Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 July 23

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 22 July	24 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dead & Company Summer Tour 2020[edit]

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

Tour has been cancelled as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and will not be rescheduled. Fails both WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NTOURS. — Status (talk · contribs) 23:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Status (talk · contribs) 23:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. // Timothy :: talk 04:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per nom., I believe something that " was supposed to" is not encyclopedic. Alex-h (talk) 08:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since it has been cancelled. Aspects (talk) 21:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OUTCOMES and WP:SNOW - absent something extraordinary, we delete such articles about cancelled tours. Bearian (talk) 15:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Devokewater^talk 18:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tui Amar[edit]

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

Seems to be a non-notable film; I cannot find independent commentary on it. Being nominated for an award usually doesn't convey notability. (t · c) buidhe 21:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 21:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 21:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article lacks any relible sourcing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obscure film, no reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 15:24, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:33, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hams, California[edit]

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

Old topos show a building at the location given, plus another couple across the road. The building is gone now, and the spot is on the grounds of the UMC's Camp Lodestar. I could not find any references to this as a place at all besides geo-clickbait. Mangoe (talk) 21:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. // Timothy :: talk 00:39, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete,cannot find much reference for this place. Alex-h (talk) 08:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL. A single store (perhaps a gas station?) does not make a place notable. Bearian (talk) 15:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was transwiki and delete. There is very strong consensus here on two different fronts: First, that these articles are not encyclopedic, they don't pass WP:GNG, and they don't belong on WP. Second, that the information in these articles is exceedingly useful, valuable, and not easily found elsewhere. However, simply being valuable and useful is not enough to warrant inclusion as a standalone article in Wikipedia, so the articles must eventually be deleted.

In the interests of developers, engineers, and other humans around the world that find this content useful, it seems reasonable to apply some unconventional leniency to this situation, and allow for a reasonable amount of time for this content to be relocated to a more suitable place before it is deleted. To this end, I'm willing to offer the following terms:

The articles will not be immediately deleted or moved, they will stay where they are for now.
Editors that are interested in preserving this content are encouraged to immediately start discussing where to move this content and how to best achieve that.
In 30 days (on August 30th), I will return to delete all of these articles. If more time is needed to complete the transwiki process, I will consider requests to extend the period of time slightly beyond 30 days, but only if there is clear evidence of significant progress being made.
If the transwiki process is completed before 30 days, please inform me and I will delete the articles sooner.

‑Scottywong | [gab] || 19:50, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Code page 875[edit]

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

This is a mass nomination of all EBCDIC code pages, following on from the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EBCDIC 389.

While these pages are verifiable, none of them are notable, as there have been no reliable, independent sources discussing (not just mentioning or reposting) individual code pages.

This nomination is explicitly not for the page EBCDIC, which is a notable subject: and the code pages itself are discussed in that article and already listed in Code page#EBCDIC-based code pages.

I have chosen to only nominate EBCDIC code pages here because that includes already 100+ pages, and because other types of code pages may be notable, I haven't checked (though I suppose many may have the same issues and may need deletion as well).

