Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 August 4

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 3 August	5 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. Per the newly added citations, film meets notability guidelines. (non-admin closure) Donaldd23 (talk) 11:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hell Has Harbour Views (film)[edit]

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

Non notable film, with no verifiable reviews found during search. Tagged for notability for 3 years. Previous nomination ended with a delete result, but article was recreated. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First deletion discussion was in 2009, with only 2 delete !votes, one of which seemed to mistakenly think the film was in "development" and suggested recreating without prejudice when it "[started] filming"—when it had actually been released 4 years previously. On this basis, I don't think the original deletion was very sound. In terms of notability, the film was broadcast nationally on the ABC network, and nominated for AFI and Logie Awards for best mini-series/TV movie as well as for three other awards in other fields. --Canley (talk) 03:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn per newly added citations. Donaldd23 (talk) 11:10, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Citizen of the World[edit]

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

References are pathetic. This seems like a publicity thing. RobP (talk) 23:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems this title ought to be about something else entirely. Hyperbolick (talk) 23:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per WP:TNT. This is actually a list of awardees of a very minor award, and a poorly formatted page at that. The term is notable, however, so I think a news, better article needs to be created in place of this one. Bearian (talk) 14:05, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was move to Draft:Jagadeesh Prathap Bandhari. There is a clear consensus to delete, but given the alternative votes to move this to draft, that would just lead to a request to refund to draft, which would likely be granted per WP:PRESERVE, so we'll skip that step and go right to draft. BD2412 T 02:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jagadeesh Prathap Bandhari[edit]

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

Upcoming actor in Telugu. However, as of now, no independent reliable sources exist about him. TamilMirchi (talk) 23:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 23:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 23:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 23:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move: I'd like to inform you that he is an active actor working on series/films, I would like to develop this article further with required citations/sources. in case it doesnt meet notability, Please Move to Draft Space. SAMillYOU (talk) 09:01, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the notability for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON or userfy (move to a user space), which is what I think SAMillYOU has requested. Bearian (talk) 14:07, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established. Can be moved to draft as requested. -- Ab207 (talk) 20:53, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft He prominently appeared in Gods of Dharmapuri as Chalapathi^[1]^[2]^[3] and in Kotha Poradu^[4] as Mallesh,^[5] apart from his other notable films he acted to qualify WP:NACTOR, If this still is not enough I request it to be moved to draft space. SAMillYOU (talk) 11:06, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom--Devokewater@ 12:45, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Spiderone 15:16, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and move to userspace per SAMillYOU. WP:TOOSOON does apply here, but we absolutely don't need to resort to outright deletion just yet. Let the article develop in userspace first.Behindthekeys (talk) 19:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

^ https://www.zee5.com/zeekannada/6-performances-from-the-zee5-original-g-o-d-who-deserve-a-special-mention-and-applause/
^ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11999090/
^ https://theenvoyweb.com/reviews/gods-of-dharmapuri-review/
^ https://www.voxspace.in/2020/02/01/review-of-ahas-kotha-poradu/
^ https://www.indiaglitz.com/engaging-review-telugu-webseries-1592319798

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

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

The result was draftify. (non-admin closure) —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 02:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Appaji Ambarisha Darbha[edit]

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

There are no reliable sources about him. Fails WP: Notability. TamilMirchi (talk) 23:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 23:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 23:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 23:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. TamilMirchi tried his level best to develop this article but with time, he/she might have realized its a fruitless activity. Anyway, a great effort! -Hatchens (talk) 04:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move: I had added a lot more information, which was then condenced down. However, I would request a move (draftspace) so I can work on this and resubmit. SAMillYOU (talk) 08:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indications he meets the notability guidelines for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:17, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft He played significant role in Agent Sai Srinivasa Athreya and may have played the same in at least one of other notable films he acted to qualify WP:NACTOR. There's one reliable non-trivial coverage, so the subject's notability can be established. --Ab207 (talk) 21:44, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move I suggest that we just move this article to a draft as if we delete this page now and the actor gets a significant role, all the work won't be recovered and in that time we can work and add more sources and films that feature him later on. SP013 (talk) 23:43, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draftspace for improvement as the article is already being expanded, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ 09:00, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

R. Diwakaran[edit]

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

This cinematographer has only worked on a handful of films, and there are no independent, reliable sources about him. Only passing mentions exist. TamilMirchi (talk) 21:40, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 21:40, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 21:40, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 21:40, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability guidelines for filmamkers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON, WP:CREATIVE, and WP:MILL. If he'd gotten some coverage or a won South Indian International Movie Awards, that would be another story. Bearian (talk) 14:12, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC) Struck inexplicable second !vote. PainProf (talk) 02:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Director of cinematography for several notable films. PainProf (talk) 02:38, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article does not meet WP:GNG, WP:CREATIVE or WP:BASIC. From WP:NPEOPLE: "For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" or "note"—that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"". Some WP:ROUTINE coverage exists. Might just be WP:TOOSOON. // Timothy :: talk 17:09, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 08:27, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ 08:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vijay Ulaganath[edit]

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

This cinematographer has only worked on a handful of films, and there are no independent, reliable sources about him. Only passing mentions exist. TamilMirchi (talk) 21:38, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 21:38, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 21:38, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 21:38, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable cinematographer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:52, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV and WP:CREATIVE. This review is does not even mention him. He has not won any South Indian International Movie Awards. Bearian (talk) 14:17, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- refs in the article are not primarily on him, just passing mentions won't help, fails GNG. Thepilipalasgirl (talk) 23:21, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources are either primary or will probably not be considered reliable. I suggest a WP:BEFORE check be done which I don't feel has been done adequately, something might just come up. If sufficient sources come up, will change my opinion. Hmanburg (talk) 18:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ 08:53, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

E. Krishnasamy[edit]

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

This cinematographer has only worked on a handful of films, and there are no independent, reliable sources about him. Only passing mentions exist. TamilMirchi (talk) 21:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 21:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 21:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 21:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable cinematographer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:18, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV and WP:CREATIVE. The sources are entirely a passing mention and some blogs. He has never won any South Indian International Movie Awards. Bearian (talk) 14:20, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

American Movie Awards[edit]

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

Page has been tagged for notability, and I'm failing to find any coverage of this organisation, or why it is important. It seems to have existed in the early 80s, only to be revived more recently, but I can't find any info on why it was formed, why it stopped, or why it came back. The only sources are IMDB and the orgs own website. The latter of which seems to be dead (at least here in the UK). Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see no evidence of notability. As I asked in my edit summary when I added the notability tag, do people even give a shit when they win? Anyone can give Clint Eastwood an award. The website also doesn't work for me, but it's archived here [1]. As expected, you pay to enter, and they tout their previous famous winners of the award in order to make it look more prestigious than it really is. There's some possibility this is just a pay-to-play awards scam like exists in the literary community. Bueller 007 (talk) 19:58, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as they don't meet WP:GNG IMO. All but one source is WP:PRIMARY. It seems to have been created as a bit of WP:SELFPROMOTION. MarnetteD|Talk 20:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- no coverage to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 11:38, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Juno (talk) 04:13, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to James Carnegie, 3rd Duke of Fife#Marriage and family. There is consensus to not keep the article. However, redirects are cheap and may be created by anyone in the normal course of editing so I will go with delete and redirect. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:50, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Worsley, Lady Worsley[edit]

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

The article is nothing but a genealogical entry. There is nothing more to be said about the subject anyway because there is no coverage in reliable sources other than genealogy publications. As the topic does not pass WP:BASIC, there is no reason for Wikipedia to have this article. Surtsicna (talk) 19:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 19:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 19:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 19:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 09:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to James Carnegie, 3rd Duke of Fife#Marriage and family as there are enough mentions in other articles to warrant a few lines, if not an article. Bogger (talk) 10:07, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cannot find more than passing mention in genealogical books. JoelleJay (talk) 06:26, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable wife of a noble.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Bogger, WP:CHEAP, and my standards for nobility. If she'd had her own career, or done charity patronages, or been involved in a scandal, that would be different. She's the wife of a prominent British nobleman. Bearian (talk) 14:33, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No sign of independent notability. --Lockley (talk) 00:24, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at best Redirect. Seems to only be notable by association. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:11, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:53, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Alexandra Etherington[edit]

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

The subject is an entirely private person. A distant relative of Queen Elizabeth II, she gets no media coverage. The topic does not pass WP:BASIC. Surtsicna (talk) 19:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 19:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 19:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 19:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 09:54, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my standards for nobility. If she'd had her own career, or done charity patronages, or been involved in a scandal, that would be different. Bearian (talk) 14:32, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She is 89th in succession to the throne. I thought it was just mocking that we had articles numbering people over 50th in line. This is just plain absurd.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only notable by association, not in her own right it looks like. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A redirect can be created as a normal editing action. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:32, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Shard[edit]

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

There is virtually no coverage in reliable sources. The Guardian article cited in the first paragraph does not even mention her. I do not see how this passes WP:BASIC notability criteria. Surtsicna (talk) 19:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 19:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 19:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 19:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 19:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 09:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "The Guardian article cited in the first paragraph does not even mention her.": it does. There's a list of those disqualified from the line of succession, including "41 David Lascelles, Viscount Lascelles (b 1950). David's two eldest children, Honourable Emily Lascelles (b 1975) and Honourable Benjamin Lascelles (b 1978), were born before their parents' marriage ". Different surname, same Emily. PamD 10:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right! Thanks. Surtsicna (talk) 11:44, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral on deletion, but if deleted then Redirect to father's article. PamD 10:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment thanks PamD her only claim to notability is that shes part of the aristocracy Devokewater @ 14:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which would be fine if the media paid enough attention to her, right? I hardly see any references to her, however. Surtsicna (talk) 14:44, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable member of an aritocratic family.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:05, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete did a quick Google search. Seems unlikely any sources sufficient to establish notability exist. Per the references in the article itself, WP:GNG is clearly not met. Hmanburg (talk) 18:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ 08:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Big Meadow, California[edit]

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

Next to a FS campground of the same name, old enough topos show a row of buildings, but aerials of the same era show nothing. The only source I could find was this, which claims that the area was the site of an early cabin, that it was eventually called Big Meadow Ranch for a time, and that "A summer home tract was surveyed in 1922, but a resort was never developed," which could explain the row of buildings. At any rate, that's the best I could do. Mangoe (talk) 19:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE per nomination it is JUST a neighborhood, according to this: [[2] I think real estate agents will advertise any neighborhood name they can find or make up, just to increase sales within the neighborhoods. Goldenrowley (talk) 21:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It looks like Big Meadow was historically a vacation or summer home area; this article is about the first lodge opening there, and I found a few other pieces about people vacationing there (but not about anyone living there). The closest I got to a resident was this article about a merchant there, but a merchant is not necessarily a resident. If this was just a summer home area and not a permanent community, I don't think it clears the bar of notability without additional coverage. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 02:29, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of video games by monthly active player count[edit]

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

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of video games by daily active users. There is no way to make this verifiable and reliable. In practice, "monthly" is no better than "daily", as these statistics aren't reliably updated on a monthly basis. This list is inherently unverifiable, which is how you end up with entries on here with severely outdated information, to the point of not even being active games anymore. And as I mentioned in the other AFD, if we did find a reliable third party that was publishing monthly user data, we'd essentially be updating this monthly as some sort of news page, and Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. If this ever becomes something that could be covered properly, it will likely be at an industry database similar to the Nielsen Ratings, and not on Wikipedia itself. Jontesta (talk) 18:58, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:19, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree 100% that these types of lists are inherently unverifiable and inherently going to get outdated, as we can see in how some entries have not been updated since 2011.--Alexandra^IDV 19:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete even if we put aside WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH; wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There is no encyclopaedic value behind "which game was played the most last month". There is no way to get true numbers, as the numbers are going to come from primary sources, even if they are later reported by secondary sources. Keeping the article is not even in question as the article is not encyclopaedic to begin with. We already have "YYYY in video gaming" (2019 in video games). A brief note can be added in such articles, based on third party observations. One more similar article is List of most-played video games by peak concurrent users. —usernamekiran (talk) 05:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Obvious unverifiable and perpetually outdated WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR. If Wikidata had something this might work. // Timothy :: talk 15:22, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DEL-REASON 6: Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes), unless it can be demonstrated that we actually can attribute this to WP:RELIABLE sources in a way that doesn't violate WP:SYNTH and which keeps this from being constantly out of date (in which case I am neutral as to the encyclopedic merits of this article). I'm not exactly holding my breath, however. TompaDompa (talk) 22:33, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nevermind the nigh-insurmountable sourcing challenges, it makes zero sense to make comparisons like this. What does it even mean that Crossfire had 13M more monthly players in Jan 2020 than PUBG did in June 2018? The month is different, the months since launch of their respective games is different, the genre is different. Nothing is controlled for so the comparison is nonsense! It's like saying cats are longer than potatoes. Yes, the unit of measure is the same but there has been no effort to explain why you're making the comparison in the first place. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:05, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ 08:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Battle[edit]

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

The standard for inclusion is multiple significant roles in notable productions. Maybe one of the roles is significant, so that standard is clearly failed. The one source here, IMDB is not reliable, and we cannot have biogrpahies of living people without sourcing to reliable sources, so in that case this cannot have no information at all. This page has existed for 13 years, had notification of problems for 7 years. My search for additional sourcing came up with nothing that would pass the reliable, secondary 3rd party independent source with substantial coverage threshold we need to add towards passing the general notability guidelines. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NACTOR - he played the best bloke of a lead on a soap opera for a season or two. Bearian (talk) 14:29, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:57, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aarambh (film)[edit]

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

An article about a Bollywood film, sourced only to (non-WP:RS) IMDb since creation in 2008. A WP:BEFORE search turned up a one-line plot summary at BFI, a rather longer plot summary at muvyz.com (the genre is described as "obscure", and the usual collection of listings sites; but nothing RS. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom, nothing of substance found during a search. 21:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to concerns around WP:NFILM and WP:GNG Spiderone 17:23, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFILM and WP:MILL. Many films are not notable, and this one from 1976 has too few sources to verify it. Allow it to be recreated if and when it gets book sources in film history. Bearian (talk) 14:24, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Vardy[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Only source is more about his climbing companion than him. Insignificant coverage otherwise, just a lot of sites promoting speaking engagements and books. Rogermx (talk) 20:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 20:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 20:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 20:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 20:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The name is familiar and, while he's borderline, I reckon there's enough like this and that. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree that this is a BIO and GNG fail. No doubt Andrew didn't look at the sources he linked, the first which is just three sentences long, the second which just namedrops the subject, or else they wouldn't have been suggested as meeting the GNG. Ravenswing 18:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The second of the sources doesn't just namedrop the subject. It has several pages of coverage of an incident in which Vardy was one of the three climbers involved. It seems that you are the one who hasn't actually read it, as if you did you would see that Vardy, as is normal, is referred to by his surname alone after the first mention. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a total failure of the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:40, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The 1999 incident on Mount McKinley, which involved Vardy, two other climbers and some rescuers, seems to be notable, with ISBN 9780684864792, written by Bob Drury and published by Simon & Schuster, having extensive coverage and a few pages in the journal that I have cited in the article as well as previously-identified sources. Maybe this article should be repurposed to be about the incident rather than one of the participants? Phil Bridger (talk) 15:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having spent some time researching and adding both content, sources, and an image of Vardy from the Wellcome Collection, I think this article just makes it over WP:SINGLEEVENT threshhold. Vardy has clearly been written about, or featured in, national media coverage of both the incident and his subsequent achievements long after his life-changing 1999 incident. That said, if consensus and policy goes against my opinion, I think it would be preferable to see a page about the incident on Denali, rather than outright deletion of the article about this one person, per Phil Bridger. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per above. Inter&anthro (talk) 04:35, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 18:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the post-nom expansion work. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:50, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator, I change my vote from ~~Delete~~ to "Keep. Thanks everyone for the research and improvements. Rogermx (talk) 20:30, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Missouri Western State University. Sandstein 09:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

