentation around for the article to expand much beyond its current state. — GasHeadSteve _[TALK] 10:40, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment:Perhaps there is a case for spltting the first section of History of Bristol Rovers F.C. into a new article History of Bristol Rovers F.C. (1883–92) and merging this article into that. — GasHeadSteve _[TALK] 10:45, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• Merge per Steve. GiantSnowman 15:08, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• Delete clearly fails WP:NSEASONS, not suitable for a standalone article. Don't know what content is suitable for merging, but if it can be found than I will gladly change my !vote. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:53, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Merge per GasHeadSteve. Number 57 20:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 07:14, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

2008–09 Gateshead F.C. season

2008–09 Gateshead F.C. season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG and fails WP:NSEASONS as they were playing at a level two tiers below the professional level Spiderone 09:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 10:09, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Delete fails NSEASONS. GiantSnowman 15:07, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails WP:NSEASONS   // Timothy :: talk  18:40, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 57 20:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 17:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 07:13, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

2008–09 AFC Wimbledon season

2008–09 AFC Wimbledon season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG Spiderone 09:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:51, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:51, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:51, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

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

• Delete fails NSEASONS. GiantSnowman 15:07, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails WP:NSEASONS   // Timothy :: talk  18:41, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 57 20:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Delete fails GNG and NSEASONS. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 17:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:05, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Kelly Madison

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Kelly Madison
• Articles for deletion/Kelly Madison (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Kelly Madison (3rd nomination)

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

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

I think.its time we had another look at this. Previously kept for reasons that would not cut the mustard now, the only recent sourcing relates to allegations about her husband! For BLP reasons I am astonished that we publish allegations about her role in her husband's scandal but don't have an article on him. Since the only sourced material is as an accesory to her husband this feels.like a do no harm case. Suggest we redirect to the relevant hall of fame article. News had nothing about her and first 5 pages of goggle were links to sites advertising her videos. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:47, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 22:35, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 22:35, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• Keep Notability is not temporary, she clearly had a notable career before this mess with her husband, which should be trimmed per COATRACK. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:20, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Notability standards change so ancient previous discussions really have no bearing. 13 years ago we kept everything if they were good looking. Thank goodness we are beyond that. Remove the stuff about her husband and what is actually left about her that meets today's standards? What sources do you think are adequate. I couldn't find any. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:32, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Having read the 2 previous AfD discussions, this article was not kept because she was pretty but because she met several categories of WP:PORNBIO (now deprecated) but she clearly meets WP:ENT #2 and #3. I look forward to learning from other editors who are more experienced with porn/entertainer biographies. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• Keep and move to Pornfidelity or Kelly Madison Media as most coverage/content is about the activities of their production company rather than the person.[49][50][51] Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:57, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

• Delete this pornographic performer does not meet any reasonable inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:44, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Delete As noted, standards change over time. All of the Xbix, AVN cites are irrelevant, as are the awards. Other coverage is more of Ryan Madison's assault allegations tan of the subject. Zaathras (talk) 12:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• Delete: does not meet WP:ENT / WP:BASIC. Beyond that, the sources offered above, such as "A New Wave of Reckoning Is Sweeping the Porn Industry", is about reports of abuse on porn sets by the subject's husband, and not suitable for establishing notability. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Delete. Significant RS coverage is about the accusations against the subject's husband. Porn trade press coverage are repackaged press releases, company announcements or interviews. WP:BASIC failure. Porn awards without independent RS coverage don't count for WP:ENT notability. Kelly Madison also does not inherit notability for having a notorious husband. • Gene93k (talk) 07:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I am striking my Keep vote above based on later comments by users with more experience than I have. I had assumed the coverage and awards were significant. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Delete (I change my vote to delete because you are insisting on putting up information that doesn't belong on her page. So unfortunate) Ryan Madison has since refuted these allegations here "ryanmadison.com" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Treypro (talk • contribs) 20:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC) — Treypro (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• @Treypro: You just removed all the content about the allegations as inappropriate and damaging. I hope you also realize that you just removed the only content with non-trivial citations to independent reliable sources, and those were mainly about the subject's husband. Take away the controversy, the article is left with press releases, interviews and other non-independent sources. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• @Gene93k: Everything about these false allegations should be removed from Kelly's page. These accusations can be so damaging to someones life? They proved the allegations to be false with real video, audio and screenshots not just hearsay at ryanmadison.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Treypro (talk • contribs) 13:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• Personal claims made via edited videos hosted on one's personal website are not in any way exculpatory, no. The bright side is that within a few days, the article will almost certainly be deleted, thus your concerns will be taken care of. Zaathras (talk) 22:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• Delete does not pass WP:GNG as most of the reliable sources are covering her husband, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:46, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• Keep Obviously she has a notable career. She’s ran a successful company for over 20 years and has a huge website KellyMadison.com that has won multiple awards. She has also made a lot of dvd/movies that have won awards that are not listed here. Also a writer in a published magazine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silversix6 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