Fram (talk) 13:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete these codepage reproductions, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE: they are not encyclopedia articles and so do not belong in the encyclopedia. None of these topics is individually and independently notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- None of the sub-cases of WP:INDISCRIMINATE really applies to these articles. All of them have context and references to independent sources (including the Unicode consortium) GSchizas (talk) 22:06, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki, perhaps to WikiBooks, then delete. I have not checked all the nominated articles, but those I have looked at don't have notability in the sense of secondary sources writing about the individual code page history, impact, etc. I agree that these pages are not suitable as standalone articles. In the previous AfD, there was a consensus among knowledgeable editors that the information was verifiable and valuable. So while these are not suitable for Wikipedia articles, perhaps those editors could transwiki the lot of them to an EBCDIC Wikibook. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 18:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The previous AfD was not really resolved. The result was "no consensus". GSchizas (talk) 17:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I never said it was. Please sign your comments. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 09:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry about not signing, I was trying to do a single edit and I guess I skipped one of them. I was referring to the "there was a consensus among knowledgeable editors" phrase. GSchizas (talk) 17:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki somewhere. We shouldn't be replicating entire bodies of various works Wp:NOTREPOSITORY, but this would probably be helpful somewhere. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The WP:NOTREPOSITORY rule isn't relevant for these cases. These pages aren't mirrors or list of images etc. It's not even a "whole body of work". In most cases it's a reorganization of existing information under a common template and with a more readable form. GSchizas (talk) 22:06, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At least keep until someone can successfully transwiki these pages and the template to Wikibooks (the last attempt was not successful). A mass deletion of these pages without a transwiki would be ~~against Wikipedia policy~~ a huge loss of information. I originally voted keep EBCDIC 037, EBCDIC 500, JEF, KEIS, and articles that are notable, and transwiki the articles that are not. Now I see that these pages are important to reflect code page history and contain valuable information, and should be kept on Wikipedia. Alexlatham96 (talk) 20:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexlatham96: Please avoid simply updating your discussion as you did at [1] (and possibly earlier). A minor spelling mistake is acceptable, sometimes striking and rewriting under a different timestamp works, or adding a new comment at the end may be apropriate. But changing content to which a person has replied can make that reply look out of context. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- What are the secondary sources for e.g. EBCDIC 037? The only non-IBM sources are this long list in which 037 is mentioned among many, many others, nothing more, and this technical mapping page. Neither of these give any indication of notability, and such pages exist for all these codepages, not just these. The exact same thing applies to e.g. EBCDIC 875 or EBCDIC 1026, none of these have any indication of notability. Fram (talk) 09:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I found this newspaper explaining EBCDIC 037 (Code page 37). Code page 37 is explained in the February 15, 1988 edition of this newspaper, pages 22 to 24. Alexlatham96 (talk) 22:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks, but that's the internal university computing magazine. Such internal company or university sources are normally not considered for notability. Fram (talk) 07:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTREPOSITORY rules don't really apply (I've replied to the other points separately). More to the point, I don't see how this attempt can end without removing ALL articles referring to code pages (and not just the EBCDIC ones). If that is the final goal, this (as was mentioned at the original AfD which was not resolved), this should be taken further up. In fact, most of the comments by Mark viking and DRMcCreedy apply to this AfD as well. In any case, even specifically for CP875 there are a few discussions about it in the Unicode mailing list, and I wouldn't be expecting anything much more glamorous than that; it's a very niche subject, so discussion in the Unicode consortium mailing list is the most you could hope for (at least in this century). Of course if the final decision is to delete all EBCDIC code pages (except a handful that seem to be the most US-centric ones in any case), there should be some automated or otherwise mass way to migrate these to a more appropriate sister site (I'm not entirely sure what the "transwiki" process entails). GSchizas (talk) 22:06, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- If the best are "a few discussions in a mailing list", then that is a very good indication that these are indeed not notable at all. I only nominated the EBCDIC ones for now to give people a chance to get a look at them, to see if some are notable anyway (I'll take a closer look at the ones singled out above). If I had nominated even more articles at once, this would have been much harder and people would start complaining that I nominated too much at once. This is a damned if you do, damned if you don't case. Anyway, it is unclear what reason you give for keeping these, while at the same time confirming how extremely niche these things are, and how they thus lack all notability. Fram (talk) 09:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not some random mailing list, it's the mailing list of the Unicode consortium. Out of those mailing lists the Unicode standard is eventually defined. No, I wouldn't expect there to be discussions about them in newspapers, but I think that's an unfairly high threshold to clear, for any article (not just Code page ones). Also note that for most of the EBCDIC code pages (and other code pages as well), they were created a long, long time ago, so it's not going to be easy to find a reference for each and every one of the EBCDIC codepages. That being said, just as long that the information contained in these pages is not lost somehow, I think an (automated) transwiki would serve. Making the articles with no other information than the list of characters marked as "stub" would also be a good idea. GSchizas (talk) 17:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Keep. I see them as extensions of the EBCDIC article, which would be too long if it contained all of the information about each EBCDIC code page. I like the idea of marking articles as stubs if they don't contain enough detail. It allows other editors to eventually add information instead of the hurdle of creating the page from scratch. DRMcCreedy (talk) 18:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - But why would we need "all of the information about each EBCDIC code page" on enwiki? Of course this would make the main page too long, but that's not an excuse to keep subpages of minutiae. Tagging them as stub doesn't solve anything. Fram (talk) 07:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just curious, why was this specific article selected to nominate the whole list of EBCDIC code pages? It seems a bit random to 'target' an article that's in the middle of the list! GSchizas (talk) 22:06, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- In the category, it is the first one (the list is alphabetical, not numerical). Fram (talk) 09:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wouldn't that be Code page 259? GSchizas (talk) 17:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Category:EBCDIC code pages is the one I'm talking about. Apparently some are ordered by full name, and some by number . I just followed the order of the category. Fram (talk) 07:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm still not seeing any evidence this passes GNG, the relevant notability guideline. What I'm seeing is WP:ILIKEIT excuses for why this should be exempt from notability. Reproducing all of the code pages would be WP:UNDUE at the main EBCDIC page, and stand-alone pages need to meet notability guidelines. This is the sort of thing WikiSource is for - the contents of documents that while they do have some interest, they do not meet the guidelines for getting their own article. Hog Farm _Bacon 14:00, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- On the other hand, I see too liberal interpretations of the wikipedia rules. None of the mentioned rules apply here. Not WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTREPOSITORY and certainly not WP:ILIKEIT or WP:UNDUE. I've explained the first two in another comment. Nobody here is claiming "I want this page to not be deleted because I like it". And I don't see how there can be any point of view (much less a non-neutral one) for such a page. As to the general notability, it is covered in other comments here; there has been discussion in independent media, and historically they affected current standards (such as Unicode). GSchizas (talk) 15:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Speedy delete Any code page that doesn't have a specific claim of notability should additionally be made eligible for speedy deletion (not just the ones here). These don't meet GNG. PainProf (talk) 23:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC) - change vote to speedy delete, copyright infringement, likely not reprinted in many places because this code registry is copyrighted by IBM and is their intellectual property. PainProf (talk) 23:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Highly unlikely that the list of numbers, as opposed to the specific representation is (or can be) copyrighted. Also, the time for "speedy" delete has long, long, long passed (some of the articles are 10 years old or older). GSchizas (talk) 08:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki it. The information is useful to somebody, but I don't think it belongs on Wikipedia.† Encyclopædius 12:13, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I'm not going to move this mess of collections of trivia anywhere. Bearian (talk) 22:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I really hate to see these go, I would make the argument of WP:NSOFT where the topic of EBCDIC satisfies the notability guidelines and the list meets "It is the subject of multiple printed third-party manuals, instruction books, or reliable reviews, written by independent authors and published by independent publishers." As a software engineer I can say that I find these lists to be very notable. When I searched github and other source code repositories I find over 4 million references to EBCDIC. If I narrow my search down to just "IBM code page 875" I am finding thousands of projects using search terms such as CCSID 875, IBM-875, CODEPAGE_875, cptable_875, CP_875, CCSID875 and so forth. If you are reading this... please spend some time using those search terms to find references to "IBM code page 875". Am I the only engineer voting? DavidDelaune (talk) 00:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe you can request to move these pages to your userspace if they are deleted or transwiki. However, I am not an admin. Alexlatham96 (talk) 03:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NSOFT is an essay, not an accepted guideline, and it would never get accepted as a general guideline as it stands because it is so far removed from the WP:GNG. EVen then, being included in code or being mentioned is still not the same as "being the subject of multiple third-party manuals, instruction books or reliable reviews[...]", the subject should be the main topic, not something also mentioned. Oh, and EBCDIC itself is not up for deletion of course. Fram (talk) 08:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I don't buy that all of this meets WP:INDISCRIMINATE, while we are happy to keep truckloads of articles on sportspeople who have touched a football in an international game. Also, we appear to be having articles on all Unicode blocks (eg. Tamil_(Unicode_block)) sourced entirely to primary sources, though I am not sure how important EBCDIC is as compared to Unicode. SD0001 (talk) 09:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and please note that while others have given "indiscriminate" and other reasons to delete these, the original basic reason is a lack of notability, a lack of reliable independent sources for these pages. Whether they meet the letter of "indiscriminate" or not is hardly the point. Fram (talk) 10:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - From that same page: "When applied to creation of articles, this concept must demonstrate that articles of a similar nature and construct are included throughout Wikipedia.". There are of course easily proven notable specific pages for US-centric EBCDIC code pages, and there are articles for other non EBCDIC code pages. Is this a trojan-horse proposal to remove all of them? Again, they do have historical value, as they eventually influenced the creation of Unicode (among other things).GSchizas (talk) 19:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this discussion may be null and void, I just looked at one of the sources. In the top corner it clearly says copyright IBM. I don't think we can reproduce these sources in full. I think all of them are subject to copyright. I would suggest this material can't be included on Wikipedia and can only be linked to at IBM. PainProf (talk) 22:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