National undergraduate research clearinghouse[edit]

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

Doesn’t seem to pass WP:GNG, WP:ORG or WP:NJOURNAL. Grey Wanderer (talk) 02:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Grey Wanderer (talk) 02:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Grey Wanderer (talk) 02:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Grey Wanderer (talk) 03:05, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not-notable academic resource. KidAd (💬💬) 03:10, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Missouri Western State University. There's secondary coverage in Science, Nature and less prominent places, but I don't think any of it is sufficiently in-depth to warrant a stand-alone article. XOR'easter (talk) 18:41, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 18:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Agree with XOR'easter, this could/should go into the main MWSU article. (And on a personal note, I think that's quite an interesting initiative, kudos to them!) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:22, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Atha Mechina Alludu[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG: No sources for either English transliterated title, or original Telugu title. All other linked websites are database entries. This may be from a significant actor or a prolific director, but it can't stand on its own as it is. –eggofreason^{(talk · contribs)} 05:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. –eggofreason^{(talk · contribs)} 05:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. –eggofreason^{(talk · contribs)} 05:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: Some points at WP:NFILM might help this stand if any contemporary criticism of the film was found, but as said, I came across practically nothing for this film. Regardless, this article fails on all other of NFILM's points (including GNG/RS) based on my searching. –eggofreason^{(talk · contribs)} 05:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Online English-language sources for old non-Hindi films of India are pretty much non-existent. Both Krishna and Kodi Ramakrishna are well known figures in Telugu cinema, so its likely that film is widely distributed. The film received full length review from well known Telugu-language newspaper Andhra Patrika,^[1] quite possible that it is reviewed in other Telugu newspapers, not available online at this point. Hence the film satisfies #1 of other evidence of notability. -- Ab207 (talk) 16:53, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "సినిమా ముచ్చట్లు: అత్త మెచ్చిన అల్లుడు" [Cinema talks: Aththa Mechhina Alludu]. Andhra Patrika (in Telugu). 2020-01-23.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 18:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The fact that there are notable actors does not establish notability for this film as notability isn't inherited. With that said, other than the one review mentioned I could find nothing of substance. Lots of links to databases, youtube videos, and other sites that fail all of the reliability requirements. Saying that it satisfies #1 of other evidence of notability is wrong, because that clearly states "received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." and we can only find one. You cannot assume that there is more. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- While I agree that at least two known reviews are needed, it cannot be assumed that they do not exist because they are not available online. Its unfortunate that most Indian Newspapers do not store content before 2000s. Even if they were, Google search does a terrible job when it comes to Indian languages. I've tried to preset whatever I could find by searching manually. --Ab207 (talk) 08:02, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Indeed, we cannot assume that sources don't exist because they're not online. But it remains the case that in order to keep the article, those sources need to be produced, and they need to be verifiable by other editors. No prejudice against recreation if sources appear at a later date, but right now, this doesn't meet the GNG. Ravenswing 07:10, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. None of the "keep" opinions propose sources establishing notability. Their argument is based on WP:OUTCOMES, which is not a policy or guideline, but a description of past outcomes. This argument is invalid, because each article is judged on its own merits, and if notability concerns are raised, sources must be submitted. Sandstein 14:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Goodman (politician)[edit]

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

Article about a city politician which does meet WP:NPOL I can't find any specific reliable coverage on anything they have done outside of their standard things for a city official. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 04:24, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 04:24, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 04:24, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 04:24, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mcmatter: Please be careful not to add biographies to the "bibliographies" delsort. Thanks. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:39, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 04:24, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 04:24, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete City council person is way to low of a political position to pass WP:NPOL and fails the notability guidelines anyway due to the lack of multiple in-depth reliable sources about her. Adamant1 (talk) 05:35, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Frivolous nomination. There are 12 members of the Minneapolis City Council, and nine have pages, so you better get cracking. Per WP:POLOUTCOMES, precedent has tended to favor keeping members of the main citywide government of internationally famous metropolitan areas. KidAd (💬💬) 05:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you take that position, which is pretty dubious since "other stuff exists" isn't really a valid argument, there still isn't multiple reliable in-depth sources about her to pass WP:GNG. Since it looks like the only source in the article that is about her specifically is about the price of her house. Id hardly call that worthy of the notability guidelines for politicians. WP:POLOUTCOMES doesn't mean you can ignore the notability guidelines. Adamant1 (talk) 16:24, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She is a member of a major legislative body in a major American city. This is not the Rushville, Ohio Town Council. KidAd (💬💬) 19:24, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What most importantly in the guidelines, but also in reality, determines what a major legislative body is? Last I checked, WP:POLITICIAN is about the position the person has. WP:DIPLOMAT says "American county-level legislators are considered to be similarly not-inherently notable just like municipal politicians." Most county-level legislators in America are part of a "major legislative body" whatever that means, but even they aren't inherently notable. Minneapolis isn't even the capital of Minnesota either and population wise it's pretty middle of the road. It's definitely not in the same league as say New York, Dallas, or even barely say Nashville. If you want to make the "other stuff exists" argument, only two city Council members in Nashville have Wikipedia articles and both are extremely well sourced with coverage in multiple national news outlets. Especially Megan Barry. Which can't be said for this person. Personally, I'd be willing to say maybe a city council member is worthy of notability in some rare cases, but the sources would have to be on par with Megan Barry's or at least a little less and not run of the mill topics like how they city council voted on something or things related to a single news event like George Floyd's murder. Which is important, but has way less to do with this lady in particular then it does Minneapolis or even the Minneapolis City Council as a group. All the coverage seems to be about the city council as a group. Not about her specifically. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my vote to merge or redirect to Minneapolis City Council. I think that's the best middle ground between just deleting her article or keeping it when she's not notable enough on her own to warrant an article about her. I'm sure the same can and probably will eventually be done for the other Minneapolis City Council that have articles. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the op-ed wall of text. The "major legislative body" is the Minneapolis City Council, which has jurisdiction over a city of approximately 382,578 people (at the time of the 2010 census) and is located within the 16th-largest metro area in the United States out of 384. A merge to the City Council page is nonsensical. KidAd (💬💬) 20:18, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome ;) What's nonsensical about a merge? She still has to pass the notability guidelines whatever your opinion of the legislative body shes a part of is and she doesn't. The only only article specifically about her has to do with her house. There isn't even a bio piece or anything about her work as legislator outside of the George Floyd thing. Which barely even has anything to do with her. Essentially the article is "this lady is a city council member, her house cost less then she thought it would, and the Minneapolis City Council announce the intent to disband the police." BTW, they didn't even vote to do. They just announced the intent to and the articles about it just have her name. Nothing else. Not even her opinion on it. Except the New York Times article, but it only has a single sentence from her. That's the definition of not having in-depth coverage and not being notable. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She is notable for being a city council member. You've voted, so let the AfD run its course ~~and pipe down~~. KidAd (💬💬) 20:31, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's circular reasoning and doesn't fit the guidelines. I was just asking. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:32, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Struck a portion of my previous comment. I responded to your sarcastic Your welcome ;) with hostility. But I'm done with this conversation. KidAd (💬💬) 20:34, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sourcing is nowhere near passing GNG. The article does not pass the strong sourcing requirements for local politicians and should be scapped.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Members of the Minneapolis City Council are notable. Per Common outcomes for politicians, municipal council members of large cities are generally notable. Also, a Google news search shows numerous articles about her city council actions as the officer of what is probably the most watched major city council in the United States right now. I don't think it's a coincidence that one of the council members who voted against reallocating police funds and against firing the MPD public information officer is now facing a deletion. Not having a Wikipedia article doesn't eliminate her from the City Council. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpen320 (talk • contribs)

As you have now made a bad faith assumption on my actions I do feel the need to reply to this. I have no political leaning one way or the other on this article and I don't even live in the US. I have read the Common outcomes for politicians and as it says "generally" and "tend" to because this isn't policy, as stated at the top of the page, but a document which has put some of the more common outcomes have been in the past. There is still some expectation that they even partially meet WP:GNG so far there has been no proof that anyone outside of council vote report has ever taken notice of the subject. I think we can all agree she does not meet WP:NPOL as that one is much clearer. Please feel free to discuss the policy and merits of the article but please do not assume political motivations of other editors. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 05:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Common outcomes are a form of consensus and I can point out recent events that may have influenced you to choose this specific article instead of proposing in a discussion why ALL council members should be deleted.--Mpen320 (talk) 18:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personally of course I think those votes were wise, I also am unconvinced that the defund the police non-sense will in the end be anything more than grandstanding. They have no alternate method, and are only really committed to a year of exploration. At some point the fact their stupid plans will just lead to more crime will force them to abandoned them. I say this writting within 10 blocks of ground zero of the 1967 riot of Detroit, a place that still has not recovered from the stupid actions of people who wanted to be able to carry on the illegal sale of alcohol, including the sale of alcohol to minors, in peace. However I am unconvinced that most of the members of a city council in any city are actually notable. You need coverage, and that is lacking.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep City councillor for a major US city, in particular one that's receiving much press. City council members for major cities are often notable. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am sorely tempted to close this as "delete" because the arguments to keep are so poor. POLOUTCOMES is not a notability guideline, it is simply a rough heuristic. The relevant guidelines are GNG and NPOL, and no evidence has been provided that the subject of this article meets either. Indeed, local politicians are specifically mentioned in NPOL as requiring substantive coverage to be considered notable, and so arguments that they are notable based on their office carry little weight.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 18:12, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would understand a No Consensus close, but there is no consensus to delete right now. KidAd (talk) 19:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete I'm seeing a sentence, maybe two, that constitutes a claim to notability, and even that is sketchy: her votes on a hot-button national issue are unexplained and inconsequential. Mangoe (talk) 20:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If Lisa Goodman is somehow not notable, then we would be better served by having a conversation about why members of the Minneapolis City Council are not notable. There are thirty-nine pages in Category:Minneapolis City Council members and most of them have only held the local office that Goodman is apparently, suddenly not notable for holding. Taking this one off approach to Minneapolis City Council members seems counterproductive.--Mpen320 (talk) 21:43, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @Vanamonde93: Why is it that when you want to delete an article you can just go "Not GNG" with no elaboration on why the existing sources fail, but if you want to keep an article you have to provide some grand soliloquy as to why it should stay? How are the keep arguments any weaker than the delete arguments?--Mpen320 (talk) 21:43, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mpen320: That's because it's impossible to prove an absence of coverage, only a presence. Those arguing to keep need to provide evidence that the subject meets GNG (or NPOL, or another notability standard). If such evidence is prvided, the onus is then on those arguing to delete to demonstrate why that evidence isn't valid. At the moment, no evidence of notability has been provided in the AfD; the closer cannot be expected to check all the sources in the article. If the sources there are sufficient, that should be stated here, with quotes if necessary. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:15, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93: How am I suppose to improve the article to demonstrate GNG if the nominator who proposes deletion provides no specifics as to how the sources fail to show GNG. Did they fail because they might be considered local? Did they fail because one might be considered primary? Even outside of my belief this is a bad faith nomination based on her recent votes, there is no way to defend their claim beyond "she's a long time councilwoman from one of the largest cities in the country," without further guidance from the nominator. Without saying "The sources are primary and therefore fail GNG," the argument is no stronger than "there are other Minneapolis council member articles."--Mpen320 (talk) 23:37, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mpen320: Intentionally or otherwise, that's a leading question which I'm not going to answer directly. I will confine myself to saying that to meet GNG the coverage needs to be substantive in multiple, independent, reliable sources, and that each piece of coverage counting towards GNG needs to meet all of those criteria. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The discussion should be closed as No Consensus. KidAd (talk) 02:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Minneapolis City Council. I haven't gone looking for sources myself, but the responses were pretty clear, and I've waited a week to decide whether to post this, and in the meantime the sources didn't get much better, even under pressure. The nomination and the delete/redirect !votes make the only assertion that really counts for notability, which is WP:SIGCOV. In contrast, the keep !votes are ugly business:
1. First, a basic invalid WP:OTHERSTUFF claim, then mutated into an implication that WP:POLOUTCOMES matters instead of WP:NPOL (actual guidelines) or WP:GNG; then, when actual guidelines are pointed out, simply repeating the first claim instead; then when someone unilaterally tries to compromise, they get a sarcastic bully taunt of "Thanks for the op-ed wall of text.", later followed by a false accusation that the other person started the sarcasm first, followed by another taunt that the other person has said enough and should stop contributing.
2. Second keep !vote, same claim of WP:POLOUTCOMES, but at least there's a loose attempt to address WP:N with "Google news search shows numerous articles about her city council actions". Too bad that's followed immediately by what appears to be a racially-tinged conspiracy broadside against anyone who agrees with the nomination — and in all-bold text at that.