  Note, the above comment is, at this time, the first and only contribution to the Wikipedia by this editor. Zaathras (talk) 23:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - I'm just not seeing the multiple independent published sources dealing extensively with the subject necessary for a GNG pass. Carrite (talk) 02:36, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Martial Le Minoux

Martial Le Minoux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Successful but doesn't have the in-depth coverage or significance of roles to meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. French WP article appears to be just a draft. No obvious WP:ATD. Has been in CAT:NN for over 11 years. Boleyn (talk) 09:02, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:06, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:06, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Delete: Talented and finds work, but I couldn't find anything that helps this pass WP:ENT or WP:GNG   // Timothy :: talk  00:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Old Catholic ministry

Old Catholic ministry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article is essentially unsourced and essayish. Much of its content is speculative, if not outright inaccurate. I did a search, but all the uses of the term "old catholic ministry" are about other topics with the same name. Reyk _YO! 09:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:06, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Delete. This article has zero citations. Of the four external links, three of them are to websites which have expired or are dead links, while the fourth is to the first ten pages (only) of a master's thesis -- that is, just the table of contents, acknowledgments, glossary, list of abbreviations, and abstract. The article claims that "Old Catholics do not need to raise money for pensions, building maintenance or to fund the local diocese", although in fact some Old Catholic denominations have churches with buildings that require maintenance, dioceses, and clergy who retire and need to have their pensions funded. There are a great many denominations which classify themselves as Old Catholic (see List of independent Catholic denominations), and it's not clear which of them the writer of this article had in mind. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:36, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• Delete: This is about ordained ministry in the Old Catholic Church. This is a function of the Church, not independent ministry. And agree with earlier comment, this article is definitely an essay. -- Whiteguru (talk) 11:25, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:07, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Kimberly Guilfoyle at the 2020 Republican National Convention

Kimberly Guilfoyle at the 2020 Republican National Convention (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Is this really something which merits a separate article? Thousands of people give speeches every month which get covered in the media, however, this is just a routine coverage related to an understandably highlighted event. Ymblanter (talk) 07:46, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:46, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Delete: non-notable speech which is now being parodied. Whiteguru (talk) 09:01, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• Merge to Kimberly Guilfoyle per NOTNEWS. HouseOfChange (talk) 11:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:18, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Speedy delete We have 2020_Republican_National_Convention#Kimberly_Guilfoyle – a split is completely unwarranted and misguided. Reywas92^Talk 01:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Delete Anything that needs to be said about this speech on her part can be included in the article on Ms. Guilfoyle. There is no reason for a seperate article in this manner.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Delete Everything can be covered at Kimberly Guilfoyle and 2020 Republican National Convention#Kimberly Guilfoyle -- Pemilligan (talk) 22:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Delete This speech is not of historical significance, although it has become the subject of numerous online parodies. As mentioned already, any information can be included on other articles. PrinceArchelaus (talk) 03:52, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• Delete, just one speech at a regular convention. Not of lasting historic value.--Astral Leap (talk) 07:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
• Delete Does not merit a separate article. Santosh L (talk) 15:45, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Fenix down (talk) 07:14, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Labinot Kabashi