i.e. look at PDF linked here EBCDIC_1166 PainProf (talk) 22:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So it's your contention that a chart showing Unicode characters that correspond to a different computer encoding is copyright infringement?! By that logic, every computer encoding table in Wikipedia will need to be deleted. IBM, Apple, Windows, Adobe, HP, DEC. All of them. If that's the case, we need a much bigger deletion discussion! But I don't agree with your assessment. The table at EBCDIC_1166 isn't a cut-and-paste of the cited reference. It contains Unicode characters and code point identifiers not in the cited source. DRMcCreedy (talk) 01:56, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's identical just transposed and including standard identifiers. There is no fair use exception that applies and IBM have a copyright notice clearly it is their contention that it is covered by copyright. Computer codes are covered by copyright and can't be directly reproduced without consent of the copyright holder. It is quite possible any encoding table not specifically released under a license requires deletion, regardless I've raised it as a copyright vio to check. Im not sure why this table would be exempt. The codes are their intellectual property. But let's see what they say. PainProf (talk) 02:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I created many of these articles. I see sites like this and this showing these code pages. So I agree with DRMcCreedy. However, I will wait to see the result of the copyright investigation. Alexlatham96 (talk) 05:23, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unicode is the same: "You may freely use these code charts for personal or internal business uses only. You may not incorporate them either wholly or in part into any product or publication, or otherwise distribute them without express written permission from the Unicode Consortium. However, you may provide links to these charts." PainProf (talk) 14:35, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The charts themselves aren't incorporated at all. The data that can be derived from the charts (or other sources) is a different thing than the specific representation. GSchizas (talk) 08:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I had previously closed this AfD. After discussion on my talk page over concerns that this was not adequately advertised given how many articles were deleted I am relisting this for further discussion. Djm-leighpark who discussed it with me has other concerns but I will let them explain those for themselves.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:04, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Thankyou Barkeep49. I had offered to look at this as a migrator(transwiki'er) of last resort however deletion of source articles occurred before standup of WikiBook was achieved. The key issue is, and I believe this is especially important when handling bulk work of several articles of one type, that discussion is undertaken with WikiProject to see if a solution can be agreed and a volunteer task group set up if not, which is in the spirit of WP:BEFORE Criteria#3. In terms of the (non consensus) closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EBCDIC 389 it is perhaps disappointing the recommendation was not to consult with WikiProject rather than suggest a bulk nomination. In any event the migration-and-stand-up failure of the EBCDIC code pages (at least up to this point) has caused a hiatus which should not have occurred, and indicates it was not totally trivial. It is often said AfD is not cleanup, and AfD is certainly not the place to plan a transwiki of this magnitude. There is a further problem that the issue of code pages other than EBCDIC have not been considered, so will we end up with the senario that half are on WikiBooks and half on WikiPedia which looks stupid. So there is a real case for considering all code pages rather than one and if presenting on WikiBooks how may they be best stood up. Understanding the totalilty of the problem also helps determine the level of automation that would be optimal for the whole job. As per a merge result from AfD its important at least one merge !voter is willing to undertake a (hopefully non-trivial merge). In this case I believe Mark Viking was the first transwiki !voter but to a degree indicated he was not was not intending to take on the job. In view of the non-success of standing up a WikiBook at this point transwiki !voters may need to consider their position. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: At least until someone demonstrates a successful stand-up of ALL code pages in Wikibooks and improved guidelines for tranwikification. I didn't come to WikiPedia to script/automate ... and certainly not to do it rushed in the nice long days of summer while adjusting to new-normals while transitioning through lockdown states. WP:PRESERVE is mor ethe gist of thinking but it doesn't really cover transwiki, and that may not be the best option anyway. A template such as AwaitingPossibleWikiBooking might as be a compromise. Is there a rush? Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:20, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:58, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Not all of the deleted articles were restored... I think the redirect pages are still gone, for example EBCDIC 1140. DRMcCreedy (talk) 03:52, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki, with a preference for deletion if no suitable site can be found. I'm seeing a lot of "keep, I like it", "keep, other stuff exists", "keep, it's convenient" and "keep, transwiki is too hard" (??). What I'm not seeing is evidence of coverage that satisfies the GNG. – Teratix ₵ 04:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I'm seeing a lot of "delete, I don't like it" and false calls to other irrelevant guidelines. The totality of the pages were called "trivia" or "minutia" (hence, "I don't like it"). There were also a couple of sources referenced here, but they were unfairly dismissed. No, you shouldn't expect a single code page to be mentioned in the front page of the Times; that's a quite unfair hurdle to overcome. GSchizas (talk) 08:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing any sources mentioned that were not countered already by Fram's analysis. We're not asking for front-page newspaper coverage; all that's needed is a couple of independent, reliable sources that discuss the subject beyond a passing mention. – Teratix ₵ 12:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hence my comment "unfairly dismissed". GSchizas (talk) 10:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm unsure what you mean by that. Are you saying that Fram's comments were inaccurate, or that it's unfair to suggest these pages should satisfy the GNG? – Teratix ₵ 02:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki then delete. This is not content suitable for Wikipedia, but it would be a shame to just loose it. Do we have a bot that could just copy stuff like this to Wikibooks? Maybe someone should look into automating such process, to make it less cumbersome to save useful but unencyclopedic efforts like this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:21, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While per WP:TRANSWIKI there is a documented procedure for transwiki (Wikibooks seems to say dont do that manually!) there remains work to stand up the result in the target to make it usable. Its a bit like the plane taking you on your holiday getting to remote corner of the airfield - thats not a holdiay if you stay there - your need to get to the hotel and determine your baggage hs not been directed to Inishmurray or wherever and you're all set up to enjoy your holiday. In thw case of the first mentioned the results of the transwiki are here: [2]. This is some way off a completed curated WikiBook when removal of source is more appropriate and functionaility of source page(s) and target page(s) can be compared. This may or may not be hard but it will require some resource by someone to make it happen. For alternative views also see various sections on Barkeep49's talk page and maybe latest archive(?) and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing#Articles for deletion. For a single page merge AfD result the actioner has probably a week to take the action, and a bit more if they give a good a reason. For a Transwiki to WikiBooks of multiple pages is is not unreasonable for the person standing up the wikibooks to have an appropriate amount of time. For me normally that might be a month, but currently its three and I'll negotiate with that with any designated WP:FUNKy person bar one if anyone thinks I'm being awkward or unreasonable. (In terms of codepages EBCDIC may be the tip of the iceberg and I'd like to know the extent of the iceberg first). Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Does anyone think Code page should be deleted? I don't. These pages support Code page. Removing that support does not improve the encyclopedia. Merging all this to Code page does not improve the encyclopedia. There may be policy arguments for deleting all this but if it doesn't result in an improvement to the encyclopedia, I can't support that reading of the policy - WP:NORULES. ~Kvng (talk) 14:23, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and delete. This is not encyclopedic content. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:32, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: (Closer please note): This is currently likely heading for possible outcomes of No consensus or Transwiki. I am looking for signs any transwiki !voter who is prepared to champion into a WikiBook; preferably quickly; so WikiPedia users do not lose access to these code pages. As far as I know I am currently the only volunteer who in the event of a transwiki result, which I do not support, has offered to (try to) stand up in a WikiBook (pragmatically some scripting and maybe even regular expression capability is probably useful); but will only do so if the source pages are retained it situ until that is complete both due to assist in applying softlinks, cross checking the results, and also due to scripting and tooling assistance I might use. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'd look at these as essentially part of the EBCDIC article (or other encodings for other similar pages), offering encyclopedic detail that would be awkward to fit into the main page due to length. I'm not aware of this being explicitly addressed in policy — but I do think it is implicitly supported by the documentation of standard practice (admittedly not policies) between WP:SIZESPLIT and WP:CONSPLIT(depending on how one reads it, see discussion below): note how CONSPLIT wants notability for the split topics, but such is distinctly absent from the practice documented under SIZESPLIT. I don't think WP:INDISCRIMINATE should (or is intended to, probably) discourage content that would be otherwise acceptable if not for being lengthy. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/them)｜Talk｜Contributions 01:59, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Most important though is the text you didn't quote directly above the two sections you reference, in WP:WHENSPLIT: "Consideration must be given to size, notability and potential neutrality issues before proposing or carrying out a split." (bold in original). So notability clearly should be a consideration before a size split. So no, it isn't implicitly supported but explicitly, in bold, opposed. Fram (talk) 07:11, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Mm, I guess. I read that as a summary of the following sections, with the notability point being inherited from CONSPLIT (but not SIZESPLIT), but can see how it can be taken as applying to both. Thanks for pointing that out. While it does give me some level of doubt about my interpretation, I still think I have to stick with the keep, even if only per the last sentence of my rationale. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/them)｜Talk｜Contributions 21:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Please re-read the arguments of DavidDelaune. These code pages are a part of the foundation of computing. Doubtless there are thousands of sources for these code pages, they just aren't easy to find. I've read about them in countless programming magazines, manuals, and journals, but unfortunately, I've thrown them all away. Although it would be better if these pages were about the CCSIDs than code pages, this information is vital. These articles may never get lots of page views, but they are very useful extensions of the Code page article. Perhaps if one were to look for this information using the term CCSID or "coded character set id", they will change their opinion. If it were up to me, I would keep every one of them and move them all to 'CCSID nnn'.Jacona (talk) 12:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki or delete Keep !voters have not been able to make any convincing argument that these pages are notable, which is necessary to keep them. (t · c) buidhe 22:45, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'd like to share a couple of recent comments from discussions at Wikibooks:Requests for Import. The first is that many imported materials have waited years for creation into a book (I assume in some sort of Limbo); the second it is unlikely anone on WikiBooks is likely to assist; thirdly I have indicated that the ultimate scope of the result on the basis of this being a precedent here may likely be applied to most of Template:Character encodings. People should also be aware Transwiki and delete is sated by import to the WikiBooks transwiki area which is pretty much a pathway to an unusable oubliette; I would say Transwiki and standup in WikiBook (in a reasonable timescale) and then delete (and delete if outside timescale). Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a practical matter, a transwiki result here will either leave stuff as it is or will (eventually) cause stuff to be deleted. It might help if Hog Farm, Mark viking, Encyclopædius, Teratix, David Eppstein and Piotrus clarified what they would like to see happen to the content until such time as it can be transwikified with appreciation that this may never happen. ~Kvng (talk) 22:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kvng, that clarification would be helpful. It should be noted that these page have actually been imported to Wikibooks already. The supporting templates would also need to be imported and they would then need to be assembled into a book. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the outcome is transwiki and delete, but it is not transwikied in a reasonable time (say one week of closure) I think it should just be deleted, with the understanding that the content can be restored to user or draft space to anyone who proposes to actually carry out the transwiki. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested transwiki as an alternative to outright deletion for editors who would want to preserve this material. I am not one of those editors, but understand its value to some folks. I am sorry to see that the suggestion has led to stress and an extended AfD process. I think David's approach is a good one: get closure with this AfD, but provide a last chance for motivated editors to massage templates and complete the export to a usable wikibook. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 00:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If "these page have actually been imported to Wikibooks already" (link please?) than I don't see what else we need to do outside deleting the stuff here? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:33, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, [3]. I had closed this AfD as transwkify and delete. However, Djm-leighpark raised concerns that the AfD had not been adequately advertised given its scope so I reversed the close including restoring the pages here while further discussion occurred. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein I have very clearly volunteered to have a go and that is on the basis it remains in situ for up to 3 months as tooling I may use may do other stuff from original location. I have consideration of other code sets that may follow this one in this thinking. Remember on deleteion links to these pages get removed and caredifficult to re-establish even if stood up in draftspace. I have said one month would normally be sufficient and I was willing to give that explanation to a WP:FUnky person to a evaluation rather than outing by RL personal circumstancess here, suffice to say at the moment I have slept (sort of) on someone else' ssofa for the last 7 nights. Now an experienced Wikibooks person like yourself with the right skills might be able to stand up an EBCDIC WikiBook in hours. And if you (or anyone) are willing to do volunteer to do the job and document if for eveyone's benefit to show show unreasonably stupid and what I snail I am then you are welcome to do so. I have said I have have to have the articles templated to say an AfD has reached consensus and they are awaiting standind up in WikiBooks. Can I remind also folks this is a normination of 50+ pages and [[u|Bigdelboy}}(me) and/or Fram could follow this with one(s) of several depending on the result of this AfD. So, David Eppstein, are you volunteering to do the job (properly) or are you putting pressure and WP:Wikistress to organise my life around wikipedia? While Barkeep49 re-opened the AfD on the basis of lack of advertisment I had offered to assist as a volunteer of last resort, though knowning zitlch about transwiki or wikibooks. For those following my contribitions will see I have put some effort in two discussions as to how I would like to stand up Wikibooks ... though as a keep voter and a belief in the no-consensus result it is not appropriate for me to further a stand-up in Wikibooks until this is complete. To state the obvious if I am the only volunteer to stand up content in Wikibooks and a closer choses a transwiki and delete in a shorter timescale I would likely take to DRV. (An alternative would be to allow one month but on the basis I am permitted up to 2 one month extensions if requested provided I have shown some progress). Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 05:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate Djm-leighpark's efforts to preserve and improve this content. If it helps, I support moving any affected articles to his userspace as user drafts, with no time limits for him to work on them. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: I sincerely appreciate your thoughts on the userspace option, but I'll decline it. Some of the scripts I have in mind might be looking at inbound links to these pages. I'm looking at a requirement to create a book and possibly integrate when necessary. Everyone else sees individual pages. And I am also looking to provide continuous access to the information for potential users. I am very open to templating the pages in the interim by some prose such as "Determined by AfD to be unsuitable for WikiPedia discussion by retained for a short while to allow for project to transfer into a WikiBook". If I try this my way, I fail, and I apologise if that happens, and people will be rightful to mock. If I try it your way, and I fail, I risk I will mentally derange, and there I would be advised not to try. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NoteSync[edit]