In summary, the deletion explanations are on point, and the keep explanations look more like WP:NPA violations by newbie WP:SPA fanboys who think there's a conspiracy to suppress their friend's up-and-coming band for playing music too cool for the establishment. I actually looked at the history page for this AfD because I couldn't believe that two editors with 5-digit edit counts were responding like that. At least one of them is normally level-headed, so I'm going to be nice and assume that there's just a bad moon and people have been indoors too long this year. But since someone brought up "outcomes", I'm pointing out that rancid keep !votes like that almost always indicate an article going down in flames. So it's time to either point out specific, significant biographical coverage about the person, not just council votes, in independent sources that are not routine/mandatory or merely local interest coverage, or it's a delete. And, by the way, just in case there's WP:POINTY griping in later city council AfDs: The same policies and guidelines apply to any related/similar article with the same disposition. --Closeapple (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relax. I don't see what your problem is. If you want sources, here are some: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. Not all of the keep votes are frivolous. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 12:38, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To speak to these references, the first is a personal blog without any evidence of editorial oversight and does not help to establish notability. The second is a reliable source, but I would argue this argument about her assessment on her property would not reach any level notability as only one paper seemed to have written about it. Third is routine local political coverage and is not primarily about Goodman. The 4th and 5th ref is a newsletter and not considered reliable for notability. The 6th reference is a press release, not considered reliable for notability. The last reference is considered reliable but it was 9 years prior to only other reliable source listed and a completely different issue. I still don't see anything that help her meet the threshold for WP:GNG or WP:NPOL as none is really any sort of significant coverage on her beyond a couple single events several years apart. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 04:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wow, I agree that the keep proponents are going overboard. First off, WP:OUTCOMES starts with:
This page summarizes what some editors believe are the typical outcomes of past AfD discussions for some commonly nominated subjects. This page is not a policy or guideline, and previous outcomes do not bind future ones because consensus can change. The community's actual notability guidelines are listed in the template at the right. Notability always requires verifiable evidence, and all articles on all subjects are kept or deleted on the basis of sources showing their notability, not their subjective importance or relationship to something else. All articles should be evaluated individually on their merits and their ability to conform to standard content policies.
Secondly, it's damn bad faith to screech that people "only want to delete her because she's on the council." Strange though it might appear, there are actually editors on Wikipedia who vote in deletion discussions on the merits of the argument. If Goodman's vote was in the news because of the Floyd incident, and that's where significant coverage of Goodman (as opposed to just of her vote) came from, then that's a BLP1E issue and still a notability fail. Ravenswing 07:06, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Elisabetta of Belgium[edit]

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

The article was created due to the subject's marriage with one of the nephews of the Belgian king. The subject attracts virtually no press coverage and apparently does not even bear the title princess of Belgium. Unless there is some coverage in reliable sources that I am missing, I do not think this topic passes WP:BASIC notability criteria. Surtsicna (talk) 18:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 18:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 18:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 18:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 18:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 18:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Vanity Fair story cited three times doesn't even mention her actual name--just a brief mention of "Ettore's daughter Lili". The other citations are to Twitter and Facebook, which clearly aren't reliable, and to a few newspaper lifestyle sections that have a paragraph on the couple. Clearly not notable outside of her marriage and her extended family. JoelleJay (talk) 06:48, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - she has a career, which is more than most royals. Bearian (talk) 14:26, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian, can it be demonstrated that she is notable for that career? In other words, is there enough coverage in reliable sources to establish that she is notable as a journalist? Currently the article sums up her career in a single sentence. Surtsicna (talk) 18:33, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete her career is clearly not notable, she is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:46, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable --Devokewater@ 12:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A close call, but in the end a fairly convincing consensus. The provided sources are not sufficient to establish notability, and an in-depth analysis of them was not able to convince participants of their reliability or suitability. If a new version of this article is to be written once new and better sources can be found, it should go through the AfC process. – bradv🍁 04:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vivek Verma[edit]

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

This was recently speedily deleted, that speedy deletion was overturned at deletion review, and I'm listing it here as a result of that discussion. There was a previous AfD in 2017. I have no opinion. Hut 8.5 12:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hut 8.5 12:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hut 8.5 12:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ping DRV participants: @Stonertone, SportingFlyer, Sandstein, DESiegel, Atlantic306, Hobit, S Marshall, Robert McClenon, GeneralNotability, Praxidicae, Shubhi89, and Stifle:. Hut 8.5 12:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. As I have already discussed in the DRV that the subject Clearly passes WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO and WP:BASIC.

1- As his works are there in Bollywood mainstream movies which makes him eligible enough to have an Article on Wiki.

2- Due to point 1 he seems to be having enough References like The Hindu [10], News18 [11], Times of India [12], The Diplomat [13] and others. Stonertone (talk) 13:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC) *Blocked for undisclosed paid editing in violation of the WMF Terms of Use. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per my original statements at DRV and elsewhere. Praxidicae (talk) 13:16, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or failing that, keep. Verma has clearly had a hand in making a number of notable films, and has produced a number of records, and has been discussed at some length in a number of sources. The real question is the quality and reliability of the sources, and whether the movie participation was sufficient to qualify him for an article under NACTOR. I rather suspect that he is in fact notable by Wikipedia rules, but I am not sufficiently aware of who is who in the Indian news market to be confident on the reliability of the sources now cited. Thuis I would favor moving back to draft and asking for an improvement of source quality. Praxidicae argued in the DRV that most of the sources were not RS. If so that does not show that no better sources are available. The article in The Hindu is clearly an RS with significant coverage.Of course, improvements may happen during the AfD. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It looks like there are reliable sources here; the articles in The Diplomat and News 18 look strong to me. — Toughpigs (talk) 15:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep I'm willing to listen, but the (fairly brief but not trivial) references to him in The Diplomat and the Hindu appear to be enough to get him over the GNG bar. Some other sources appear to be press releases and others I can't really evaluate for notability as I don't know the Indian press well. But just what I can evaluate seems like enough. Hobit (talk) 18:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources are just not good enough in my view and I question their truthfulness. They are all repeating directly what he has sent to them for republication, none of the interviews show any indication of having been initiated by the papers themselves. If what these papers say is true, I should be able to verify that in other sources.
When someone produces music for movies, their name is mentioned in passing when newspapers discuss the film. That does not happen for Vivek. Also, when someone produces music for movies, they are given credit in the movie's credit list. Now, what happens if you Google these movies and the subject's name? You'd expect to find movie credit websites and short passing newspaper mentions, but you don't. The only sources that show up are these PR pieces. There are only two possible reasons for why the movie production companies would all forget to give credit to Vivek, either he's 1) lying in these interviews or 2) he is a non-notable assistant at Himesh Reshammiya's sound production studio.
There are no press releases or newspaper discussions about this supposed "BizAsia Music Award" and I cannot verify that it exist.
Why did the Hindu decide to write about this video having "caught the netizens' eye" when it has 1200 views?
If he were actually notable, we'd see passing mentions and movie credits, but we don't.
– Thjarkur (talk) 11:28, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thjarkur I definetly agree with your statement that "BizAsia Music Award" seems to be a non notable/existing award as I too failed to find reliable sources on it, But I Disagree with the statement that he is not discussed in Movie credit list, and probably you have confused him as Film producer rather then Record producer.

Secondly- He doesn't seem to be lying because lets say these Interviews can be a lie but his name in the credit be clearly seen in The official Youtube Channel of T-Series (company) where the whole Movie album is officially Launched Like This and This stating Vivek Verma Guitarist at HR Musik Studio, There are many credit mentions about his work on Multiple notable Movies like this from the movie Teraa Surroor and all of these are Himesh Reshammiya's Movies. also see This it does have 136+ Million views on it,

Here see these mentions in passing where newspapers are discussing about his works like This for the movie Happy Hardy and Heer you can check Vivek Verma's name in credit in all of these links, Check This too on Koimoi disscussing about his song Humsafar I found other links as well about his work passing mentions like This and there are many websites as well.

If you check The Hindu's article on him here you can see The head line stating set to release his single ‘Aashiyana’, post lockdown means at that point of time when the article was written the song was not released and I think Its not released yet too because this video is not the song its just the Teaser of the song of 47 seconds.

here also you can check his name in credit on Dailymotion like this, and I guess majorly his name is credited as a Guitarist that is why you failed to get info about him. Thanks Dtt1^Talk 13:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. as this article does have wp:rs like The diplomat, Hindu and zee and these refs are describing about his work briefly enough which makes me vote a Keep here, also i have cited one more reference from The Diplomat this to it, and rest I guess Thjarkur have already removed the non reliable links from the article, the remaining sources are good enough to satisfy GNG. although there are minute things which can be written in the article to make it more better. Dtt1^Talk 13:38, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my statement at Deletion Review. have Coverage Significant enough to pass GNG and Music Bio. Shubhi89 (talk) 13:25, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Although the person have done significant work but I think some of the editors on Wikipedia aren’t really happy with the page, as they are unnecessarily removing details which does have verifiable references, This is my very first vote in Article for deletion section and I would like to comment because as I tried reverting thjarkur’s cleaning of the work details from the page, Some admin Rollbacked it Immediately, then I searched for the links as one of the editor above have given the hint about Which anyone can definitely go and verify, Though I have reverted and edited the page I can’t write a keep for that, but I don’t see any problem with the article, although suggestions are welcomed. Do correct my mistakes but please notify me where I am wrong Thanks Thepilipalasgirl (talk) 00:05, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find enough significant resources that are reliable and independent of the subject. Fails WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO. DMySon 04:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not have significant in-depth coverage to warrant a standalone article on Wikipedia. Also on a side-note there has just been to much socking on this page and it reeks of paid editing, I guess if you have to pay someone to write about you your generally not notable. - FitIndia ^{Talk Admin on Commons} 08:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete routine coverage, interviews and passing mentions are not enough to demonstrate notability, and I can't find anything better than what is already available in the article. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. GSS ^💬 08:52, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a barebone article having no significant in-depth coverage. -Hatchens (talk) 11:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the new sourcing is no less WP:MILL than previously, and pretty much publicity items. —— Serial 11:58, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NMUSIC. I don't know about the truthfulness of the subject (not a criterion for consideration) but as a BLP the standards for sourcing are higher. Interviews may be alright for content but rarely advances notability. Wording like "There are three songs which I am doing", "says Vivek Verma", "Advices (sic) Singer Vivek Verma", are self-references. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and up-coming movies (future events) need independent sources following the criteria of WP:NFF. -- Otr500 (talk) 06:13, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete coverage isn't good enough for a BLP and where paid editing is suspected I simply set the bar a bit higher. Wikipedia is not free publicity.Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I cannot see a valid reason to keep this. YouTube credits are great to have but not for Wikipedia. I could create a channel and give anyone credit I wanted to. I could say the Pointer Sisters performed and wrote a song for a commercial, that doesn’t make it acceptable. The IMDB reference made my eyes hurt trying to read it and again all referenced YouTube and also stated he was an assistant to a higher up who was notable. Add to that, the creator got blocked for COI and when I run the name of the “artist” just through google, I get nothing noteworthy just a couple articles repeating each other and based on interviews he gave. Thanks, Bakertheacre ^Chat/_{What I Baked} 01:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC) WP:Sockstrike.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

definitely I would have agreed with you @Bakertheacre: that anyone can make a youtube channel and upload to it, But unless it was the Youtube channel of T-Series (company) that channel is the biggest youtube channel in the world i.e List of most-subscribed YouTube channels for more instance You can also check PewDiePie vs T-Series. although I agree that youtube references are not considered verifiable but in This case it seems to be one as it justifies why those references can considered notable. Thanks --Dtt1^Talk 07:29, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

::: Dtt1, I am curious as to why you keep referencing Wikipedia articles instead of actual references as Wikipedia in and of itself is not a valid resource. Thanks, Bakertheacre ^Chat/_{What I Baked} 07:47, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The numbers of !votes here seem to suggest a consensus for deletion, but when those arguing to keep have produced sources, arguments in favor of deletion need to demonstrate why those sources are insufficient, to carry any weight. Relisting to allow discussion of the specific sources brought up here and currently used in the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 04:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: While I understand what you are trying to do, the first AfD and this AfD have both favorably consented to deletion. The links I click on above take to me Wikipedia articles about newspapers, what a guitarist is, etc. I think this relist needs to not happen as consensus has occurred twice to delete the article. Thanks, Bakertheacre ^Chat/_{What I Baked} 05:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC) WP:Sockstrike.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with :@Vanamonde93: without giving any specific reason about those references which does have in depth details about the musician and his work, just voting a Delete doesn't seem to be justifying enough. as I also saw that Þjarkur almost removed all the details from the article, Without any specific reason just stating that they doesn't have verifiable links. and Drmies reverted the edits by user User:Thepilipalasgirl, (although I was about to ask this on Drmies's talk page but after the relist I feel like stating it here only) as can be clearly seen in the history of the article that all his Extended play's (EP) section that his songs like Mai Aur Tu have This reference, Humsafar have This as a verifiable reference. Aashiyaana have this, Udaan have This, Bekhudi (Reprise) have this

and as a guitarist section references also was enough to prove the verifiability of the work see below :

I'm not even going to address the absurdity of using WP or Itunes as sources but is not reliable in the slightest and neither is this nonsense. And I have very serious doubts about the integrity of this source that doesn't even identify an author and is written incredibly poorly. Praxidicae (talk) 10:01, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a Guitarist

My Concern here is How come they are not supposed to be in the article? --Dtt1^Talk 07:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dtt1, so you have listed YouTube channels and also iTunes links to download music. It was stated numerous times in the posting as to why people are stating their opinion and what they are referencing. I myself am unable to find much that would allow him to be notable as his work is nothing that is notable and does not meet the numerous classifications as others have put forth above. For everyone to constantly repeat the same thing gets tiring. Can you please provide valid references that are acceptable and not user made or just a passing mention of him and are not interviews. Something rock solid that would show notoriety would be great! Bakertheacre ^Chat/_{What I Baked} 07:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC) WP:Sockstrike.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bakertheacre, If you would have really checked all the links which I have provided above and the References ( like This and This just to refer the songs) Rest if you have checked the article then you would have not asked the solid sources, and My reply to your vote above was to answer your question about why youtube links are referred in the songs, rest those links are enough to state his notability which are there in the article. Thanks --Dtt1^Talk 08:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bakertheacre: The consensus reached in previous discussions isn't really relevant. Arguments presented here need to be substantive enough to establish a new consensus; delete !votes that do not make any reference to the sources presented here cannot receive much weight. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still very little analysis of the sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I feel like a broken record, but more substantive analysis of the sources provided is necessary.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 17:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let me just reiterate for a billionth time and my 3rd or 4th delete vote on this subject, where I've also given analysis of the sources, I strongly believe this should be deleted. It is nothing more than self promotion, including the sources. This is a piece by a guest author for StoriesAsia but it's not even primarily about Vivek Verma. Kathmandu Tribune like many others engages in pay for publication. There is no author on this, there is no evidence it was published by their editorial staff and I cannot express to you how easily it is to pay someone a measly sum of money to publish a puff piece about you but even if it is somehow miraculously by their editorial staff, it's nothing more than a gossip blog equivalent with two sentences to say "HBD!" An interview and thus not independent. Written by their "news desk" with no author, a good indicator it's not independent and is a PR. Simply not a reliable source. An iMDb equivalent listing. Not a reliable source, "Team Newsable" is basically a republishing service. This is basically the only okay source, so that says a lot about the rest. Not rs... a 5 sentence puff piece Praxidicae (talk) 18:37, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lol same as Vanamonde93 mentioned, Feels like a broken record with this subject! undoubtedly Praxidicae's Knowledge for the Wikipedia and analysis for the sources are appreciable, But as Vanamonde93 demanded more substantive analysis of the sources provided, I would love to again represent my version of analysis where Vivek Verma doesn't seem to be failing WP:MUSICBIO per Wikipedia:Notability.

As per Point number 10 in WP:MUSICBIO, He Has been the part of notable compilation album of movies like Prem Ratan Dhan Payo, Aap Se Mausiiquii, Happy Hardy and Heer etc, for credits Check This and my comment above.

No level 2 header please! ——Serial 15:41, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Now lets analyse the sources -

The Diplomat- here This which Praxidicae mentioned as "not even primarily about Vivek Verma" is Actually an article (If you read the whole) on the The Rise of Indie Music in India as headlined where they have discussed about different music people from India like Darshan Raval, Gajendra Verma and Vivek Verma, where its in Depth mentioned about Vivek too with other Artists. Secondly stating it a 'Guest Post' would not make any sense as It is not, You can check the Coverage by that Author Here No evidence of him as a Guest Post.

Now Check the second In Depth source on The Diplomat, which is This, The Complete Article is on Vivek Verma.

The Hindu- This link Here is undoubtedly a reliable one from The Hindu.

The Times of India- As Times of India doesn't have a clear consensus regarding its Reliability, but some of them consider it Notable and that depends on Case to Case scenario, Here This Link from TOI which is a Primary Source, can be considered acceptable as per WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD because this is just not the only references about his debut in Dhollywood, there are other sources available too like This which clearly states that this is not a Puff piece.

Kathmandu Tribune- though this website has a partnership with Deutsche Welle it is slightly considered reliable as per This Discussion, although I am not much sure about it but as stated above that This source has no Author to it, I failed to find that, It does have an Author to it.