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

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

Subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, never played in a WP:FPL. MYS77 ^✉ 07:07, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 10:08, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Keep - I think there's enough coverage to say GNG is met. GiantSnowman 15:07, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• Keep There's more than enough coverage for the article to pass GNG. Oblow14 15:34, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• Keep The subject passes WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS. Abishe (talk) 15:40, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• Keep passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:44, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
• Keep - as per arguments made above. ManiacOfSport (talk) 14:44, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 13:41, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Indian Springs Mall

Indian Springs Mall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A dead mall. The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." The subject does not have 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. Sources in the article are a blog, a dead link, a facebook page, and an entry in an index of shopping centers.   // Timothy :: talk  06:45, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  06:45, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  06:45, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  06:45, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Keep. Fine article. Hooker82 (talk) 08:26, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• Delete: non-notable mall which has since been demolished. -- Whiteguru (talk) 09:03, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

* Delete per whiteguru. WikiMacaroons^Cinnamon? 15:21, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Keep. Notability is not temporary. Passes WP:GNG—-Paul McDonald (talk) 15:34, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: Here is a list of the sources. None of these supports either WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD.

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Chain Store Age		?	This is a simple entry in a directory. It does not provide WP:SIGCOV or any evidence of meeting WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD	✘ No
KMBC-TV.			?	? Unknown
http://www.labelscar.com/kansas/indian-springs-mall	?	?	A blog. Does not meet WP:RS and it does not provide any inforamtion that would make this mall notable or meet WP:NBUILD. It describes an everyday, average, normal failed mall.	✘ No
A facebook page	A facebook page	A facebook page	A facebook page.	✘ 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}}.

Newspapers.com search revealed nothing other than routine coverage any mall would receive; announcements, events, advertising, etc. This is an everyday average mall. It is not notable.   // Timothy :: talk  16:07, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Keep, clearly another WP:POINT argument from TimothyBlue. WP:ROTM is not policy. The sources present do establish notability, and the only other people calling for deletion are just saying WP:NOTNOTABLE and WP:PERNOM, neither of which is valid nor gives any proof to notability or lack thereof. The site of the mall is a topic of discussion long after the mall became defunct, indicating that it had a long lasting impact. Buildings do not cease being notable when they are torn down. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:27, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment nice research TPH, these and other links should be added to the article. This supports that there is an editing issue but not a deletion issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:57, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Reply @TenPoundHammer:: You state "The sources present do establish notability" Tell all of us here and the closer, which of the sources present establish notability?