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

non notable software Movilogo (talk) 20:48, 23 July 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 July 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per [[WP:SIGCOV]. Bearian (talk) 15:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dino De Laurentiis#DDL Foodshow. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:53, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DDL Foodshow[edit]

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

The notability of this food store is extremely questionable. The article only cites two references. While they are both from the New York Times, it's likely less to do with the store having regional or national appeal as a topic and more because it's local to New York. Since both articles are essentially reviews. Also, it seems like most of the notability comes from the stores connection to a notable film producer. I see nothing to indicate it's notable on it's own though. Maybe it could be merged into Dino De Laurentiis since the article already mentions it. Adamant1 (talk) 20:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I added references to full articles in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the Chicago Tribune and the San Francisco Examiner. — Toughpigs (talk) 22:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dino De Laurentiis#DDL Foodshow No breakout justified, can fit easily in his BLP. Nate • (chatter) 23:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dino De Laurentiis#DDL Foodshow. // Timothy :: talk 05:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge would be extremely generous. I'd very selectively merge, then delete. It's not known in NYC. Bearian (talk) 16:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and copy-edit. Pesa881 (talk) 21:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Corticon[edit]

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

This is a questionably sourced promoish article that has largely been edited by COI users. I'm not sure what else there is to say about it. Except it software's notability is extremely dubious. All of the references are to either trivial coverage, personal blogs or primary sources. Plus, a lot of them are dead links. Adamant1 (talk) 19:56, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RS - it's all dead links and blogs. Bearian (talk) 15:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Transaction processing#Implementations. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme Transaction Processing[edit]

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

This seems like useless WP:FORK of Transaction processing that's little more the a description of term and would be better served if merged into that article. Especially since the sourcing is slim and it's not clear if this is really a separate thing from normal transaction processing outside of niche tech blogs. Adamant1 (talk) 19:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:59, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom unless someone wants to merge into Transaction processing. // Timothy :: talk 05:06, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable marketing buzzword; the one book reference appears to be self-published. The other references simply mention a definition by Gartner. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge: Yes it is a useless WP:FORK of Transaction processing. -Hatchens (talk) 05:55, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Transaction_processing#Implementations, where it is already mentioned. I agree that there isn't in-depth sourcing sufficient to meet GNG and associated underlying technologies, such write-back caching, are covered elsewhere. 82 hits in GScholar and book hits, including an O'Reilly text[4] show that the concept of XTP exists in the literature, however, and it is a plausible search term. Hence, per WP:ATD-R, redirect is a reasonable alternative to deletion. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 10:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DICDEF, WP:FORK I would not oppose a selective merge of the sources, then deletion outright. No use in a redirect. Bearian (talk) 15:50, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With a multi-author article, merge pretty much requires a redirect to preserve attribution. What do you mean by "No use"? It doesn't look like a policy-based reason for avoiding a redirect on a topic you agree exists.. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 16:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Line of succession to the former throne of Rampur[edit]

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

This kingdom has been defunct since 1949. This completely unsourced article looks like unverifiable original research, including about the supposed royal status of living persons (WP:BLP). See also WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line of succession to the former Austro-Hungarian throne for a similar case. Norden1990 (talk) 19:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Norden1990 (talk) 19:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:38, 23 July 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). It is impossible to attribute the current line of succession to this throne to WP:RELIABLE sources, because there is no current line of succession, because the princely state itself doesn't even exist anymore. TompaDompa (talk) 22:58, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The ur.wiki article is sourced to RoyalArk, which is not a reliable source. Mccapra (talk) 02:59, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DEL-REASON 6. Nika2020 (talk) 05:52, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, full of original research. -- Ab207 (talk) 17:19, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The page for the most recent blue link has no sources for the claim he holds the Nawab of Rampur in pretense, so who knows if anyone in this family even cares about succession. JoelleJay (talk) 20:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LIST. This is a list about a now-defunct, non-sovereign state's heads of state, and is moot. Bearian (talk) 15:51, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater^talk 18:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Line of succession to the former throne of Rajpipla[edit]