Zee News- In India Zee, Abp these are the few regional most reliable news sources, Since Regional News are at the verge of growth in India, It is considered as acceptable till some extinct because like This link Here are sometimes written By Their News Desks for Instance check This link it is about today's ceremony done by Narendra Modi in Ram Mandir, Ayodhya, it too doesn't have any author and written by News Desk, but we cant say that its a puff piece either.

Millennium post- This link Here, Can't say much about it as no such evidence available of the reliability of the source.
Bollywood Hungama- considered as reliable for Bollywood related news, But not sure about This link here as Praxidicae said seems like some directory or IMDB.
Asianet News- Asianet is Popular In india as a Television Channel, But being popular is not Notability, Also I don't Know much about its News source reliability much, The link is Here
Network18 Group- is again a very reliable source basically topics which are based in India, and since This source is not much brief but it is in their Music Section,It seems strong to me where it indicates the authenticity of the source on an artist from an RS.

Keeping the above in Mind on an Overall basis I would stick to my vote as Keep or if failed Weak Keep. Thanks --Dtt1^Talk 15:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Praxidicae's assessment of the sources, demonstrating too heavy a reliance on primary sources and WP:MILL-mentions to sustain the stringent requirements of WP:BLP or BASC. ——Serial 15:43, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It should probably also be noted that some of the sources (many) that dtt1 is pushing as reliable are very clearly fake. Praxidicae (talk) 17:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The provided sources does not reinforce the notability, so it's still a delete from me. GSS ^💬 15:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-as per DTT1, he has explained above better than i could have done about the existing sources. Thepilipalasgirl (talk) 23:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Viral Shah[edit]

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

Non notable film director, writer or producer. I spent some time on WP:BEFORE and failed. Your mileage may vary. I analysed the references in this permalink version:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Viral-Shah/movies	an entertainment listing periodical	Generally unreliable for factual reporting, an entertainment listing periodical	passing mention	✘ No
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/gujarati/movies/news/did-you-know-filmmaker-viral-shah-is-a-licensed-pilot/articleshow/75572659.cms	an entertainment listing periodical	Generally unreliable for factual reporting, an entertainment listing periodical	Gossip column style mention. Needs more than this	✘ No
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/gujarati/movies/news/director-viral-shah-shares-a-glimpse-of-his-work-from-home-dubbing-setup/articleshow/75847907.cms	an entertainment listing periodical	Generally unreliable for factual reporting, Well respected publication, though it is an entertainment listing periodical	Gossip column style mention. Needs more than this	✘ No
https://www.outlookindia.com/newsscroll/midnights-with-menka-a-genre-of-fake-biopic-says-writerdirector/1431021	Interview with the subject. Nothing outside the interview	? Not obvious. Benefit of the doubt maybe?	Interview with the subject. Nothing outside the interview	✘ No
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/spotlight/adhikari-brothers-enter-the-webspace-with-dheet-patangey/articleshow/74441620.cms?	an entertainment listing periodical	Generally unreliable for factual reporting, an entertainment listing periodical	Tried hard and failed to find the subject mentioned at all	✘ 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}}.

Notability fails and referencing fails. This article is also flagged as UPE. Fiddle Faddle 17:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 17:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 17:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 17:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 17:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 17:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Timtrent just a note that I wouldn't qualify TOI as "well respected" when it comes to areas that might possibly involve self promotion, as is the case here. The fact that they list no author is also very telling. See also multiple discussions at WP:RSN. Praxidicae (talk) 18:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Praxidicae, ~~I bow to your better knowledge. How would you prefer I described them either now or in the future~~ Ah. RSN entry form March 2020. Thank you for correcting me. Once learned never forgotten Fiddle Faddle 19:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete I guess I didn't really make it obvious in my previous comment. Praxidicae (talk) 11:49, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 17:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per nom and above allThepilipalasgirl (talk) 23:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the source analysis, except I'd consider Outlook india, a reliable source for domestic issues of factual and political reporting. - hako9 (talk) 01:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hako9, "This story has not been edited by Outlook staff and is auto-generated from news agency feeds. Source: IANS" So much for Outlook. Vexations (talk) 11:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vexations: My gripe was the Not obvious. Benefit of the doubt maybe? under Reliable column for Outlook. I was well aware it is published pre-packed from IANS. Indian news sources are riddled with stories published as is from PTI/IANS. The important thing is they are clearly mentioned it as such. And multiple sources with same IANS/PTI story are counted as one. WP:SYNDICATED. The IANS/Outlook story is not independent/sigcov that I agree, that's why I made the del vote in the first place. The subject isn't notable is obvious. - hako9 (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hako9, When I ran the analysis I looked at content. Even if we judged the source to be reliable the fact it's an interview knocks it right out of contention Fiddle Faddle 14:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent: Ofcourse. That's why I voted delete. - hako9 (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shivkrupanand Swami[edit]

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

Paid editing puff piece. Sources are inadequate: 1. No byline, not an RS, govt website. 2. 1 mention does not meet rs or gng 3. Not about him but an attempt by his foundation to break a record 4. I can't get 4 to open 5. Mention. Not about subject. A single line. No byline. Not clear RS and reads like a press release 6. Link goes to main page so no detail of subject 7. Report of a press conference. No evidence of independent commentary so cannot count to rs 8. Reprinted press release with absolutely no effort to pretend its an independent article. No bio data.

So a BLP that is entirely devoid of meaningful sources containing biographic data. A paid for article full of puffery is nowhere near the standard we require. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per Nom, sources aren't reliable, and mere mention to some other topic on RS won't make it pass GNG. Dtt1^Talk 15:37, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Spiderone 20:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- promotional article, delete per above all Thepilipalasgirl (talk) 23:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is now clear to keep after the last nomination in June. (non-admin closure) —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 17:22, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

J. D. Slater[edit]

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

Spite to the incredible amount of sources, few go further passing mention and none is a deep coverage. They are mostly passing mentions and those which are not come from his own web page or are just a very few lines long (5 to 6 lines. not deep coverage). Considering that, not being independent or third party, interviews have a small weight into establishing notability (and the interviews included in the sources are not on notable media) here there is nothing that can establish notability. Plus, this article is highly promotional with over abundance of trivial information. This is the second time I nominate this article so I think it is fair to ping anybody who last time debate it. @Gleeanon409: , @Johnpacklambert: , @Genericusername57: , @Phil Bridger: , @Zaathras: , @Gene93k: , @Acousmana: . I think I included everybody but if I forgot someone I apologize and feel free to ping him. Thank you AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 16:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 August 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 17:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 17:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: One-Handed History: The Eroto-Politics of Gay Male Video Pornography has significant coverage; it looks like there are several pages specifically devoted to Slater's approach to safer sex in his films. "The Sound of Sex" from Out magazine looks like a magazine article about Slater's use of music in his films. The link is an archive of Slater's website, but Slater was reprinting interviews and articles from other publications. I believe that this demonstrates notability. Alejandro's concern that the article has too much trivial detail can be fixed through normal editing, and doesn't need a deletion discussion. — Toughpigs (talk) 17:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Toughpigs: that article is not from out magazine but from this web site here: https://outpersonals.com/ ...quite different. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 18:07, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Look closer. How is it different? Gleeanon409 (talk) 18:17, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also see these articles in the Bay Area Reporter: "Gay Cable Blossoms" (1989) and "Porn Star-Producer Slater Quits Facing Legal Flap in Britain" (1991). — Toughpigs (talk) 18:23, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

what do I need to look closer? OUT Magazine is a respected LGBT world wide magazine (out.com, https://www.out.com/), while https://outpersonals.com/ is a not reliable paying web site. Bay Area Reporter is a local and niche news paper. Plus, that is not at all a deep coverage. PS. I asked to the previous closer before nominating again. thank you. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 18:32, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to fight about OutPersonals — I thought they were connected, but if not, then don't worry about it. But: the Bay Area Reporter is a historically important and well-respected LGBT newspaper; it's based in the San Francisco area but was influential far beyond that. If the Bay Area Reporter is "niche", then so is Out Magazine, because they target the same LGBT audience. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Out Personals, at that time was ... Out magazine’s spin-off, now the website is taken by someone else. Gleeanon409 (talk) 18:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and procedural close, nom is currently at ANI where their poor judgement at targeting certain gay porn bios is discussed. All apparently in some vendetta over Carlo Masi.
The latest AfD for this article closed five weeks ago. Despite noms assertions the collected references produced a good article, and a handful of sources indeed go into the subject with depth. Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your assessment as a good article was disputed in the first AfD (which closed as no consensus). There is a genuine good faith difference of opinion here. Reopening the debate without new facts doesn't change things. As noted in other AfD debates, the nominator is engaged in a housecleaning. So far, more non-notable articles have been deleted than notable ones kept. That doesn't look like a vendetta to me. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This apparently all started with nom’s effort to write, then save from AfD Carlo Masi, the vendetta started there against gay porn figures. More details are in the ANI filing. Gleeanon409 (talk) 20:04, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gleeanon409, I don't think it's necessary or helpful to speculate on Alejandro's motives. The main point to focus on is that there are good-quality sources that demonstrate notability. Everything else is a distraction. — Toughpigs (talk) 20:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I wouldn’t bother. But nom has a *unique* and disruptive origin story, followed by a series of disruptions, including personally attacking me in what must be a landmark tirade that he only removed and apologized for when forced. And he immediately follows with this nom. Gleeanon409 (talk) 20:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. These are in the article already:
- Bannon, Race (August 13, 2003). "Aural Sex". web.archive.org. Archived from the original on December 30, 2010. Retrieved 2020-06-15. Bannon is an accomplished writer and likely expert on gay BDSM culture.
- Karr, John F. (September 2003). "J.D. Slater - Mansize". Adult Video News. Archived from the original on April 6, 2010. Retrieved June 14, 2020. Karr is also an accomplished writer/expert on gay male porn, his column Karrnal Knowledge has been running for decades.
These speak about him in depth. Gleeanon409 (talk) 20:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

they are all taken from his own web site. exactly like I said in the nomination reason. unreliable and not independent --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That’s not a reason to dismiss sourcing. As you’ve been told previously.

And it’s his long abandoned website which pretty much addresses promotional concerns. Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: notability is solid, Bay Area Reporter is certainly a reliable source, and trivial details are not a reason to Delete. — HipLibrarianship ^talk 03:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:DELAFD It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome. (last AfD ended June 27, 2020). Even though WP:PORNBIO has been depreciated - this subject passes WP:N for other reasons- like coverage in the Bay Area Reporter which has been a notable publication since 1971 and the many other publications which include the subject. - Myself I want to know more about his involvement with the Talking Heads, so I will say keep for now. FYI:The article needs a haircut, and it is a wall of text ATM. Someone should get the birthday right, at the moment it is not decided. Toughpigs is a careful !voter and he has also checked the subject.Lightburst (talk) 04:48, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment. It seems that this article will be kept. I hope that someone will re-write it in the form on an enciclopedia article. I would do it myself but due to my involvement i think it wouldn't be appropriated. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 09:41, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AlejandroLeloirRey I’m really sorry but this is clearly another inappropriate nomination. AfD is not cleanup, and there’s no deadline. You might think the article sucks and needs rewriting, but that’s not a legitimate reason for deletion. Please listen to what other editors are trying to tell you, for the sake of everyone’s morale and energy. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 12:17, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cardiffbear88: saying "another" makes it sounds like it happens often when i have successfully nominated about 80% of the time. If u read carefully u shall see that the reasons for my nomination are not housecleaning or needs for re-writing this comment had nothing to do with the nomination reason which (once again) u can read above. Since clearly this article will be kept, even though there are no proper sources, at least I hope someone will write it in a form more suitable for an enciclopedia. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 13:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AlejandroLeloirRey there are several suitable sources already in the article, as all voters so far have indicated. The fact that you cannot see that - or refuse to see that this is a mistaken nomination - indicates you should probably go and reread WP:RS before making any further nominations. I have sympathy for editors when they make a genuine mistake, when it’s unfair for other editors to pile on, but this is clearly not the case here where you seem unable to see why everyone is voting Keep. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 14:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the whole world said that it was the sun to spin around the earth... still the only one to say the opposite was the right one. anyway, I am not trying anymore to convince anybody but I can still hope that someone of good will will write this article in a more suitable stile. for the future nominations, there are a few, very few porn bios that should be check out and may be be nominated but they are few and I lost enthusiasm for housecleaning the porn bio so I suppose i will not be nominating soon again... I suppose... --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be a good idea. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Toughpigs: it would be very good even if u would double check to see it there is still some article that shouldn't be there. I this I got deleted most of the not notable articles but a double check is always a good think. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 08:07, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's time for you to stop. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

r u aware that the way u said it sounds very bad? just to say, I will stop when I will not find not notable articles among the porn bio. which I suspect is a very close moment, may be even now but definitely not because u say so. there were 30 useless not notable porn bios I got rid of with my nomination, someone could start showing some appreciation. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 22:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per all above. Clearly notable topic which is already well sourced with reliable, independent sources. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 12:17, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep More than enough reliable in depth coverage in independent sources to establish notability. Theroadislong (talk) 14:00, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - big star, so to speak. Bearian (talk) 14:35, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with fire, and per WP:TNT. The biography here appears to be mostly fictive. Most of the substantive sources appear to be self-promotional interviews that seem to be entirely unfactchecked. The problems literally begin with the article's first words: none of the cited sources identify the subject's birthname/real name, and a review of sources indicates that the supposed birthname is simply the first name the subject was credited under, in a field where pseudonyms are the norm. Slater claims that his band "with the Talking Heads when they first played at CBGB's", but that gig is well-documented, the Heads opened for the Ramones, and I have found no accounts of that night mentioning any other bands. Slater claims that his "first musical, Zoundz, was produced off-Broadway and later at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts", but the Lortel Archive (Internet Off Broadway Database) shows no production of that title (or even including the word in the title).[18] The article is riddled with unsupported claims or unverifiable claims sourced to the subject himself, such as entering college at age 15 and attending a seriesof notable prep schools "on strait [sic] scholarships". This may be the most promotional, least credible BLP I've ever seen on Wikipedia, and is so atrocious it should be immediately removed from public view. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 23:43, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting. Your original research is duly noted. Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has a point, and the article should be trimmed and edited down. If we can't verify Zoundz, for example, it would be good to investigate that some more. Unfortunately, I think this kind of thing happens when a notable article is put up for deletion twice in a short amount of time. People who believe that that the subject is notable based on the existing text are encouraged to go and find more sources, leading to good-faith refbombing. Voting TNT encourages more scrambling to find more sources, which at this point won't make the article any better. — Toughpigs (talk) 15:13, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

no, I am sorry but all those crappy sources where pulled out the first time the article was nominated (before there was hardly any source at all). I can't see any trimming possible as there are no reliable sources at all and no a signle relevant fact in the article is supported by a reasonable independent source. the only reasonable source is One-Handed History: The Eroto-Politics of Gay Male Video Pornography but it doesn't contain any cover of the subject , it rather reports a few pages with the subject point of view about safe sex into porn. what I think of the other sources is in the reasons i gave for the nomination. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 15:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- - - We can only go where reliable sources lead. I see zero evidence Slater has lied or deceived about his past, or even exaggerated facts to make his arguably under-reported life more interesting. I find the opposite is likely true, he doesn’t have ever seemed to take advantage of many opportunities for free publicity, doesn’t seem to have ever had a publicist, and never seems to have taken of Raging Stallion’s in-house team to hype his career or even his dozens of movie soundtracks.
      If we have evidence of mistakes, and not from original research but from reliable sourcing, then we can address them. For instance it’s common for a bigger band to have, or allow, multiple smaller acts to warm up the crowd before they perform. It’s completely unsurprising that they are not all documented, at all. Gleeanon409 (talk) 15:57, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

so, basically u r telling us that unless there are evidence that they are lying we should (or can) base bios entirely on what people say about them-self, like it happens in this case. ps when Hullaballoo Wolfowitz tells u stuff like he did facts check and there is no correspondence with the facts reported in the official media than u have that the subject of the bio has very much likely lied about that fact and if he lied about one thing... --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 16:59, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that unfortunately this discussion is tainted by the fact that it's happening on AfD. When Alejandro says "if he lied about one thing...", he's not talking about ensuring accuracy in the article; he's suggesting that everything is a lie and therefore the page should be deleted. When Gleeanon409 is defending these sources, it's also in service of keeping the article. I think that this conversation should happen, but it should happen on the article talk page after the AfD is over. That way, we can have a reasonable, good-faith discussion about what to include and what not to include. — Toughpigs (talk) 17:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kary Oberbrunner[edit]