As for the two sources you mention

• [52] talk about is the "vacant lot of Indian Springs Mall turned into a drive-thru pickup location for Harvesters to give food to families" - How does this make the mall notable? It doesn't talk about the mall. It talks about a vacant lot where a mall used to be and an event taking place there. It doesn't say anything about the mall.
• [53] This talks about plans for what might happen to a vacant lot where the mall used to be. It doesn't say anything about the mall.
• Tell everyone and the closer: What about the mall do the above sources state that establish notability?   // Timothy :: talk  18:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Keep 700,000 sqft enclosed mall open for 30 years, clearly notable. Here is one article discussing it in depth [54]. MB 19:14, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Reply @MB:: Since you wrote, "discussing it in depth", tell everyone and the closer what indepth information does this article have about the mall? Because when I read it, this is not an article about the mall. It is an article about the hope of tearing the abandoned mall down and redeveloping the property into something completely different. Also you state, "700,000 sqft enclosed mall open for 30 years, clearly notable" tell everyone and the closer what guideline or policy are you basing this on? Just a gentle reminder about WP:DISCUSSAFD.   // Timothy :: talk  19:41, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Concern I am concerned that the table above is approaching placing undue weight on an argument. I have no issue discussing sources (that's central to AFDs) but I am concerned that the use of a table with background colors and icons is putting undue weight on the argument. In addition, it fails to address other sources as they are brought forward and participation in AFD then becomes more weighted for someone's ability to make a better-looking table than upon the presentation of the best argument. I guess it feels like it's approaching the same kind of thing (although not exactly) that Wikipedia:Adjectives in your recommendations is also seeking to avoid.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Reply @Paulmcdonald: These tables are used all the time in AfDs. There is an easy to use script to create them here: User:DannyS712/SATG. They are an easy way to evaluate sources and anyone can use them.   // Timothy :: talk  02:37, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Anyone can use them who also knows JavaScript and is familair with them. As it stands now, it's showing a clear one-sided view. I've been around AFDs for over a decade, never seen it. Sure I haven't seen them all, but it looks unfair.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• Keep, more then enough reliable sources to establish notability on the first page of a Google Search alone. Nominator appears to have not done research. Esw01407 (talk) 22:03, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment The sources above and in the article are all routine run of the mill coverage and announcements. They do not establish notability. Every mall will have lots of routine coverage because they seek it out as advertising. If this type of coverage makes a mall notable, then every mall will be notable.   // Timothy :: talk  02:37, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Feature articles are WP:NOTROUTINE. —Paul McDonald (talk) 02:57, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment WP:ROUTINE does not apply to places and structures, solely to events. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:19, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Keep, WP:ROUTINE does not apply to buildings. This mall clearly passes GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Keep I added a lot of coverage, mostly from the 1995-1997 era. The Kansas City Star only goes back to 1995 on ProQuest. I imagine there is comparable coverage available before then, but I don't have access to it. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:23, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Comment The dead KMBC-TV link has been fixed with an archived version. It seems to be discussing about a revitalization project for the dead mall. Leaving the evaluation of if/how it supports WP:GNG to other editors. Jumpytoo Talk 04:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
• 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  07:09, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
• Switching to Keep after looking at the comments made by others. WikiMacaroons^Cinnamon? 09:19, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:G5 Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:39, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Florida–Michigan football rivalry

Florida–Michigan football rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Only five games played, and no evidence that this is a rivalry, let alone a notable rivalry. There is also behavioral evidence that this article was created by another sockpuppet (User:UW Dawgs' Worst Nightmare) of User:CalebHughes. Cbl62 (talk) 06:33, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:07, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:07, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:07, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Ejgreen77 (talk) 12:34, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:38, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Los Arcos Mall

Los Arcos Mall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A demolished mall in Scottsdale AZ that operated from 1969-1999. The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." The subject does not have 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. A single reference is about the opening, most of the article appears to be WP:OR, except basic facts about when it opened and it's demolition.   // Timothy :: talk  06:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  06:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  06:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• There will be just as much coverage, if not more, than for Tri-City Pavilions. Los Arcos died at a similar time, and then the property became a hugely notable political football because it was proposed as a sports arena site. Keep and please slow down because we're not going to have time to make improvements at the pace your AfDs are requiring. Raymie (t • c) 07:24, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Question @Raymie:: How is what was done with the property after the mall closed/demolished related to the mall? And how would the way the land was used after the mall closed/demolished provide evidence of historic, social, economic, or architectural importance? The controversy above should be addressed in the article about the sports arena or the city. WP:NBUILD requires evidence of historic, social, economic, or architectural importance.   // Timothy :: talk  07:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Keep I think it's status as the first mall by large developer Westcor stands as a reason for notability. Note that if you look at the property list on their page, while Scottsdale Fashion Square is *older*, it was not built by them, and only acquired in 1982. Pokemonprime (talk) 07:49, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Reply @Pokemonprime:: Being the first mall by large developer Westcor does not make this mall notable. It might impact the notability of Westcor, but has nothing to do with the historic, social, economic, or architectural importance of this mall per WP:NBUILD.

• WP:GNG supercedes WP:NBUILD, not the other way around. Explain to me how the first of anything is not notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Keep, sourcing is far beyond routine, notability is easily asserted. TimothyBlue is clearly invoking WP:POINT here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• Reply: The article contains one source, it is routine news coverage about the mall opening. A WP:BEFORE search online and in newspapers.com shows only routine coverage of events such as openings and closing, the decline of the mall, advertising. Coverage that every mall would receive. Nothing that establishes either WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD.

None of the keep votes has bothered to !vote with sources, evidence or guidelines. The argument that being "the first mall by large developer Westcor" is notable is nonsense. Keep votes are not providing any evidence of WP:SIGCOV because there is none.