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

This kingdom has been defunct since 1949. This completely unsourced article looks like unverifiable original research, including about the supposed royal status of living persons (WP:BLP). See also WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line of succession to the former Austro-Hungarian throne for a similar case. Norden1990 (talk) 19:36, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Norden1990 (talk) 19:36, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:38, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This line of succession, containing the full names of 26 people, has one blue link and zero sources. The article on the former princely state of Rajpipla itself only cites four sources newer than the Partition of India: a book from 1968, a news article about an airport being built in the area, a dead link to a royalty forum, and the promotional OpenLibrary entry of Prince Indra Vikram "Teddy" Singh, the purported "scion of the royal family of Rajpipla" who wrote a handful of (mostly self-published) books on cricket and writes two blogs listed a combined 11 times in the External Links. The other External Links are: a WP:PEACOCK-heavy interview with Singh in The New Indian Express, with no author attributed; a New Indian Express article on a book by Singh, again with no byline; a blog called the Rajpipla Post; a page on the Gujrat government site that didn't load for me; and a page of the Bombay Gazetteer from 1880. All of this leads me to believe there are no reliable sources discussing members of this abolished dynasty in any meaningful way. JoelleJay (talk) 20:48, 23 July 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). It is impossible to attribute the current line of succession to this throne to WP:RELIABLE sources, because there is no current line of succession, because the princely state itself doesn't even exist anymore. TompaDompa (talk) 22:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as apparently original research. Mccapra (talk) 03:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DEL-REASON 6. Nika2020 (talk) 05:53, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the other comments above. Smeat75 (talk) 19:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LIST, WP:MILL. This is yet another list about the succession rights to a minor, non-sovereign state. Bearian (talk) 15:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater^talk 18:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)   Kadzi   (talk) 21:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

4 Days, 40 Hours[edit]

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

It doesn't seem like this book is notable. There's only three sources in the article. The first one is on the general idea of a 4 day week and the third is a personal blog. Going by the title of the second source it might talk about the book, but there's a good chance it's only trivially. Although if there is in-depth coverage one source isn't enough for this to be notable. Also nothing came up when I did a search for the title of the book except for things having to do with a 40 hour week more generally. I wasn't able to able to find a review or anything else that would count as an in-depth discuss of just the book. Adamant1 (talk) 19:34, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meets WP:GNG. Typical good sourcing and development by Toughpigs. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 21:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I improved the article with references from The New York Times, The Boston Globe, a UPI story and a paper in Business Quarterly. I also added a review from The Journal of Human Resources for the second edition of the book in 1975. NYT called it "the definitive reference work in this field" in 1976. The field didn't actually take off, but a concept doesn't have to be lasting to be notable. — Toughpigs (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's another review here. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:18, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above improvements/sources. // Timothy :: talk 00:03, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Line of succession to the former throne of Dungarpur[edit]

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

This kingdom has been defunct since 1949. This completely unsourced article looks like unverifiable original research, including about the supposed royal status of living persons (WP:BLP). See also WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line of succession to the former Austro-Hungarian throne for a similar case. Norden1990 (talk) 19:34, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Norden1990 (talk) 19:34, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:38, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One blue link followed by dozens of unsourced names of living people. The article on the state itself is barely more than a stub. JoelleJay (talk) 21:12, 23 July 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). It is impossible to attribute the current line of succession to this throne to WP:RELIABLE sources, because there is no current line of succession, because the princely state itself doesn't even exist anymore. TompaDompa (talk) 22:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Previously sourced to RoyalArk and I can’t find anything else to support it. Mccapra (talk) 03:18, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DEL-REASON 6. Nika2020 (talk) 05:53, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the other comments above. Smeat75 (talk) 19:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LIST; I've been consistent in wanting to delete such lists about the succession rights of non-sovereign states. Bearian (talk) 15:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P. S. Srijith[edit]

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

Unsourced actor that is complete with original research and has no claim for notability. TamilMirchi (talk) 19:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 19:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 19:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 19:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are sources in the article, although I can’t access them. Mccapra (talk) 03:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I couldn't find any sources about him and the links listed are about films and not about him. TamilMirchi (talk) 18:27, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources in article were 404 and I couldn't find anything else about him except credits. He might be notable but I couldn't find anything. Ab207 might have some good sources. // Timothy :: talk 05:13, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notifying, TimothyBlue. Unfortunately, I can only gather Telugu-language sources. The subject seems to work in Tamil-language films which I am not too familiar with. -- Ab207 (talk) 05:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both of the alleged sources on the article go to dead links.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:02, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, subject fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NACTOR.- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 14:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 18:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shirsh Bihar United Football Club[edit]

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

PROD declined, no reason given. Article fails WP:FOOTYN and WP:GNG ArsenalFan700 (talk) 19:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not pass any notability criteria. Coderzombie (talk) 04:27, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete never played a high level match (if any match at all), and doesn't meet WP:GNG. If/when they play in the Indian league, it can always be undeleted or recreated, but until then, they aren't notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:27, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yep, it's unclear what league they are playing in or if they have actually played. If they are new to the Indian football league it would be better to rebuild this article in WP:Draft. Govvy (talk) 09:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 14:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero notability whatsoever Spiderone 18:33, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , no sign of notability. Alex-h (talk) 08:26, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL. They play less than two months per year. Bearian (talk) 15:57, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sandoz, California[edit]

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

Taken from a Forest Service map, but topos show nothing there but an unlabelled building until the name got copied to the map from GNIS. GMaps shows a barn, a shed, and a house; I surmise that someone named Sandoz once lived here. I could find nothing else through searching. Mangoe (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Definitely a Sandoz family that lived here, which is why it appeared on maps in this sparsely populated area. A Fuchs family is next to a Sandoz family on the 1930 and 1940 censuses, which is no doubt the source of Fuchs, California, and there is a joint-families cemetery for them. [5]. The families came from Switzerland. None of this confers notability (nor for Fuchs), I just find it interesting.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Searches have turned up almost nothing. Does not pass basic test for notability. Glendoremus (talk) 04:22, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article does not meet WP:N. // Timothy :: talk 01:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL. Without any source, we can't assume it's ever been inhabited. Bearian (talk) 16:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:16, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David McKinney (journalist)[edit]

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

NN journalist, fails the GNG and WP:BIO. No substantive coverage in reliable sources found. Notability tagged for over a decade.

One other factor is that for reasons surpassing my understanding, this article's been a vandalism magnet for its entire history. I just stripped out a lot of arrant nonsense and garbage, down to the barest minimum supported by the valid cites, as BLP requires. I couldn't find any significant coverage of McKinney in reliable sources, but would be happy to withdraw should a sufficiency turn up. Should the article survive AfD, I strongly urge it be placed on such vandalism watch as exists. Ravenswing 19:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 19:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 19:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A Q&A piece with the subject here confirms career biographical details and he can be found quoted in role as Curriculum Head of Media at City of Glasgow College (for example here), all of which confirms the subject to have worked in areas of media and journalism, but I am seeing nothing to indicate WP:JOURNALIST notability. AllyD (talk) 14:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I don't deny that the fellow exists. I just haven't found anything to suggest that he's notable. Ravenswing 16:11, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to being a notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:37, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: there have been various bits of nonsense added to this page on multiple occasions over the period of several years and I had removed some of these a few times in recent years. At times I had looked for sources of material that might provide some independent coverage- but had only really seen the pages that AllyD highlights and a few other local stories, such as coverage of a competition for his students. He doesn't make notability when judged against WP:ACADEMICS either. Although the article was sarted back in 2007, this discussion seems worthy of a ping to @GMc: who is still active here. Drchriswilliams (talk) 14:16, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV. Two sources, one of which is questionable, does not make significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 16:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the arguments raised above and have been unable to find anything that would suggest the subject meets notability requirements. Dunarc (talk) 19:31, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:16, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Loraine Felix[edit]