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

non-notable business person and "author" - definitely fails any criteria for being notable as a businessman and afaict, his books have received no coverage in the usual haunts that we would expect from a notable author. This is a long term upe piece that doesn't appear to have ever been notable. Praxidicae (talk) 16:05, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:17, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete- Per above, Clearly a case of advertisement, Created by a blocked user. Dtt1^Talk 16:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Devokewater @ 21:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable as a businessman nor as a writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 15:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Albanian Supercup[edit]

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

The article seems to be WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. Also, the event is not supported by any WP:RS ~ Amkgp 💬 14:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:24, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - CRYSTAL does not apply, game is happening in less than 4 weeks. Searching for 'Superkupa Shqiptare' (which I believe is how it is translated into Albanian) brings up plenty of sources. Giant Snowman 11:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GiantSnowman. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 16:32, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:SNOW delete. No further time need be wasted when the outcome is this clear. BD2412 T 00:16, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kutu Debbarma[edit]

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

At first glance, it may just seem like a short article that just needs a major revamp. However, upon further inspection, it appears it is written by a singular user who is also Kutu Debbarma himself. Of course this is strongly discouraged by Wikipedia. Also, when I did a quick google search for him, I couldn't find any articles, videos, or anything else about him. I had to go onto YouTube and search for him, when I realized he was just some Youtuber. While we do have articles about Youtubers, there appears to be nothing special about him (not a famous/viral video, not the most subscribers, etc). Therefore, I believe this is in violation of the notabilty guidelines for people NYCDOT (talk) 14:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per concerns described by nom. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - absolutely not notable. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 15:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable. Eternal Shadow Talk 16:05, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Nom. Dtt1^Talk 16:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 18:58, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom/per above. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:10, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable --Devokewater @ 09:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just to pile it on, this is clearly an autobiography and attempted self-promotion. He has not been noticed by the reliable media. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:28, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ 08:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gautam Joglekar[edit]

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

Fails WP:FILMMAKER, WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. The one reference in the article is a mere mention confirming that he is "a professional cameraman who dabbles in television" with a famous mother. (Notability is Wikipedia:NOTINHERITED from family relationships.) In my before search, I found mostly superficial Wikipedia:USERGENERATED material. The best references I found were: [19], [20], [21] Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:11, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:11, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:11, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV and WP:CREATIVE - no awards, shallow coverage. Bearian (talk) 14:36, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Boris of Leiningen[edit]

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

This is a clear case of a purely genealogical entry. There is no coverage in reliable sources outside genealogical publications. It is also very unlikely that the subject and his children go by the titles attributed to them by the genealogists and Wikipedia. Surtsicna (talk) 13:18, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 13:18, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 13:18, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the subject is not notable, per WP:BIOFAMILY. I searched Google, JSTOR and NYT but did not find additional citations or info. Z1720 (talk) 14:22, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Regardless of whether/how he is styled in everyday life, he lacks sigcov, and his claim to notability is being ~120th in line to the British throne plus some level of succession to defunct monarchies. He is not Prince of Leiningen so no redirection. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 14:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable --Devokewater @ 15:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the other comments above. Smeat75 (talk) 16:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the additional info uncovered above. JoelleJay (talk) 06:50, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - per WP:RS. Right now, there are just not enough sources in the article to source the claims that he might be notable. He has a real career and involvement in charities. Bearian (talk) 14:48, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this absurdly long tracking of the line of succession to the British throne is unjustified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:42, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ 08:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ACER Racing[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. This article has been below accepted standards of sourcing and tone since its beginning in 2009. I PRODded it back in 2018, but it was removed in favour of a notability tag. After a further two years, there has been no improvement in quality, and there are still no acceptable sources available. – Teratix ₵ 13:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 13:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 13:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 13:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot find any significant coverage in independent reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 22:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 15:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hermann Leiningen[edit]

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

I need your help with this one. The subject has been profiled by the Toronto Star[22] and the National Post,[23] prominent newspapers in Canada, yet I cannot help feeling that this does not amount to significant coverage in reliable sources. The highlight of both articles is that he is a humble banker with prominent ancestors, which does not strike me as the sort of thing that needs to be reported in an encyclopedia. Surtsicna (talk) 13:05, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 13:05, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 13:05, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 13:05, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In 2010, Leiningen accepted a posthumous tribute from Chabad-Lubavitch of Markham on behalf of his grandfather, Boris III of Bulgaria. The award was featured in a profile for Global's 16×9 (here, and here). That's notable, IMHO. Thosbsamsgom (talk) 15:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep almost all of the nobles cataloged by the many wikis are notable because of their "prominent ancestors". Wanderer0 (talk) 05:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete getting coverage for accepting an award on behalf of someone else is not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:01, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Recent edits to the article, under the guise of WP:V or WP:OR, read as attempts to justify the deletion request… Wanderer0 (talk) 19:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The profile from 16×9 (here), and the web short from National Post (here), include explanations of Leiningen's full title and style, and his potential position in the line of succession, and his relation to so-called prominent ancestors. These items are also explained briefly in Eilers's biographical dictionaries on the Victorian descendants.
- Reitwiesner's dated chart covers the line of succession, which was based on earlier work of historians A. C. Addington and Daniel A. Willis. The same chart was the basis for the pastel succession charts shown in the 16x9 profile. It appeared in Parade magazine in the San Antonio market late-2012, other magazines elsewhere.
- Also, German nobiliary titles and styles are inherited by legitimate male-line descendants. Therefore, Leiningen is a Prince from Leiningen (Prinz zu Leiningen), not the Prince of Leiningen (Fürst zu Leiningen). Leiningen explain's this—somewhat—in the web short from the Post. Therefore, his daughters would be Princesses of Leiningen (Prinzessin zu Leiningen).
- Following conventions since 1919, Leiningen's name would be recorded as Leiningen, Hermann Friedrich Fernando Roland Prinz zu if he naturalized as a German citizen, if he hasn't already.

That he is in the line of succession is sourced; that he follows a Princess Juliana of Leiningen is not. Prinz Hermann Friedrich Fernando Roland zu Leiningen was presented as his full name, which is dubious and not verified. We should not introduce him or his family as prince or princesses because those are neither their legal titles nor what they normally call themselves. Articles have better chances of being kept if original research is removed. Surtsicna (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article does has not does not include any O.R. Why do you insist that it has? Thosbsamsgom (talk) 20:43, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because it contained information that was not present anywhere outside Wikipedia. Surtsicna (talk) 20:45, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This stub article is an amalgam. of info. from various sources versus an original piece. Rdzogschen (talk) 13:36, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep re: Wanderer0, etc. Fostrdv (talk) 21:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, very barebones article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.217.186 (talk) 22:06, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My two-pence: ^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11] Rdzogschen (talk) 13:21, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Thosbsamsgom, Wanderer0 and Rdzogschen. --Richiepip (talk) 21:36, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- per above Thepilipalasgirl (talk) 23:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 15:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Burry's[edit]

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

NN company, fails the GNG, WP:CORP and CORPDEPTH. No significant coverage in reliable sources found beyond namedrops and casual mentions, and article has never been sourced. Notability tagged for over a decade. Prod removed by deprodder without rationale or comment. Ravenswing 12:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's coverage in sources such as The Ethnic Almanac, which discusses the company history; Prominent Families of New Jersey, which discusses the founding family; Candy and Snack Industry which discusses the production; and Modern Packaging which discusses the packaging. If you can't find information about this business then you're not really trying. See WP:NOEFFORT; WP:IGNORINGATD; WP:NOTCLEANUP; &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:23, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Leaving aside Prominent Families, which is not about the subject of the article, and that none of the publications you list are reliable enough to have Wikipedia articles of their own, the Ethnic Almanac cite is a casual mention, and the other two namedrops. To quote WP:CORPDEPTH, " Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements ..." Would you care to provide links to the precise cites you claim provide the significant coverage required?
And that aside, didn't you say in another AfD that essays were worthless? Why are you quoting them here? Ravenswing 14:25, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

leaning keep Anyone my age in the US is familiar with the brand, and there is still considerable nostalgia for the Burry-made GS cookies. Anyway, I find lots of hits in industry journals that mention them. It puzzles me that it appears to be somewhat difficult to document them, so I can't give this an unqualified keep, but back in the day this was a major US brand, and I'm hard-pressed to admit to a lack of notability. Mangoe (talk) 20:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They are one of the companies that make Girl Scout Cookies. Been baking cookies and such for over a hundred years. Some say it was acquired by George Weston Limited but not sure about that. I see the contact information on their website, so I'm going to ask them some questions. Dream Focus 22:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It took a long time, but I've tracked down just about the whole history of the brand. There's fairly consistent coverage from the early 1940s until 1990, just under different names. Highlights include the company being listed on the American Stock Exchange until it's purchase by Burry Foods in '62, and getting a good deal of (admittedly semi-routine) coverage in The New York Times. The founder got an obit in the NYT and an Associated Press one that was pretty well publicized, and those suggest that if a person was noted for their association with the company, the company may be too. Similarly, Prominent Families of New Jersey shouldn't just be discarded as there's some coverage of the company. There's a decent paper trail following the aquisitions and sale of the company, and some coverage under each name (sources are in the article). It's not a clear-cut case, but I'll be back to cast a vote soon -- Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very cool. I also did some deep dives in newsprint. I love it when a notable company can be saves so that future generations can learn where girl scout cookies began. Collaboration is fun, and your edits are great! Lightburst (talk) 00:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is a strong keep based on the WP:SIGCOV. I searched old newsprint and found that the company is very notable. The girl scout cookies were most interesting to me-Plantation cookies? Would that name make it in 2020?...I was looking for my favorite...the lemonades - Check out this link of 1938 era GS cookies. I have added some RS and some other layout improvements, but I think Eddie891 did more work than I did. I was working on breweries most of the day. You see where my mind is at. Lightburst (talk) 01:44, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Important company with more than a century and a quarter of existence. WP:GN easily overcome. Important supplied of Girl Scout Cookies and many other products. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sourcing identified, meets GNG as unsurprisingly any 100+ year old company likely would. Gleeanon409 (talk) 02:15, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Well done, all! – Toughpigs (talk) 03:29, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect to Quaker Oats Company. I'm going to have to strongly go against the keep votes here and the assertions that this now passes WP:SIGCOV. The first most cited source is primary and the second most cited is about the founder of the company dying. Three more seem to be about the same thing. One of which is an extremely brief newspaper obituary. While another source is a blog entry and the last source is an brief excerpt from one of their commercials about their "slow baking process." None of those sources pass WP:SIGCOV or WP:NCORP and it's completely ridiculous to claim that they do. All that's left if you leave out those sources is like 2 articles about them being acquired by Quaker Oats Company. Which is not enough on it's own as a subject, let alone in number of sources or their depth, to say the company is notable enough for an article. Companies are acquired all the time and there's usually nothing notable about it. I'd be totally fine with it being merged or redirected to Quaker Oats Company though, but either option would be extremely generous. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:08, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Successfully company been in business since 1888. You don't survive that long with so many recognized products without being notable by reason of common sense. Dream Focus 04:33, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Konstantin-Assen, Prince of Vidin[edit]

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

The subject is a non-notable banker. There is virtually no coverage in reliable sources. I suspect the only reason the article exists is his relationship to the former king and prime minister of Bulgaria, thus serving as a mere genealogical entry. Surtsicna (talk) 12:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 12:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 12:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 12:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.Smeat75 (talk) 16:25, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Devokewater @ 09:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV and my standards for nobility. If he'd done charity patronages, or been involved in a scandal, that would be different. As is, he seems to run an office for a family trust of some kind. Bearian (talk) 14:40, 7 August 2020 (UTC) P.S. a redirect per WP:CHEAP would be okay. Bearian (talk) 14:46, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete deposed members of royal houses are not default notable. I had no idea how far this extreme over creation of articles had gone. Wikipedia is not meant to be a genealogical database.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 09:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Franzen[edit]

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

~~Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NPROF. Created by editor who is disrupting Wikipedia to prove a WP:POINT Guy Macon (talk) 12:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

Based upon the arguments below I would like to withdraw this AfD. Is there something special I need to do or do we just wait for a closer? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:04, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Guy Macon (talk) 12:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Created at my suggestion as a longstanding red link at Darwinius. There's been a lot of interest in his work, for example [] have in the news, not without controversy. He won the first Friedrich von Alberti Award in 1998, and has written at least one book, though it got a rather dismissive review from National Geographic. His work was prominent, but so far I've not found personal details – is that a major issue? . . dave souza, talk 13:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am still looking for evidence that he meets the criteria of WP:NPROF. There is that Friedrich von Alberti Award.[24]. but NPROF specifies "The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level." Not sure that an award from 20 quarry companies qualifies as "a highly prestigious academic award". --Guy Macon (talk) 14:17, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Does the book meet the requirements of WP:NBOOK? If so, we could create a page for the book and redirect this page to it. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC source[25] and the Nature source[26] mention him in passing, and thus fail to meet the "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" criteria of WP:GNG. The National Geographic source[27] is about Franzen. Does WP:BIO1E apply? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:48, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep May have been created to hammer on a point, but believing that Franzen and Cédric d'Udekem d'Acoz fall into the same notability bracket rather demonstrates that the article creator lacks the discernment to assess notability as per WP:NPROF. Franzen isn't wildly notable, but he does meet our criteria. He has 18 years as department head at the Senckenberg Institute (we need a better article on that - de:Senckenberg Forschungsinstitut has all the goods). The Friedrich-von-Alberti-Preis may not be the Fields Medal, but it is a prestigious 10k Euro award. Among described species, Darwinius is a big deal in terms of primate systematics that got a lot of mainstream coverage (note the difference to "he described some species"). He has six taxa named in his honor (note the difference to "he named them himself"). This is an accomplished scientist with a lifelong body of work that makes him notable. - Sourcing could be better, but since this is a direct adaptation of the German article, inline cites are at a premium as usual. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:38, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If I see citations to reliable secondary sources establishing the above added to the article, I would be strongly inclined to withdraw this AfD. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are several high-calibre reviews of his last book (The Rise of Horses: 55 Million Years of Evolution): J Mam Evol, Quart R Biol, J Vert Pal. The bulk of his output seems to have been articles and chapters, not separate books. --Elmidae (talk · contribs)