There is nothing pointy about this TenPoundHammer, if you feel otherwise, ANI is your recourse but prepare for a boomerang based on WP:DISCUSSAFD: "When an editor offers arguments or evidence that do not explain how the article meets/violates policy, they may only need a reminder to engage in constructive, on-topic discussion. But a pattern of groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive." The closer is going to look at the sources, evidence and guidelines, and nothing else.   // Timothy :: talk  15:34, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Keep Large malls are clearly notable. This newspaper archive search shows 43k hits. Many may be advertisements or routine mentions, but a quick scan of the first few pages show plenty of coverage. One specific example is a 1991 article discussing its 30 year history.[55]. MB 19:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• @MB: That's going in the in-progress expansion of this article right now, actually! Raymie (t • c) 19:01, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• @TimothyBlue: FYI, I have expanded this article dramatically. It now has 67 references and discusses the lengthy history of this property and redevelopment. Raymie (t • c) 21:31, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• Keep per the above comments by TPH, Pokemonprime, MB, and Raymie. It seems that GNG is greatly established here, and in any case, that supersedes NBUILD, a specific-notability guideline. I'll copy what I said in a similar nomination because it also applies here: The references in this page are definitely not mere directory listings or routine coverage. It may have seemed that way prior to the recent edits, but not in the current condition of the article. epicgenius (talk) 22:19, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• CommentThe sources added to the article are all routine run of the mill coverage and announcements. They do not establish notability. Every mall will have lots of routine coverage because they seek it out as advertising. If this type of coverage makes a mall notable, then every mall will be notable.   // Timothy :: talk  02:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• @TimothyBlue: This mall didn't need to seek out routine coverage—particularly in the late 1990s and early 2000s. The hockey arena plan was an extremely memorable and high-profile situation; it made the front page of the Republic on a number of occasions. Name me another mall that resulted in the sale of an NHL franchise! I'm just going to let reviewers decide if the expansion and additional sourcing support notability for this topic. Raymie (t • c) 03:18, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Keep, WP:ROUTINE, even if it were policy, does not apply to buildings. This one clearly passes WP:GNG, and it wouldn't have fallen foul of WP:ROUTINE even if it did apply. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• 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,
• Keep per WP:HEY. This looks like it could be a GA sometime soon? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:33, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:51, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

The Boulevard at the Capital Centre

The Boulevard at the Capital Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A demolished mall that existed from 2003 to 2017. Over half the article is about the mall being torn down. The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." 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. Sources in the article are leasing info, a Contact Us page, a census tract page, and an article about it being torn down.   // Timothy :: talk  06:22, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  06:22, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:48, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Speedy keep, user clearly does not know what WP:ROUTINE means and is clearly invoking WP:POINT by nominating as many shopping mall articles as humanly possible. The coverage is far beyond WP:ROUTINE, which itself is not policy anyway. None of the coverage is "such things as announcements, sports, speculative coverage, and tabloid journalism... Wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs...the brief, often light and amusing (for example bear-in-a-tree or local-person-wins-award), stories that frequently appear in the back pages of newspapers". The fact that the center is defunct is irrelevant; things do not stop being notable when they cease to exist. TimothyBlue keeps throwing around the word "routine" but failing to prove how any of said coverage is supposedly routine. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:06, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• Reply None of the sources in the article support either WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD. They are WP:ROUTINE news coverage of announcements such as openings, closings, events, promotions, "common, everyday, ordinary items that do not stand out." The keep vote has not provided any sources or evidence that this mall is notable. Below demonstrates that the sources do not show notability, a search of newspapers.com will show nothing either.

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
"Leasing information". Inland Western Retail Real Estate Trust Inc. Retrieved 17 January 2012.			This is leasing information. It does not provide any information about notability.	✘ No
"2010 CENSUS - CENSUS BLOCK MAP (INDEX): Lake Arbor CDP, MD." U.S. Census Bureau			This is a census tract map. It contains no information about the mall	✘ No
Contact Us." The Boulevard at the Capital Centre. Retrieved on September 9, 2018.			This is a contact us page	✘ No
It's on: Demolition begins at Boulevard at Capital Centre in Largo". Washington Business Journal			This is routine news coverage about something being torn down. It discusses nothing related to the notability of the mall	✘ 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}}.