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

Article at new page review. Previously deleted bio of a singer who does not seem notable to me at all. Sources 1 and 2 are not reliable, 3 is PR, 4 confirms she won a third prize, 5 is a programme announcement and 6 is YouTube. Mccapra (talk) 09:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 09:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 09:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass any of our notability criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I worked on the page and translated some of it (which seemed like it was written by someone who speaks French but not fluent in English), reorganized it a bit, read most of the citations. Though I cleaned up the page, I did not (not yet, anyway) go seeking more coverage because it would all be in French and my brain was fried at that point. I'm not sure how much coverage a person needs, but Loraine Felix does appear to have several awards, and maybe that's enough to satisfy WP:NMUSIC. (Sorry, Mccapra, my edits re-ordered all the citations you had numbered.) Normal Op (talk) 22:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you can find sources in French that support WP:MUSICBIO that will be great, because the existing sources don’t, whatever order they appear in. Mccapra (talk) 03:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kj cheetham (talk) 14:37, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per available coverage the subject does not reach our notability standards for musicians. --Lockley (talk) 22:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable --Devokewater @ 23:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:SINGER. // Timothy :: talk 05:29, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:16, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marcella Zoia[edit]

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

Fails WP:PERP as isolated incident. Also delete associated redirect Chair Girl. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 18:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 18:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 18:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well I created this article while also seeing a red link in Requested articles/Arts and entertainment/Internet and tech culture. I thought apart from the chair incident she would be notable as she appeared in a music video War by rapper Drake. Well in the case I would like to ask fellow editors and Wikimedia community to review whether the most wanted article red links are added in this list. Abishe (talk) 08:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That request should have been removed in 2019 when the IP who added the request, whose only edit was to the request page, provided no sources or how the article would meet notability guidelines. A self-proclaimed social media influencer with repeated media attention (not significant because her trial got pushed back frequently and for only one "minor" crime), does not meet the applicable WP:PERP guideline. Also, being an extra in a music video hardly classifies as being notable, either. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 13:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is the extreme epitome of one incident notability. There is no reason that we should have an article like this on Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:21, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL. She was a teenager who did something cruel and stupid. That could be a one of millions of people. Bearian (talk) 16:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#A11. Mz7 (talk) 18:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blomurd[edit]

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

Not notable; their Twitter account has 0 following and 0 followers, and I can find no other sources for this publisher.

Sounds like self-promotion: creator of this page is User:SarujanIsMine, founder of the studio (info taken from Twitter account) is Sarujan Ravikumar. sam1370 (talk · contribs) 18:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. sam1370 (talk · contribs) 18:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete COI, completely unsourced ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 18:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Non-notable game. One of millions on Itch.io with zero press coverage. ApLundell (talk) 18:15, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 18:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as an a11, made up by the creator and block. Praxidicae (talk) 18:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. David Eppstein, I will close it via AfD, but with a G4 note. I'm going to salt it as well, and block the creator, who is clearly NOTHERE for anything but to publish a resume. Drmies (talk) 23:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Zarova[edit]

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

Unsourced, pretty much is a CV. Not convinced would pass WP:NPROF. Has been up for AfD before, only last year, and was deleted then. Seems likely auto-biographical to me. WP:NOTRESUME Kj cheetham (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 18:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete WP:CSD#G4 and salt. Substantially similar to the deleted version. (At the time of its deletion, the article did not have the "significant publications" section it has now, but that's only because User:Drmies removed that section just before making the previous nomination. Otherwise it's pretty much the same. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, PR, reads like a CV --Devokewater @ 23:38, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Far Eastern University. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Far Eastern University High School[edit]

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL // Timothy :: talk 17:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 17:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 17:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree no notability for sources. Balle010 (talk) 18:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Far Eastern University. Universities that have their own SHS departments typically have the information on the article of the university itself. HiwilmsTalk 02:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Far Eastern University: Per WP:INHERIT. It's already discussed in the target page. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 07:12, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've been to the Philippines and this is not independently notable at all. Heck, it's not even an independent entity, but a normal school training program. No need for a redirect when it's not needed for a search term. Bearian (talk) 16:10, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Involuntary commitment. although all discussion referenced redirect, comments on the discussion suggested that some of Wrongful involuntary commitment should be merged over - it is therefore safer to close as merge for now, and allow the important parts to be merged over as per discussion (non-admin closure)   Kadzi   (talk) 21:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wrongful involuntary commitment[edit]

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

This article appears to be at best a WP:POVFORK of involuntary commitment and at worst a massive WP:SYN violation. The author was looking to get a scientology source whitelisted for use here, and I think that might explain its strident tone. It starts right from the top: "Wrongful involuntary commitment or wrongful commitment refers to the unethical practice where mental health professionals wrongfully deem an individual to have symptoms of a mental disorder, and thereby commit the individual for treatment in a psychiatric hospital. In other words, it is involuntary commitment that is immoral, unjustified, or illegal." Or, you know, it could be a medical or jurisprudential error, but we don't know because there is no offence of "wrongful involuntary commitment" in any country and Google's 66 hits for the term start with this article and then run long on ambulance chasers and short on RS. It is claimed, but the judge is skeptical. Guy (help!) 17:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand your argument. If it's medical or jurisprudential error, then it's wrongful commitment, as this article presents. If you read the entirety of the article, it raises several high-profile incidents of wrongful commitment, including the well-known Rosenhan experiment and the Duplessis orphans, where the subjects in both instances were wrongfully committed. The tone isn't meant to be strident, just informative. It's something that happens in the mental health field that is not talked about very often so I thought it would be correct to create this article. I was looking to get the one scientology source whitelisted, not the entire website itself. I fact-checked the article to verify that all of it was true, which it was. It was written nearly two decades ago around the time when the orphans were filing a lawsuit for being wrongfully committed. I thought the source was accessible and concise so that's why I wanted to use that, that's really it. I don't understand how you can jump from me trying to get one fact-checked and factually accurate article whitelisted from an otherwise controversial website, to me then jumping to the inclusion that this Wikipedia article should be deleted. I'd definitely be fine with merging this article into involuntary commitment, but this is a topic that does need to be spoken about. Factfanatic1 (talk) 17:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 17:09, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioral science-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:15, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:15, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to involuntary commitment, If it is decided that we need a WP:ATD-M merge what is needed at the target article. Lightburst (talk) 17:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to involuntary commitment. The content of the article can be condensed, properly sourced with removal of POV, and discussed in a balanced way at involuntary commitment and/or medical malpractice. Sundayclose (talk) 17:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to involuntary commitment, with the content in this article bridged over to that article. Balle010 (talk) 18:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to involuntary commitment. Nika2020 (talk) 05:56, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Per above. The content itself essentially needs to be blown up and started over. --Jack Frost (talk) 08:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it needs to be blown up. After the POV, poorly sourced, and irrelevant edits are removed there won't be much left. Sundayclose (talk) 17:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:SNOW, or a highly selective merge of some of the sources. Bearian (talk) 16:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 18:06, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

F.C. Deccan[edit]

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

Fails WP:FOOTYN and WP:GNG. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 16:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 16:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:NFOOTBALL doesn't apply to teams. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:18, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 14:22, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 18:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ashwini Puneeth Rajkumar[edit]

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

Almost all the sources are passing mentions and the subject has only co-produced a few films for their home production. No significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE and there is no evidence of independent notability. GSS ^💬 16:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 16:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 16:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 16:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are independent, reliable sources on the subject from The Times of India.— Note to closing admin: TamilMirchi (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

^[1]^[2]^[3]

References

^ https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/kannada/movies/news/with-law-we-highlight-an-issue-of-great-importance-ashwini-puneeth/articleshow/76896688.cms
^ https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/kannada/movies/did-you-know/Puneeths-wife-is-a-costume-designer/articleshow/32195501.cms
^ https://vijaykarnataka.com/entertainment/news/priya-sudeep-ashwini-puneeth-rajkumar-geetha-shivarajkumar-ragini-chandran-hobby/articleshow/76970901.cms