Sourcing is the tricky bit here. My assessment of his scientific career suggests a WP:NPROF crit #1 pass here - this is alluded to in the book reviews. But the best source for this kind of overall judgement are usually obituaries, of which there are two:

Ottmar Kullmer, Stephan Schaal: In memoriam Jens Lorenz Franzen. In: Senckenberg Natur Forschung Museum. Band 149, Nr. 1-3, 2019, S. 42 [28].
Thorsten Wenzel: Der Herr der Urpferde. In: Senckenberg. Natur, Forschung, Museum. Band 147, Nr. 05/06 2017, S. 170–172 (just realized this can't be an obituary - pre-death :) Apparently an on-person piece then)

Unfortunately they have both been published in a jealously paywalled scientific society journal (of the kind that ain't popping up on SciHub) and it's unlikely that anyone here will get access to them. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:37, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elmidae, I added a link in the article to the first obit you list above. (Well, to the entire journal issue, which the Senckenberg folks have on their webpage.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, added it above. Well, they think he was a paleontologist of impact on his field, as do I, but then this is decidedly in-house. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:40, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Paleontoligical Society (German: Palaontologische Gesellschaft) is a respected German learned institution affiliated with the International Paleontologocal Society, organising academic conferences, publishing an international journal (PalZ) and awarding the Friedrich von Alberti Award on behalf of the Alberti Foundation. Friedrich Lensing (talk) 16:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't see GNG being met here. WP:NPROF is somewhat plausible, but I have not yet seen a case for it. His citation record does not seem to suffice for C1, department head does not meet C6, and I'm not seeing the Alberti prize as meeting C2. Perhaps an argument can be made that his position met C5? WP:NAUTHOR is also plausible, if reviews can be found for his books. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:38, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, in addition to the aforementioned was also major editor for The Early evolution of man, with special emphasis on southeast Asia and Africa, reviewed here, and 100 years of pithecanthropus; the homo erectus problem reviewed here, in addition to his Horse book being reviewed by Natgeo etc. PainProf (talk) 22:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep per Friedrich Lensing above based on lifes work, awards and achievements. --hroest 18:24, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. GNG is notthe relevant criterion; WP:PROF is, and it is completely independent, judging only on influence (and afew special cases). His very large amount of published work fully meets this. Watever the reason for creation, we judge the article, not the creator. If someone can find more notable paleontologists for us to include, so much the better. DGG ( talk ) 05:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ 09:00, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kubrat, Prince of Panagyurishte[edit]

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

Having Googled the subject, I do not think there is a enough coverage in reliable sources to consider him notable. The sources cited in the article are not independent of the subject, being the subject's personal website and his family's website. Surtsicna (talk) 12:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 12:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 12:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 12:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Smeat75 (talk) 16:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Devokewater @ 09:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I'm concerned about the lack of coverage, but at least he has a possibly notable career, unlike most royals. Alternately, redirect to his parent's page per WP:CHEAP. See User:Bearian/Standards#Notability_of_Consorts_of_nobility. Bearian (talk) 14:43, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable member of a deposed royal house.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:32, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is very clear to keep. (non-admin closure) —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 15:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Mafalda of Bulgaria[edit]

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

I am having trouble finding significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. As far as I can tell, the article does not meet either WP:SINGER or WP:BASIC notability criteria. Surtsicna (talk) 12:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Delete , no indication of notability. Smeat75 (talk) 16:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Devokewater @ 09:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Subject is clearly notable. She is the subject of various articles from reliable sources including Paper Magazine, WWD, Town & Country, Yahoo, MBS News, and Tory Daily. Seems to me she's been significantly covered. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 22:16, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That might just be sufficient! It seems the problem was that I searched for information about "Princess Mafalda of Bulgaria", whereas most of the sources cited above do not call her that. Surtsicna (talk) 23:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep per Willthacheerleader18 --Richiepip (talk) 00:32, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Willthacheerleader18, Richiepip, WP:SOGCOV, and User:Bearian/Standards#Notability_of_Consorts_of_nobility. She has a career, and has gotten coverage by herself in European press. Bearian (talk) 14:45, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the singer has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources identified in this discussion that show a pass of WP:BASIC so that deletion is unnecessary, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:21, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the presented tabloid articles are not enough to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:48, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per sourcing, per WP:SIGCOV, per overall coverage. None of the Delete !votes gives a reasoning based on guidelines.BabbaQ (talk) 19:28, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree with User: Atlantic306. Cape Diamond MM (talk) 06:38, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not super impressed with the sources presented (also the link to Yahoo seems not to point to anything?) but certainly it's better than can be said for most of the not-actually-nobility that have been deleted recently. Should seriously consider renaming the article if it is kept. --JBL (talk) 17:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Monkeyman superhero hoax[edit]

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

Seems to have been an event that got a whole lot of coverage for about a month in May 2003. There is extensive coverage from that time, mostly consisting of long articles in British publications and shorter global articles. See all the coverage I found: The Times (May 3, 2003) The Telegraph (May 25, 2003) South China Morning Press (seems to be the same as a Rueters report, May 7, 2003)The Telegraph, (May 11, 2003). There are a few other dead-links, but that about sums it up. So, back in 2004 this would have seemed to be clearly notable. However, with the benefit of time (16 years of it!) it has become clear that this is not the case. One of the fundamental criteria of an event being considered notable is that it has a lasting effect and a duration of coverage that extends beyond a typical news cycle. Since May 2003, I have found only a BBC 'fun stuff' interview that is dated three weeks after the story, and about a page in New Century, Same Shit: The First Decade, a book that is a satire of the 2000s, not exactly the sort of coverage I would consider indicative of notability. Any other coverage has essentially dried up, from what I found after fairly extensive searching. Somewhat of a borderline case, given the rather in-depth coverage in major UK newspapers, but notable topics have sustained coverage that is beyond just a burst of news coverage, and that does not appear to be the case here. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 'event' without lasting significance. Interviews do not establish notability, but there are newspaper articles on this as your ample research shows. Ultimately this just appears to be another 'viral prank' (of sorts) - and we cannot have an article for everything that goes viral. I would say it could be included on List of hoaxes. Also, I know this is not relevant to whether the article should be kept, but on the issue of lasting significance, in the past 5 years, this article has averaged 55 views a month and in that same period only had 8 edits. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 14:02, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, in the sense of not worthy of an article, even with some RS references. I actually remember this one; I wouldn't say it was big news even at the time (a silly prank more than a hoax?), and that was then. Just get rid of it, I doubt anybody will miss it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:20, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus to delete established prior to relisting has not been altered by any post-relisting activity. BD2412 T 04:14, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James J. Eagan[edit]

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

Local politician that fails to meet notability guidelines both as a politician and as a figure. His tenure in Florissant, Missouri (population 52,158) had no unusual events to warrant significantly different coverage than any other local politician. Nor does his law enforcement career arise to such a level. This discussion will be added to the Missouri-related and the politicians-related deletion discussions Mpen320 (talk) 23:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Politicians and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Missouri.--Mpen320 (talk) 23:29, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mayors of suburbs of major cities are almost never notable, and nothing here suggests this would be one of the extremely rare exemptions to that rule.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mayor of a non-notable city fails WP:NPOL. KidAd (💬💬) 05:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Florissant MO is not large enough to hand an automatic presumption of notability to all of its mayors just for being mayors per se, but this article is sourced nowhere close to well enough to get him over the bar that mayors actually have to clear. Bearcat (talk) 12:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Small town non-notable politician. -- Dane ^talk 04:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable politician. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 10:53, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with conditions, I would say that the town is large enough to have an article on an impressively long serving mayor, however, it would require editors to find more independent references than are currently present within the article. -Navarre0107 (talk) 17:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I have found and added a few more references and did some major reworking of the writing to make it much more encyclopedic. Due to the report that Mayor Eagan was the second-longest serving mayor in the United States at the time, I'd say it may just have suffecient notability, though additional citations would still be required to confirm this. - Navarre0107 (talk) 17:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted to see if Navarre0107's reworking moves the needle.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Haukur (talk) 11:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dániel Gyollai[edit]

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

PROD contested. Fails WP:GNG (no significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (no senior professional appearances). Giant Snowman 10:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Spiderone 13:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully professional league or received significant coverage, meaning the article does not meet WP:NFOOTBALL or WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:12, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Devokewater @ 17:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only games that he has played was two matches in the Stoke U21 which wasn't in a professional league. Also he fails GNG which the nom has put down. HawkAussie (talk) 02:40, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but keep an eye on him in case he makes an appearance for Peterborough this season. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:09, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Move to Draft - fails notability guidelines at present but there is a fair chance he will appear for Peterborough this season. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 00:04, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a pre-existing draft which pre-dates the mainspace version - User:GiantSnowman/Dániel Gyollai. Giant Snowman 09:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, delete. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 10:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Opinions of low-participation IPs are given little weight, leaving a narrow consensus for deletion. No prejudice against refunding to draft or userspace in the event that someone wants salvage content for use elsewhere. BD2412 T 18:33, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Internet Relay Chat daemons[edit]

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

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

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

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

a bunch of non notable daemons, your average software related WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:NOR. I would also support redirecting but thus far ahs been contested. Anything relevant shoudl be covered in the target article and we should leave the original research behind. Praxidicae (talk) 19:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Whilst the daemons themselves may be considered non-notable the organisations which write them and use these individual softwares in many cases are - see Creator/Network column - for example DALnet IRCnet EFnet Quakenet Undernet OFTC freenode. The suggested remedy of by blanking article and redirection to IRCd is not appropriate as the latter article does not contain this information. NB: This article was previously AFD at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Comparison_of_IRCds Will-h (talk) 19:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Times have more than changed since 2007 and "comparisons" of lists are WP:NOR. It's been awhile since you've edited, so perhaps you shoudl also read WP:BOLD before basically accusing me of vandalism since there is long standing consensus to redirect things to appropriate targets versus deletion. Praxidicae (talk) 20:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see any original research here. Everything on this page is likely well documented by the authors of their software. I'd understand if you had complained for the lack of references, but you're going a bit too far with NOR. koszik (talk) 20:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please show me the sources that support the comparisons. Thanks. Praxidicae (talk) 14:03, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just download every IRCd there and go through documentation or RTFS, simple as that. Not in mood nor have time? ENOLUCK. Just leave it then. Borg, 21:33, 28-Jul-2020 — 87.99.43.52 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete: Fails the GNG, NOR and WP:SYNTH. Everything on the page is "likely" well documented? Either it is (in which case the article is about a hundred source shy) or it isn't, in which case the article creator just made it all up, and we've got a WP:NFT violation to boot. That being said, being someone who was active at AfD from 2005 onward, a lot of garbage decisions were made then that had far less to do with policy than with WP:ILIKEIT, WP:ITSUSEFUL, WP:ITEXISTS and other similar crackpot notions. A decision made in 2007 would not have bound editors in 2008, let alone now. Ravenswing 18:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not made up, its comparision of Open Source software. It takes a lot of efort to build such list. I see a lot of VPN comparision or P2P comparision and its all right. Just do NOT put your personal bias for it. Do not like IRC? Do not use nor read about it. Period. Borg, 21:36, 28-Jul-2020 — 87.99.43.52 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep. A lot of usefull information even if not fully sourced. It helps to make educated choice about software you want to use. Borg, 21:37, 28-Jul-2020 — 87.99.43.52 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep. It doesn't meet any criteria listed for WP:LISTCRUFT: the content is easily verifiable, well defined and reasonably well maintained. Neither does it meet the standard for WP:NOR any more than any other article, since all information is simply compiled from the documentation of all listed IRC daemons. welterde, 130.255.108.111 (talk) 21:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC) — 130.255.108.11 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks more of a catalogue than an encyclopedic article. Most of the entries are non notable as well. Ajf773 (talk) 08:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:40, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is really too much of a product listing. Notice how practically every "comparison of..." article is composed of almost all bluelinked material - i.e., entries that are have been judged notable on their own merits? E.g. the two See Also links on that very page, Comparison of instant messaging protocols and Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients. Or picking another format at random, Comparison of programming languages (list comprehension). That ensures that we don't end up with product listings that are mostly sourced to their own promo material. AKA spam bait. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 02:44, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. My rationale for keeping it is WP:CLN and WP:SUMMARY. Its an underdeveloped part of Wikipedia, but it is an area that has a great deal of potential. This list could be a building block towards this. Per WP:CLN: "Consider that lists may include features not available to categories, and building a rudimentary list of links is a useful step in improving a list. Deleting these rudimentary lists is a waste of these building blocks". This is far more than a rudimentary list of links, which in my mind makes it all the more reasonable to keep it as a good building block on which more can be created. I also believe WP:SUMMARY is relevant here. A common pattern on Wikipedia is Summary Article/List >> Group Article/List >> Detailed Article; this would be a good building block at the top of that chain. // Timothy :: talk 17:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lou Cass[edit]

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

no sources to prove notability. Spite the many claims of notability in this article I couldn't find any sources to support them. AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 10:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 10:38, 4 August 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:58, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:58, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A won-a-porn-award-but-the-sources-are-crap PORNBIO. What isn't extrapolated from IMDb isn't sourced at all. Non-trivial RS coverage not found in independent search. Even the porn trade press coverage consists of press releases, cast list listings and award rosters. Not likely to pass even WP:PORNBIO in its later consensus interpretation. No claim against WP:BASIC without good sources. As for WP:ENT, IMDb says most of the TV work was uncredited, and the claim of a significant Dr. Quinn role does not even appear to be true. • Gene93k (talk) 12:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable pornographic performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:35, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gunji Village, Nepal[edit]

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

This page is a WP:POVFORK of Gunji, Uttarakhand, created just to make the point that Nepal has begun to claim it as its territory. See Kuthi Valley. (More of the history is in Kalapani territory, even though this place is not part of that territory.) There is no evidence of Nepali administration at this location for at least 200 years. Kautilya3 (talk) 10:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Kautilya3 (talk) 10:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Kautilya3 (talk) 10:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Kautilya3 (talk) 10:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Kautilya3 (talk) 10:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kautilya3 (talk) 10:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Kautilya3 (talk) 10:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism This article is about territorial dispute and both Nepal and India has this location in their official maps. I think the deletion tag embedes in a political view point which is a conflict of interest. I have requested to protect both Gunji, Uttarakhand and Gunji Village, Nepal for possible vandalism. Please refer Territorial disputes of India and Nepal. Meanwhile, I declear that I am from Nepal but I would have no objection for deletion had it been a GNG or other issues. WP:POVFORK do not apply becuase of the title of the article which is basically claming the land belongs to India. To resoleve, we can put the title as Gunji Village instead and purge existing articles to have WP:NPOV.nirmal (talk) 11:02, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nirmaljoshi, Is Gunji Village, Nepal the same village as Gunji, Uttarakhand? Or is it a different village? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User talk:Kautilya3- its exactly the same according to the coordinates. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirmaljoshi (talk • contribs)

Delete Clear case of POVFORK, Any content dispute should be settled at Gunji, Uttarakhand or Territorial disputes of India and Nepal. -- Ab207 (talk) 20:10, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That will not comply with WP:NPOV. nirmal (talk) 02:41, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

POV issues, if any, should be settled it at the other page. That's basically what WP:POVFORK says. ("all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article.") In the above comment, I see that you agree that its the same settlement, Hence there should only be one article. -- Ab207 (talk) 17:06, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

-There is no question that there should be one article. But the title of the article itself should be Neutral. The current titles in both article are non-neutral- one claiming to be Nepal and another calming to be Uttarakhand (which is a part of India in her political map). nirmal (talk) 01:43, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Title can be discussed at Talk:Gunji, Uttarakhand. On a side note, just so that we are clear, Gunji Village is not appropriate because it doesn't disambiguate this place from Gunji, Karnataka which is also a village. Regards. --Ab207 (talk) 17:21, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Gunji, Uttarakhand. -Hatchens (talk) 04:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to merge, an egregious POVFORK with any mention of India just replaced by Nepal. Both the creator of the FORK and the replier have engaged in disruptive behavior. Not to mention that we treat any location, beyond the article on the main dispute (in this case Kalapani territory), with only de-facto mentions in articles. Gotitbro (talk) 11:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Both Gunji, Uttarakhand and Gunji Village, Nepal should be merged to Gunji Village(neutral title and content). Whatever decision will be taken for Gunji Village, Nepal, should be equally applied to Gunji, Uttarakhand. Nepal knowledge (talk) 17:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions about the page title and content of Gunji, Uttarakhand are welcome at its talk page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:08, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Gotitbro. SerChevalerie (talk) 11:07, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing of value worth keeping Spiderone 17:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 08:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stuck in the 80s[edit]

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

NN blog/podcast, fails the GNG and WP:WEBCRIT. No significant coverage in reliable sources found, and the article is completely unsourced. No evidence that the awards claimed were actually awarded. Very promotional in tone. Definite COI issues: most of the edits to the article have been by a string of SPAs for whom working on this article is their sole Wikipedia activity, one with the same name as this podcast's host.