This is a non-notable mall.   // Timothy :: talk  15:52, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment WP:ROUTINE does not apply to places and structures, solely to events. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:19, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Keep I added plenty of legit sources to the article with a 5-minute search on Proquest. @TimothyBlue:, are you aware that any active Wikipedian with 500+ edits gets a free Proquest login through WP:TWL? Please avail yourself of this resource, so that when you do your WP:BEFORE check, you are also seeing the news coverage available there. A fair source table would include all of those articles, not just the handful of crappy sources that were in the article when you nominated for deletion. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:16, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Western Plains Animal Refuge

Western Plains Animal Refuge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Normal Op (talk) 03:18, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 03:18, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 03:18, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 03:18, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Delete: While other animal homes and refuges have pages on Wikipedia, all have some substantial content and notability. This one fails GNG. -- Whiteguru (talk) 09:07, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:NCORP as written – there are no independent reliable sources in the page at all. It gets no hits on GBooks, and nine passing mentions on GNews, but no in-depth coverage of any kind that I can see. Incidentally, according to its own website, it is not an animal refuge at all, but a rented/shared office space open to the public for four hours a week. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:35, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, part of their history included a person who was involved in wildlife rescue, but that person is no longer associated with the group and licenses are required to continue the wildlife activities, so the activity was dropped... though the name remained the same. And they were small enough to be unable to secure and keep a brick-and-mortar property for ordinary animal shelter activities. Yes, a rented office in town plus limited foster-based animal care is all that is left. Was never really notable. Most of these "animal shelter" articles in Wikipedia are just "directory entries" of non-notable organizations. Normal Op (talk) 02:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:NCORP per editor JLAN - "is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." William Harris (talk) 09:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per JLAN. Cavalryman (talk) 08:00, 2 September 2020 (UTC).

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

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

The result was delete. The arguments that the coverage is insignificant have not been successfully refuted. I have given a low weighting to the comments saying "it's huge and beautiful" and "X, Y, and Z have visited" which are not based in policy. Stifle (talk) 13:39, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Temple Emanu-El (Miami Beach, Florida)

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Temple Emanu-El (Miami Beach, Florida)
• Articles for deletion/Temple Emanu-El (Miami Beach, Florida) (2nd nomination)

Temple Emanu-El (Miami Beach, Florida) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Looks like a failure of WP:NBUILD and WP:GNG. Found in CAT:NN cleanup. The source currently in the article is published by the synagogue itself. This LOC item is just a photograph, the only information really about the synagogue itself is the one-sentence photo caption. I wouldn't exactly consider this brief listing to be significant coverage. This newspaper piece only mentions that a concert is being held in the building. Another brief organizational listing, this time from a chamber of commerce. Emporis just gives the address and dimensions, which isn't WP:SIGCOV either. I'm not aware of any guideline that gives houses of worship automatic notability, and the two that are applicable: WP:NBUILD and WP:GNG are not met. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:40, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:40, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:40, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:40, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Would be surprising if more could not be found on a temple this old and this big (given listed capacoty). Hyperbolick (talk) 06:56, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Extensive sources used in new edit including following sources , , , , , which were immediately removed and article reverted back to original source. Temple Emanu-El is definitely a notable architectural monument as well as an important piece of Miami Beach history. Avoiding deletion by making corrections but edits must not be reverted by other usersFille a la plage (talk) 02:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Analysis of sources: 1. (Sun-Sentinel) Good, significant coverage in a reliable source. 2.) (Jewish Virtual Library) - Only seems to mention this temple in one sentence, unless I missed something. 3.) (Syracuse University Library) - Mentions that the architect's plans are held in a source. There's no significant coverage in this source, and the blueprints would be primary sources. 4.) (Temple Emanu-El) Published by the temple, so not independent. 5.) (Jewish Journal) - Only an oblique mention, stating that the subject of that piece was a member of the temple. 6.) (Lying on the Beach - Doubtful reliability, and only coverage is a statement that someone is a member of the temple. So the sum total of that is one source of significant coverage in reliable sources. That's not sufficient. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - reverted article back to version by User:Sphilbrick for copyvio concerns as seen here. Editor was warned as well - User talk:Fille a la plage. @Fille a la plage:, do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Copy-vio has been re-added to article by a new WP:SPA - Temple1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Isaidnoway (talk) 17:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• Keep: A place of worship that has hosted numerous world leaders such as Presidents Reagan and Clinton, the Dalai Lama and Desmond Tutu is Notable.--Cts499m (talk) 19:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
  • No, see WP:NOTINHERITED ... Hog Farm _Bacon 20:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Keep?: It's a huge and beautiful building - must be plenty you can say about it. ImTheIP (talk) 21:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a terrible article, but the building does seem to be prominent enough and well-referenced enough to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:11, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