Delete - No in-depth coverage, only passing mentions in the sources provided. The subject in question is not notable enough to warrant a standalone article on Wikipedia. - FitIndia ^{Talk Admin on Commons} 17:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 02:58, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly move this article to a draft.TamilMirchi (talk) 15:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rejected per two delete !votes above. GSS ^💬 17:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly delete this article.TamilMirchi (talk) 19:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - zero notability and page creator has consented to deletion Spiderone 12:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ágoston Gellért[edit]

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

This article was brought to my attention on Hungarian Wikipedia. Possible hoax. Couldn't find any info on this person; the only source listed (a book called Nyelvészkutatók élete) doesn't seem to exist according to the database of the National Library; all Google mentions are from Wikipedia mirrors or other persons (both Ágoston and Gellért are moderately common given names in Hungarian). The image used in the article looks suspiciously modern. I'm not 100% sure that this person didn't exist, but his existence is not sufficiently proven in the article and I couldn't find anything that could be used as a source. – Alensha ^talk 16:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 16:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 16:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 16:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have not investigated the article's sources, but I have to say, the purported image of the subject sure looks like someone just ran a selfie through a bunch of Photoshop filters. Spicy (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The image description claims it is an 1836 photograph of a self-portrait. It may be a much later photograph of an 1836 self-portrait, but there weren’t a lot of photographs in 1836. Looks pretty dubious. Mccapra (talk) 03:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neither verifiability, nor notability is met. None of the Hungarian biographical encyclopaedias knows of that person, starting with the 19th-century Szinnyei till the recent Új magyar életrajzi lexikon, lingusitic handbooks summarizing the history of Finno-Ugrism do not mention the name, Hungarian National Library does not have a single record with this name. Pasztilla (talk) 07:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I checked this person did not exist. I also checked several Hungarian databases, this is a hoax. Palotabarát (talk) 08:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing in JSTOR, T&F, or Project Muse // Timothy :: talk 13:18, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How this hoax managed to stay on Wikipedia for five years (!) is beyond me. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:35, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and WP:RS. Bearian (talk) 16:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cannot find anything to satisfy WP:V. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 16:52, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zego (insurance)[edit]

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

This was speedily deleted per criterion G11, but that was overturned here, with a "no consensus" result. At DRV, speedy deletions are typically undone on no consensus, but under the circumstances, it seemed prudent to list the restored article for discussion. As the closing admin at DRV, I will remain neutral on what should be done. Wily D 15:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable, PR, however potentially it could become notable one day, until then though delete --Devokewater @ 15:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:03, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:03, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:34, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's a bunch of sources, but most of them don't meet WP:NCORP. For example, the fist two, https://www.insurancetimes.co.uk and https://www.insurancebusinessmag.com/, published one day apart, are clearly warmed over press releases, which even have the same quotes from the CEO. Most of the other sources are routine announcements of closing funding rounds and the like. Obvious WP:UPE. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Admittedly, the company is relatively well known in its space. But it doesn't meet WP:NCORP. The best sources we have we TechCrunch, Business Insider and a passing mention in the Financial Times (quite literally one sentence in an article about something else). TechCrunch isn't usually accepted for notability, per discussions on RSN. I'd say Business Insider is kinda meh for notability too, although at a glance I can only find discussions on reliability. But either way, WP:NCORP isn't met. Article reads like promo and ~~appears to be~~ is the product of UPE. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:01, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It has received some coverage: its coverage from FinTech, its expansion of partnership with RSA, its collaboration with discover, being the first tech company to have its own insurance license and its funding. With these reliable sources, the article is good enough to pass WP:NCORP. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Superastig, I took a look at those. They are all in niche industry publications (failing WP:AUD) and every one looks like a slightly warmed-over press release (not WP:INDEPENDENT) -- RoySmith (talk) 16:10, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. typical of these non-notable tech startups to use wiki as their promotional ground just because they have some coverage in media. just a promotions and nothing else. wiki is not a press release blog. too early to be wiki-notable Light2021 (talk) 01:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NCORP, WP:MILL, and WP:SIGCOV. If this is paid spam, they were robbed. Bearian (talk) 16:31, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:09, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Balacheruvu Road[edit]

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:GEOROAD // Timothy :: talk 15:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 15:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 15:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant coverage in sources. Danski454 (talk) 15:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 15:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all of the above Spiderone 07:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not every road needs wiki article. This one does not appear to be notable. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 02:46, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of encyclopedic notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL. It's a road. It connects things. There's a certain business on that road that wants to advertise itself. Bearian (talk) 16:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Jiaqing Emperor. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:27, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concubine En[edit]

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

Merge and Redirect to Jiaqing Emperor. Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. My WP:BEFORE turned up nothing, but I will happily change my vote to keep if anyone can find WP:RS to establish WP:N. // Timothy :: talk 15:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 15:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 15:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge info per above. // Timothy :: talk 15:09, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This vote is come from nominator TimothyBlue, he voted for two times! Cape Diamond MM (talk) 07:11, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No I !voted once. The original nomination will show up as a delete !vote in scripts or stat tools such as afdstats. I overroad that by placing redirect in the !voting section. No one would think its two !votes. // Timothy :: talk 07:22, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Royalty are always notable. But this AfD needs help from Chinese speaking-editor, Dear Cunard Can you finds source for this royal concubine? I think she was played a important role in royal affairs. Thanks Cape Diamond MM (talk) 14:03, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide a source for "Royalty are always notable" and for the assertion that a concubine is considered royalty in this particular harem system? Thanks. // Timothy :: talk 17:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please kindly read Bearian's User:Bearian/Standards#Notability of Consorts of nobility Cape Diamond MM (talk) 18:20, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I noted three things. 1) It is referring to Consorts, not Concubines and these are different positions (see sources in Imperial Chinese harem system), 2) This is an essay which can be helpful, but its an opinion not a guideline or policy, 3) It says "almost always notable" not "always notable". // Timothy :: talk 18:39, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only people who are always notable are actual heads of state. Everyone else is somewhere under being "always" notable, and considering the number of concubines some emperors had, claims that concubines are default notable are just plain absurd.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:30, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Johnpacklambert, lack of WP:RS, and WP:MILL. Emperors of China had dozens, sometimes hundreds, of concubines. There's nothing in the article to indicate anything special about her. The only two sources are in print, and can't be evaluated as to their reliability. Bearian (talk) 15:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We should wait comments from Chinese editor. Because her biography available on Baidu. Cape Diamond MM (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a repository of all the people appearing in noble genealogy books. JoelleJay (talk) 21:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:11, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Summit Partners[edit]

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

This is a well disguised advert. Many of the references are regurgitated press releases and PR material. This is WP:BOMBARD. Fails WP:CORP and/or needs a massive cleanup of referencing and wording. Fiddle Faddle 14:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 14:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the PR needs to be deleted. --Devokewater @ 15:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep $20b under management is quite significant --Devokewater @ 16:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Might I ask what notability criterion is met by that dollar amount under management? Is it significant? Arguably. Does it support the notability of the subject? No. Ravenswing 19:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 17:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Quite a few of those references are from the company's own website, the rest are press releases, and I can't find any reliable, third-party coverage to demonstrate notability. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nor could I. Beyond that, there are all manner of COI/WP:PAID concerns at hand. Take a good look at the article's history; I count the staggering total of seven SPAs whose sole Wikipedia activity was working on this article, not counting anon IPs. This is NOT good. Ravenswing 19:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 16:22, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SeeD (band)[edit]