Prod was removed with the edit summary "My before shows this is notable...however it needs refs. I will put it on watch and start later." My before shows that it is not notable; if one actually looks at the hits, the great majority are social media, YouTube links, and generic use of "stuck in the 80s" as a turn of phrase in articles having nothing to do with this blog/podcast. The signal exception is coverage in the Tampa Bay Times, which is extensive ... as well as it may be, since the creator of the blog/cast was a writer FOR the Tampa Bay Times, and the numerous hits are his own mentions of his own podcast. Given the Times's extensive connection with this podcast, none of the coverage in that paper, online or otherwise, qualifies as an independent source.

As far as the deprodder's intent to "put it on watch and start later" goes, sorry, but it's been eleven years. I will be happy to withdraw this nom if the deprodder can produce significant coverage in reliable, third-party, independent sources now, but enough is enough. Ravenswing 01:15, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 01:15, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am the de-prodder because we have a notable subject. Not all podcasts are notable, but this one is. I have been editing all day so I needed to stop a minute. WP:NORUSH. This is a 15 year old Podcast Here is partial interview with Def Leopard's lead singer Joe Elliott, a reference from Hollywood in Toto, A reference from the Tampa Bay Times article by Kevin Wuench, an article in the Twin Cities Pioneer Press called 50 Podcasts to stream, an article in the Washington Times. Given time I could possibly find more, and admittedly...some of these are passing mentions. Hoever the subject passes WP:GNG and given time perhaps Steve Spears would pass WP:ENT. Lightburst (talk) 02:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Fair enough, let's examine those sources. The first one is not about the subject: it's a brief excerpt of the podcast interviewing someone else = does not support the notability of the subject. The second is a press release = does not support the notability of subject. The third is a piece eliciting the views of thirty readers of the newspaper as to their favorite podcasts, one of which mentions the subject in a single paragraph = casual mention, does not support the notability of the subject. The fourth quotes Spears, among others, but only namedrops his podcast, and the podcast is not otherwise mentioned = does not support the notability of the subject.
I'm afraid that the bottom line is not WP:ITSIMPORTANT. It's whether there are reliable sources providing significant coverage to the subject. That this podcast has been around a while is not relevant; the potential notability of the podcast's creator is not relevant. If those are the best cites you can find, the answer is clear: this subject is not notable. Ravenswing 02:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Salvio

17:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: With reliable sources indicated by Lightburst, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 08:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Ravenswing, none of the coverage above is significant independent coverage. There is a new article in the Orlando Sentinel from Aug 3 which is more substantial than the sources above (Florida-produced podcast about the ’80s marks 15 years - archive) but, agreeing with Ravenswing's assessment of the sources above, a single new source isn't enough to bring it past the GNG. -M.Nelson (talk) 09:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There's this recent article in the Tampa Bay Times that seems to be substantial as well. I believe it's a good start for this article to pass WP:GNG. --Deansfa (talk) 20:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My assertion, which I give in the nomination, is that the coverage this podcast has received in the Tampa Bay Times is all disqualified as a non-independent source, as the creator of the podcast was a writer for the Times, and hawked the podcast a number of times under his byline. (This quite aside from that this is the same piece word-for-word as the one M.Nelson cites. Ravenswing 06:52, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Spears left the Tampa Bay Times 8 years ago. We can't eternally accuse this newspaper to be biased because he was, at some point in his career, an editor there. I agree with you that old Tampa Bay Times' articles may be disqualified, but this specific one (written by someone not related to this podcast) is IMO independent of the subject. And I don't see where is the word-to-word similarity. They definitely cover the same topic, but that's all. --Deansfa (talk) 16:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 09:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Urogenital neoplasm[edit]

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

This article, created in 2007, has remained a stub. This is because it is very general in form, suspected I create to match the main headings on some templates; there is not much at all linking together the many different cancers, and because of this, it does not provide useful value as an article. Readers are better directed to specific subarticles than this overly broad article. Tom (LT) (talk) 08:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Tom (LT) (talk) 08:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Im rather confused by Tom's reasoning here.★Trekker (talk) 11:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify, I think this article is about a topic that is not encyclopedic or notable. It is useful as a category for urologic and genital neoplasms but not useful as an article. --Tom (LT) (talk) 14:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are abundant Ghits on the term. Here's a sample. Many variations on the phrase such as "genitourinary" instead of urogenital, and "cancer" or "malignancy" or "carcinoma" instead of neoplasm, suggest even more supporting sources to be found. So, the topic is verifiable and notable. The nom is onto something in that similar summary-level articles such as Nervous system neoplasm and Digestive system neoplasm seem to have been created as organizational aids, pointing from general topographical descriptions to the more extensive detail in those templates. I'm not sure that's a bad thing. If we assume the template {{Tumors}} is logically organized and complete, these should stay. --Lockley (talk) 07:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Delete This is too broad, per the nomination obviously there is a concept of urogenital tumours, but it seems to be too vague. With so many different tissues in the urogenital tract i.e. bladder, renal, genital, its hard to see how this can ever be expanded, but maybe someone will prove us wrong, hence soft delete. PainProf (talk) 15:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This might work as a dab page. Bearian (talk) 20:38, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A reminder to participants that soft deletion is not an option because someone has !voted "keep" in this AfD already.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Honestly, this seems fine to me. It's basically a dab-plus; reader follows the term and is presented with the finer categories to choose from. No expectation that this would ever grow beyond that (being, as noted, too broad), thus if it could be converted to an actual dab, that would work to. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but turn into a disambiguation page - as Elmidae says, this is a "dab-plus" - one sentence defining the term, then a disambiguation to the more specific articles. It's the same as other disambiguation pages that have definitions then disambiguate their topics. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:17, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The current version does provide only a definition and the list of different varieties, but it is a significant subject by itself and could be easily expanded to make a much better page. My very best wishes (talk) 21:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas F. DiLullo[edit]

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

The provided sources don't discuss the subject in detail also, the ESPN and USA today pieces have basically the same content, the subject does not have WP:SIGCOV and the coverage is all related to his cases and clients. A WP:BEFORE search also did not bring up more coverage of the subject. May not pass WP:NBIO or WP:GNG. Bingobro (Chat) 09:12, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of in-depth coverage. Does not meet WP:GNG. Knox490 (talk) 12:32, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bingobro (Chat) 09:12, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nom --Devokewater @ 15:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All of the sources here are about one specific case, with much focus on his client and very little on DiLullo himself. A Google search turns up nothing more that would be the evidence to support a claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 20:47, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being a person the media in your local area turns to for comments is not a sign of notability, it needs to be media that is clearly reaching out to you as a leading expert on a specific subject in a very large area. The cases mentioned here are not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 09:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Almost Lost[edit]

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

Fails notability guideline for books, no sources Wiki Macaroons^Cinnamon? 09:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reviewed by Publishers Weekly [29] and School Library Journal [30] Two reviews is enough per WP:NBOOK. There's also a review by a young reader.[31] Haukur (talk) 10:30, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Haukur. I also added a review I found from VOYA and a discussion of the books' themes. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 19:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Clear keep per rescue, Sadads (talk) 22:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY thanks to the addition of reviews. — Toughpigs (talk) 03:02, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Vanity Plan[edit]

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

Unable to find WP:SIGCOV or anything meeting WP:BAND. Paradox society 08:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Paradox society 08:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Paradox society 08:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable band. Couldn't find anything besides social media pages, streaming service entries, concert sites, trivial mentions/namechecks and stuff where the words are separated. Their claim to fame is that one of their songs appeared in a notable video game - but of course that does not make the band notable. Also, the article itself is very confusing to me; the first sentence is "The Vanity Plan was an American rock band..." then the infobox states that they are still active ("2006-present"). This, of course, can be cleaned up (based on reliable sources, not Last.fm and all that stuff) but that's the least of the problems here. The main issue is that this band is simply not notable. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 11:11, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, not enough RS to be found. Caro7200 (talk) 13:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Mobile Interface[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. No evidence that this software concept is actually commonly used in any significant way, especially not under this name. The article has been tagged for notability for 11 years, and has been an orphan for more than 7 years, and the original author appeared to be closely related to the author of the whitepaper around this concept. Paradox society 08:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Paradox society 08:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Paradox society 08:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant coverage in reliable sources found. Fails WP:SOFT. Ravenswing 23:41, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to mobile operating system (not a fantastic target, but thought I'd suggest it in any case). It's a WP:NEOLOGISM that hasn't been picked up. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 15:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arto Lahti[edit]

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

Fails WP:ACADEMIC and WP:POLITICIAN. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:04, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Searching Google Scholar for the name Arto Lahti finds some reasonably well cited papers on allergic reactions in dermatology. I think these must be by someone else with the same name. If there are citations to publications by the subject of the nominated article, they're too far down to pass WP:PROF#C1. But I'm leaving this only as a comment rather than expressing a keep/delete opinion because, without being able to read Finnish, I have no confidence in my ability to judge whether he might pass some other notability criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not just because of him being a professor, but due to his run as an independent candidate in the 2006 Finnish presidential election (although the vote result was very poor for him). For some reason, my Google search really bog downs results as old as 2005-06, but there certainly were in-depth articles about him in the largest Finnish newspapers when he ran for president: [32][33]. At the time, he was notable for being pretty much the only person running for any office that advocated the Karelian question. --Pudeo (talk) 08:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability for either a politician or an academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:58, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails notability for either a politician or an academic. The world is filled with non-notable unelected candidates. Finnish Wikipedia [34] has nothing towards WP:N. However the dermatolist might merit an article (kidding btw). // Timothy :: talk 00:27, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- All nine candidates in the 2006 presidential elections appeared in national TV debates. Arto Lahti was featured in many newspaper articles (which I gave 2 examples above). He definitely ran a major and notable campaign. Thus, meets WP:GNG unless there are some bias that such candidates only are notable if they are running in the U.S. (e.g. Jill Stein, Darrell Castle, Jo Jorgensen etc.) --Pudeo (talk) 10:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was a candidate in a major election in which he had to collect signatures to run as independent, it's not like just anyone can announce that they're a presidential candidate. Unfortunately many Finnish publications have paywalled their archives, and the most important one, Helsingin Sanomat, has not digitized all of its content between 1997-2012, but I can still find several articles. He has also been in the media outside of the election due to his professor career. -kyykaarme (talk) 19:38, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Received some coverage as an academic as well as being a candidate. Sources don't have to be in English. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per kyykaarme. The delete !votes are based on the editors' belief that the subject should not be notable, which ought to carry zero weight, especially since they have made no efforts to review potential sources. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 01:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:28, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Era Tak[edit]

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

A promotional article that clearly fails WP:GNG. All of the references are to YouTube or Amazon (non-notable literary and fictional works of the subject which do not have any coverage in independent sources). Zoodino (talk) 05:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom -- Ab207 (talk) 20:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear failure of WP:GNG Spiderone 17:22, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:06, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:SNOW keep. Despite a few voices in opposition, the outcome of this discussion is now overwhelmingly clear. BD2412 T 17:26, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abner-Drury Brewery[edit]

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

This brewery doesn't seem to be notable. The article only cites two sources, one of which is a primary source and the other seems to only be a trivial mention in a book about prohibition. Plus, all I could find about it in a WP:BEFORE was some basic business lists and trivial mentions in court documents related to an antitrust case. So, there's nothing that helps it pass WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Adamant1 (talk) 05:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per nominator. Not enough reliable sources. Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Knox490 (talk) 12:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Shellwood: Hi, we did quite a bit of work on this one. Would you mind having another look as seeing if you still feel like it is a delete? Thanks! Lightburst (talk) 02:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightburst: You pinged the wrong person. Shellwood (talk) 04:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've found a bunch of articles in The Washington Post (in a paywalled database, which might explain why they're hard to find) and a whole profile of the business, complete with photos. I've added some info to the article. My favorite hit so far is from a history of FDR's early presidency: "At 12:01 a.m. on the first day of legal beer, Hawaiian guitarists drew a crowd as a truck from Washington's Abner Drury Brewery pulled up at the White House with a sign: 'PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT, THE FIRST BEER IS FOR YOU'." That's from Alter, Jonathan (2006). The Defining Moment: FDR's Hundred Days and The Triumph of Hope. New York: Simon & Schuster. p. 277. ISBN 9780743246019. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:38, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now ten sources but not all are sufficient for Notability purposes. Two sources are travel guides, they are OK for the cited facts but not notability. The masters thesis I don't think it qualifies for notability. As a reminder, "significant" doesn't mean volume of text, rather significance of what is being said in terms of indicating notability. The remaining 7 contain significant coverage per WP:GNG. (This list may change as new sources appear still early in the AfD). -- GreenC 16:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable company. WP:NTEMP. I have added some RS and a see also section. I am able to easily find many articles in newsprint. Unfortunately my account is buggy at the moment. Very notable company however. The subject has WP:SIGCOV. Lightburst (talk) 17:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP The article has been massively improved today, ample reliable sources confirming notability. I find it amusing that Time magazine mentioned how this brewery delivered alcohol to the President as soon as prohibition ended. http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,847283,00.html I can't access the whole article, but found that amusing. Dream Focus 17:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP WP:HEY 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep per HEY. Nice work! DiamondRemley39 (talk) 22:25, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even post-HEY, as not meeting NCORP. Looking at this version of the article: the contemporaneous newspaper sources are primary (and local). The guide books are... well, guide books. It's like saying something is notable because it's in the phone book. The point of a guide book is to be comprehensive... they generally list all, or major, "points of interest" in a city, but being a "point of interest" doesn't make the "point" notable. For example, Abner-Drury Brewery might be included in a list of breweries in Washington DC, but it's not NCORP-notable. The rest of the sources are less-than-one-sentence brief mentions, as far as I can tell. I don't see WP:THREE sources. Also, it didn't exist for very long, so I'm not seeing any independent reason for notability. Lots of breweries came and went in many cities over the years, and you'll find all of them written about in contemporaneous newspapers and guidebooks. There's nothing recent or non-local outside of guidebooks and brief mentions AFAICS. ^Lev!v^ich 02:28, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per sourcing identified/meeting GNG. Undoubtedly more sourcing from a century ago exists, but this serves our readers fine until more is added which is routine editing. Gleeanon409 (talk) 03:08, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The story of the post-Prohibition celebration seems to have entered into history; it's discussed in at least of three of the sources not in the article. I think that this demonstrates notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 03:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good article (now), and clearly worth keeping. They might have to rename Heymann > Abner-Drury Brewery. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:55, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abaris Aircraft[edit]