References

• Delete Agree with the analysis of the references by Hog Farm. I have had a look at the references, and only one gets a green light. Rabbi's doing yoga poses are are syncretism, not references. --Whiteguru (talk) 13:35, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:25, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Prema Geema Jaane Do

Prema Geema Jaane Do (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Couldn't find any reviews/sources for this film. This is not IMDb. TamilMirchi (talk) 02:04, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 02:04, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 02:04, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 12:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• Delete - concerns around WP:NFILM and WP:GNG Spiderone 14:02, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 DC Comics characters. Tone 06:22, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Golden Eagle (comics)

Golden Eagle (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The 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 is the usual WP:FANCRUFT - pure PLOT+list of appearances sourced 100% to primary sources (comic books). Also this is one of those messes where the article discusses two distinct characters withg the same name, so an overgrown disambig. PROD removed by anon with no rationale, so, sigh, you know the drill. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:10, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:10, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:10, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:10, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Delete I can't think of a good redirect target for this, and the character is pretty minor, so I'll go with delete. Rhino131 (talk) 04:19, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Don't Delete I just found this article now, genuinely researching the history of Golden Eagle. Yes, he's a minor character but he plays a role in the DC Universe due to his role in Titans Hunt and supposed Hawkman-sidekick status. Also, his backstory is confusing due to DC editorial contradictions over the years. I think he deserves his own page to address this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyke121 (talk • contribs) 10:35, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Delete - The topic lacks real world information from reliable sources to meet WP:GNG and fulfill WP:WAF. TTN (talk) 14:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Merge into List of DC Comics characters - There is some coverage, but not enough to declare this independently notable. Darkknight2149 06:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 characters in The Railway Series#Oliver (Number 11/1436). Tone 06:21, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Oliver the Great Western Engine

Oliver the Great Western Engine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "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. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you. " It was deprodded by User:Spinningspark with the following rationale "deprod. This is a very well known series and the article has multiple contributers over decades. Not really suitable for prod, a full review is needed before deletion". Thank you for providing a rationale, even if I think the outcome is going to be a pretty unanimous and uncontroversial redirect to the list of characters of this show or the series itself. But let's see if I am proven wrong. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:01, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:01, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:01, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Piotrus, if you think redirect is the right outcome, then it would have been a lot less painful if you had just redirected it in the first place. Very likely that would not have been challenged. So why are we at AfD? Do you have a pressing reason to delete all the back history of the page? SpinningSpark 09:46, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Redirect to List of characters in The Railway Series#Oliver (Number 11/1436), character clearly does not pass GNG, with the sources currently in the article being either primary or unreliable, and no better sources can be found. If someone contests a prod, logically they will also contest a redirect. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:31, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Delete this creation of articles on every minor character has reached a level that makes no sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:25, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Jatin Sial

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Jatin Sial
• Articles for deletion/Jatin Sial (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Jatin Sial (3rd nomination)

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

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

Was deleted back in 2009, and nothing much has changed since then. Character actor with a few bit parts. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:24, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:24, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - zero evidence of notability, zero notable roles Spiderone 22:28, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

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