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

This article appears to be about a non-notable aircraft manufacture that only existed for a few years and just released a single aircraft kit. The article doesn't cite any sources and I couldn't find any in-depth coverage by doing a WP:BEFORE that would pass either WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Adamant1 (talk) 05:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:30, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:30, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:30, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All I found was a few stats about the company [35][36][37], didn't find it on databases like ch-aviation or CAPA or any WP:RS at all. Bingobro (Chat) 12:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

K. Velappan[edit]

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

Cannot locate sufficient sources meeting WP:SIGCOV. Paradox society 03:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Paradox society 03:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Paradox society 03:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Paradox society 03:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Paradox society 03:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also several indicators that they are unlikely to exist. Article has been tagged for notability for 11 years and still just has one source, his school. Also nothing likely in real life. Won two local book awards. North8000 (talk) 00:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 17:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability for WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Java Hurricane 05:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ 09:04, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Jones (actor)[edit]

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

There are no reliable sources out there about this actor. Therefore, no info can be written about him and no wiki page is needed. News Today is an unreliable source. TamilMirchi (talk) 03:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 03:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 03:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 03:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete trival mentions are not enough to determine notability. It clearly lacks independent coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 03:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question: It looks like he's played some major roles in the films he's been in. For example, he's mentioned in this review for Yemaali from the Times of India, where he (and his character) are listed in the first paragraph and mentioned again thereafter. His performance is also covered in this Sify review. Then there's this TOI review (and also this Sify review) for Lisaa, where he's mentioned and looks to be one of the main characters of the movie. He's also in this Indiaglitz review and this one from the Deccan Chronicle. He doesn't seem to have been a main character here, but his role seems to have been major enough to warrant mention in multiple film reviews. It looks like all three films he's been in would pass NFILM, so by extension he should pass the first criteria for WP:NACTOR? ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He would pass WP:Nactor if sources other than film reviews covered him (such as The Times of India, The Hindu).TamilMirchi (talk) 20:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But wouldn't film reviews count as the roles being notable, if he's a major role or major enough to be covered in the review - sometimes even in fair depth? It just seems like with that rationale, an author wouldn't be able to gain notability for reviews of their books. There have been reviews used to establish notability in the past for actors. Is this a relatively new change? ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll bring this up on the film/acting WikiProject just in case - if this is changed then I need to be aware of this. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:04, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete inadequate sourcing to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:40, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Big Bar, Calaveras County, California[edit]

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

Let me start off by saying that I'm not terribly convinced by the claim that Mokelumne Hill was earlier called Big Bar, as it is just too close to this supposed Big Bar. But be that as it may, this is another spot with nothing much there and no sources about it other than GNIS. Mangoe (talk) 03:07, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 12:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chaithra Rai[edit]

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

non-notable actress MurielMary (talk) 02:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Entity yet not qualified for Wikipedia (WP:TOOSOON). -Hatchens (talk) 04:24, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:00, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Spiderone 17:55, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The article passes WP:GNG and WP:COMPOSER#6 as highlighted by the participants (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 04:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agustín Fernández (composer)[edit]

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

Semi-procedural nomination on behalf of the subject, only semi because having done GNews and other searches I find less than 100 reasonable hits, most of which are either questionable sources (specifically, those pertaining to his alleged crimes) or brief mentions (in the vein of "so-and-so was inspired by Fernandez"). In other words, fails WP:COMPOSER and WP:PROF. Primefac (talk) 01:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Primefac (talk) 01:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 03:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bolivia-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 03:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 03:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable composer, with substantial (but regrettably paywalled) coverage at Grove Music Online [38], and substantial free coverage at British Music Collection [39]. These are published by Oxford University Press and Sound and Music respectively, which are independent and reliable. GNG is met, and I think this also meets point 6 of WP:COMPOSER. I have not looked through his works, it is possible that points 1 or 2 are also met in this case. I am satisfied based on the sources in the article and a few others[40][41][42][43] that the subject has been convicted and is a fugitive. So, this isn't a matter of "alleged" crimes, there is a criminal conviction. That isn't a basis for notability on its own, but since the subject is otherwise notable, the conviction should be covered in the article. I don't usually assign much weight to whether the subject of an article wants or does not want a Wikipedia article, and I consider that to be even less relevant when the subject's motivation is to hide the fact that they are a sex offender and a fugitive. ST47 (talk) 19:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per WP:GNG. Per sources. Per coverage.BabbaQ (talk) 09:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Redirection is optional. Sandstein 09:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arlesdale Railway[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable fictional railway. Of the inline cited sources in the article, one is primary, and the other is to pegnsean.net, which looks like a self-published fansite. Of the sources in the bibliography, you have the fansite, a bunch of primary source fictional books, and one biography of the author. Google Scholar brings up two hits, [44], both of which look like plot summaries. A Google search is bringing up Fandom, deviantart, pinterest, and a book complied from Wikia content Gets one sentence in this piece from BBC. Clear failure of WP:GNG. Hog Farm _Bacon 01:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 01:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 01:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 01:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Previous nomination closed as speedy keep, but that was in 2008 and the nominator was a sockpuppet. I think this is time for this to get a new hearing. Hog Farm _Bacon 01:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cool stuff for a fan wiki, but here it is WP:FANCRUFT that fails WP:NFICTION/GNG. More articles from this children show need review for notability, not everything we grew up is notable, folks... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here}
Delete - Interesting article, but on the whole, non-notable. Wiki Macaroons^Cinnamon? 08:05, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ravenglass and Eskdale Railway#Arlesdale Railway is probably most helpful to a reader wanting encyclopedic material. https://ttte.fandom.com/wiki/Arlesdale_Railway is probably suitable for casual readers and it's probably better for us not to compete. Thincat (talk) 08:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; possibly the rest of Category:Railways of Sodor ought to go too, for the same reasons. With a heavy heart, since I was a TtTE obsessive as a pre-schooler... YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 18:38, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Ravenglass and Eskdale Railway#Arlesdale Railway. Would also consider Sodor (fictional island) or List of fictional locations in Thomas & Friends or another suitable merge target. Nominator is right that most of this article is sourced to primary sources, with a bare mention in the BBC. If there's any potential for this content, it's as part of a broader summary of the fictional universe. Jontesta (talk) 19:24, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 01:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drinking and Driving Wrecks Lives[edit]

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

Non notable film with no independent, verifiable reviews found during search. Donaldd23 (talk) 01:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 01:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 01:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge and redirect~~ into Public information film, where it's already mentioned. --Lockley (talk) 00:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep after good discussion below. --Lockley (talk) 20:58, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A seminal and hugely important piece of UK government education in the 1980s and 1990s, that happened to hit me growing up at exactly the right moment, being just old enough to drink or to drive when the In the Summertime campaign came out in 1992. I have expanded the article using various sources. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:15, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as obviously notable to anyone in the UK old enough to have seen this campaign. I had this on my to-do list to improve, but can now get back to the snooker (now that the cricket test match has finished) thanks to User:Ritchie333, who appears to be a bit younger than me. This shouldn't be judged as a film, but as a campaign. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:02, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added book coverage including an award, and a description of the 'Eyes' advert. I also found another book covering the campaigns, Bennett and Calman, Risk Communication and Public Health, but because I can see that only in snippet view, didn't use it; what I was looking for was independent referencing of the complaints about 'Dave' that apparently led to its being taken off-air. In any event, these spots have received continuing coverage in both news and non-news reliable sources and thus meet GNG. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:31, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as WP:HEY the article has been considerably improved since nomination with the addition of references to significant coverage in multiple reliable sources so that deletion is no longer necessary, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No sourced content to merge. czar 04:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Letica[edit]

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

No sources provided. I have been unable to find any sources online that would substantiate the content of the article. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 01:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 01:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC) t[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. You'd think there'd be sources for something like this, but I can find none at all. I'm prepared to call this a hoax (unless someone can turn something up in non-English sources). AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Even if sources can be found for this I think the content would be better merged to Dušan Letica. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:28, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication of why a failed assasination attempt needs a free standing article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:53, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 04:28, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Whitford Bond[edit]

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

NN person, fails the GNG, WP:BIO, WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:NOTINHERITED. Article entirely sourced (and almost word-for-word copied) from his obituary. No other significant coverage from reliable sources found, save for namedrops and casual mentions. Notability tagged for over ten years. Possible COI issues with the article creator, a namesake with an unfortunately long history of creating articles on NN subjects, often with copyvios. Ravenswing 00:48, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 00:48, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amin note I originally deleted this as G12 (copied from [45]) but that source was published by Yale in 1905 (which I did not notice), which would likely mean it is out of copyright. Thus, AFD is the way to go... Primefac (talk) 12:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Popping this back on the cycle for a full week, since it was deleted quickly after nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 12:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 15:33, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Devokewater@ 21:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We should not publish verbatim quotes even if they are out of copyright.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:37, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 04:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Starkman[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This BLP was "weak keep" in a 2010 AFD. Since 2016, this has been tagged for notability. Subject is someone who founded a Canadian marketing agency, and has appeared as a competitor on various game shows. Sourcing is questionable.

Sourcing www.baitshoppe.com and Branch Out Clothing are primary sourcing being Starkman's own companies.
Television appearances section is mostly sourced with MTV program listings.
Other work section is also partially sourced from Branch Out Clothing
WP:BLP Sexual assault allegations section. This has been disputed and deleted by IPs, and also by someone who claims to be the real Evan Starkman, who left an edit summary that said in part, "The description of these events rely on sources which do not exist and are meant to smear my name without merit." Restored by LauritzT, with a message on the talk page of the last reverting editor.

A lot of people are contestants on games show, or own businesses, but that doesn't make them notable for Wikipedia. — Maile (talk) 00:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Maile (talk) 00:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable contestant/reality show person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indicia of encyclopedic notability. BD2412 T 00:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:25, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jami Kyöstilä[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested based on WP:GHITS. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This season, Kyöstilä is playing for FC Haka in the 2020 Veikkausliiga, the top tier of Finnish football, listed as fully professional in Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. The season began over a month ago, and he has started 5 of the 6 games that FC Haka has played this season, and came in at half-time in the sixth game. I can only assume that User:Sir Sputnik was not aware that FC Haka plays in the Veikkausliiga, and I ask that he withdraw this nomination. Nfitz (talk) 03:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 11:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ "Baby Prince Christened". Windsor Star. Vol. 90, no. 80. CP. 1963-06-04. p. A11.
^ Hickey, Trisha (2003-07-19). "Club turns 100: Empire: Prince Andrew, the Duke of York, attends Centennial Luncheon". National Post (Toronto ed.). p. TO.7.
^ Miskin, Maayana (2010-04-15). "Posthumous Award for King Boris". Arutz Sheva. Retrieved 2020-08-08.
^ "RBC Wealth Management hires new MD of family office and institutional investments". World Market Intelligence News. 2014-05-02 – via ABI/INFORM.
^ "Hope – A Key Message at Cayman Captive Forum". Business Wire. 2016-12-13. Retrieved 2020-08-08.
^ "The Family Office Landscape - A Forever Moving Target at Sir Anthony Ritossa's 9th Global Family Office Investment Summit Under the High Patronage of HSH Prince Albert II of Monaco". PR Newswire. 2019-06-25. Retrieved 2020-08-08.
^ Abdelmahmoud, Elamin (2011). "A prince of a man" (PDF). Queen's Alumni Gazette. Vol. 85, no. 3. p. 49. ISSN 0843-8048. Retrieved 2020-08-08.
^ Granovsky, Josh (2019-04-04). "Meet the Princess on University Avenue". The Queen's Journal. Retrieved 2020-08-08.
^ "Na'amat hosts fundraiser fit for a prince". Canadian Jewish News. 2013-10-18. Retrieved 2020-08-08.
^ Silverstein, Barbara (2014-12-08). "Crown prince whose grandfather saved Jews lives quietly in Oakville". Canadian Jewish News. Retrieved 2020-08-08.
^ Bürger, Tobias (2019-02-07). "Mein Team hat keine Kunden" [My Team has No Customers]. Private Banking Magazin (in German). Edelstoff Media. Retrieved 2020-08-08.

[1] ttps://www.zee5.com/zeekannada/6-performances-from-the-zee5-original-g-o-d-who-deserve-a-special-mention-and-applause/

[2] ttps://www.imdb.com/title/tt11999090/

[3] ttps://theenvoyweb.com/reviews/gods-of-dharmapuri-review/

[4] ttps://www.voxspace.in/2020/02/01/review-of-ahas-kotha-poradu/

[5] ttps://www.indiaglitz.com/engaging-review-telugu-webseries-1592319798

[6] "సినిమా ముచ్చట్లు: అత్త మెచ్చిన అల్లుడు" [Cinema talks: Aththa Mechhina Alludu]. Andhra Patrika (in Telugu). 2020-01-23.

[7] "Baby Prince Christened". Windsor Star. Vol. 90, no. 80. CP. 1963-06-04. p. A11.

[8] Hickey, Trisha (2003-07-19). "Club turns 100: Empire: Prince Andrew, the Duke of York, attends Centennial Luncheon". National Post (Toronto ed.). p. TO.7.

[9] Miskin, Maayana (2010-04-15). "Posthumous Award for King Boris". Arutz Sheva. Retrieved 2020-08-08.

[10] "RBC Wealth Management hires new MD of family office and institutional investments". World Market Intelligence News. 2014-05-02 – via ABI/INFORM.

[11] "Hope – A Key Message at Cayman Captive Forum". Business Wire. 2016-12-13. Retrieved 2020-08-08.

[12] "The Family Office Landscape - A Forever Moving Target at Sir Anthony Ritossa's 9th Global Family Office Investment Summit Under the High Patronage of HSH Prince Albert II of Monaco". PR Newswire. 2019-06-25. Retrieved 2020-08-08.

[13] Abdelmahmoud, Elamin (2011). "A prince of a man" (PDF). Queen's Alumni Gazette. Vol. 85, no. 3. p. 49. ISSN 0843-8048. Retrieved 2020-08-08.

[14] Granovsky, Josh (2019-04-04). "Meet the Princess on University Avenue". The Queen's Journal. Retrieved 2020-08-08.

[15] "Na'amat hosts fundraiser fit for a prince". Canadian Jewish News. 2013-10-18. Retrieved 2020-08-08.

[16] Silverstein, Barbara (2014-12-08). "Crown prince whose grandfather saved Jews lives quietly in Oakville". Canadian Jewish News. Retrieved 2020-08-08.

[17] Bürger, Tobias (2019-02-07). "Mein Team hat keine Kunden" [My Team has No Customers]. Private Banking Magazin (in German). Edelstoff Media. Retrieved 2020-08-08.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]