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

Great group, nice sound but article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBAND. My WP:BEFORE turned up nothing, but I will happily change my vote to keep if anyone can find WP:RS to establish WP:N. // Timothy :: talk 14:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 14:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 14:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. No evidence that they pass WP:BAND. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:21, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searching for this band can be tough due to their bland name (wow, they like totally made themselves unique by capitalizing the last letter) and the existence of many other bands called Seed (including one that I used to know in person). For this one, a search in conjunction with "pagan folk" and the like reveals a few sources about the history of the genre in which this band is listed briefly as an example. But I was unable to find anything that is specifically about them, and on their own terms, they are only present in the usual streaming and social media sites. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 00:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - SeeD have performed in music festivals small and major across Europe, and headlined the major folk festivals of Castlefest in 2017 and 2018, and Elftopia in Belgium in 2019 (each having tens of thousands of attendees). They are in rotation on CeltCast Radio, a leading folk music radio network. Sara Weeda is a member of Anúna. SeeD have had news coverage in English, Dutch, French and German (see the new sources on the page - and also, for example, https://valkyrieswebzine.com/seed-portal-to-elfland/), and had news coverage in a major English newspaper in 2019 following their lead performance at the Pre-Raphaelite Ball. (https://www.facebook.com/seedmusick/photos/a.155781987890795/1530821210386859/) I have added some further sources for their performances on the article. Pagan folk in general has become one of the fastest growing genres of the past decade, with a vibrant scene in virtually every country in Europe but especially in central and northern Europe - I don't believe it would benefit anyone on Wikipedia to bar content of an established and iconic pagan folk band. They are equal to Trobar de Morte (Spanish wikipedia page at https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trobar_de_Morte), whom they performed with at Castlefest 2015, and having risen from a guest group to headliners, are perhaps only one notch of notability below the likes of Faun (band) and Omnia (band), who have also headlined Castlefest. I believe it would not be consistent if they were not permitted an article of their own. Vaurnheart (talk) 17:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have already voted above and everyone can speak their minds, but I will advise the last voter to see the other stuff exists fallacy. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found some passing mentions but not sufficient coverage for the WP:GNG. The vocalist, Sara Weeda, passes the lower bar of the WP:GNG. If someone creates an article on her one day then SeeD would receive a couple of lines in her biography. That is at present the maximum extent of coverage we should give this band. Faun (band) and Omnia (band) are 13 and 15 years older bands with considerably more recordings and coverage. In both cases, the much higher WP:NBAND standard is probably reached. Kudos to nominator User:TimothyBlue for a thorough before, nomination, and laissez fair approach to the discussion. Like him, I also enjoyed the sound of SeeD. gidonb (talk) 10:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Richard D. King (psychiatrist)[edit]

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

Appears to fail GNG. Unless I'm missing something (I may be) it appears he simply wrote a few pseudo-scientific books which do not have any real significance. There is a citation to a journal article which discusses the pseudo-scientific theory of melanin theory, which King is apparently mentioned in. There is then a link to an article about the oldest black owned bookstore which does not discuss King - I'm not sure why it's there. The last link is to a deleted scribd URL which apparently had a copy of his book about Melanin theory. All personal details are unsourced - which explains why it was tagged as COI (not to mention it was created by a single purpose account with 'King' in its username). There is a military man named Richard D King which confuses search results but with keywords like 'melanin' I'm not getting anything establishing notability. Ultimately, I don't see any evidence that he is a significant academic or otherwise. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 14:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 14:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 14:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 14:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or possibly redirect to melanin theory, although the article's current title would make that rather awkward). He existed, and he was a pseudoscientist, but he wasn't notable. I found one source describing his African Origins of Biological Psychiatry as an "important work[] from the so-called melanin scholars"—but it's a passing mention in a footnote. Melanin theory is clearly notable; King was not. Thanks to @El cid, el campeador for a thoughtful nom in which they clearly did their research. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:15, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would second this was a thoughtful nom. Unfortunately the subject is not notable. Passing mentions do not notability make. --Kbabej (talk) 15:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt with extreme prejudice per WP:PROF, WP:SOAP, WP:FRINGE, WP:SPAM, and WP:RS. If this were 2008, we could excuse and laugh off an academic of no repute posting their own page on Wikipedia to push their pet theories, but it's 2020, and everybody knows that's not the purpose of Wikipedia, a charity. There are two sources, neither of which is reliable. Bearian (talk) 16:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per A9. Hut 8.5 18:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Timbetova Zemlja[edit]

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

Delete - Album of the artist Timbe, which got deleted off from wikipedia for not being notable. The album isn't notable either, googling Timbetova Zemlja has absolute 0 references, since the main page got taken down, pretty sure this is going with it. PolePoz (talk) 3:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Speedy Delete WP:A9 Criteria. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:18, 23 July 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 July 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 15:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Kbabej (talk) 15:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 17:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Speedy Delete per WP:A9. The musician has already been deemed non-notable for Wikipedia, so the same is true for the album. It received no reliable media coverage anyway, and the Internet seems confused on whether the musician used the name Timbe or Timjah for the release. Both of those are in this article too. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:16, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Artist ain't notable, and I see no indication of anything special about this album. Hog Farm _Bacon 01:06, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jane from Occupied Europe (band)[edit]

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

Ephemeral NN local garage band, fails the GNG and WP:BAND. No substantive coverage in reliable sources found. Notability tagged for over a decade. Created by a SPA for whom this was the sole Wikipedia activity ... and major COI issues, given that said SPA was User:Jane From Occupied Europe - Band. Ravenswing 14:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 14:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 14:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, only returning Swell Maps hits, but could be missing something. Caro7200 (talk) 15:04, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 15:46, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another non-notable band. The only sites I found in connection with this band are the standard unreliable sources. The rest of the results are about an album by another band called "Swell Maps" which I have never heard of (or this band either for this point). And yes, this article was created by a SPA - I am not surprised about that either. How this article managed to stay here since 2009 is beyond me. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 16:56, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn as Speedy Keep per discussion (non-admin closure) // Timothy :: talk 17:40, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MOS hex format[edit]

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG // Timothy :: talk 14:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 14:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 14:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment This appears to be misnamed, as I got ten times as many hits using "MOS Technology format". 392 GHits still isn't a lot, but there are plenty of places explaining it; I'm not sure what that says about its its importance. Mangoe (talk) 19:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment This article was written as it was a red link on several of the See Also pages Krallja (talk) 00:56, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment Per Krallja and Mangoe this might be a better Rename leaving a redirect. // Timothy :: talk 00:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep & rename: To MOS Technology file format per [6]. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:13, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per above info. Nomination withdrawn. // Timothy :: talk 17:39, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per WP:A9. (non-admin closure) Vulcan's Forge (talk) 03:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Praznik za uši[edit]

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

Delete - Album of the artist Timbe, which got deleted off from wikipedia for not being notable. The album isn't notable either, googling Praznik za uši has absolute 0 references, since the main page got taken down, pretty sure this is going with it. PolePoz (talk) 3:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 July 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete WP:A9 Criteria. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 15:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 17:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. References added (non-admin closure) // Timothy :: talk 15:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Budhiganga Hydropower Project[edit]

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG // Timothy :: talk 13:49, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 13:49, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : It would be of much help if Afd is tagged with proper subtags, i.e. which part of WP:GNG or WP:ORG are you referring to, else it becomes guesswork to understand.nirmal (talk) 02:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am the one who created this article. The project is a government owned and constructed project, so most of the information is directly from WP:PRIMARY. I have added some WP:SECONDARY now.nirmal (talk) 02:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Apologizes for not being more specific.

Per WP:GNG

Independent of the subject - only The Himalayan Times is independent of the subject

Reliable Sources should be secondary sources and "multiple sources are generally expected". only one ref The Himalayan Times meets the RS secondary source criteria.

Significant coverage - "addresses the topic directly and in detail" - The Himalayan Times only has a passing mention, no significant coverage.

None of the sources supports notability.

Per WP:ORGCRITE within WP:ORG - "is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."

None of the sources meet these criteria.

Basically the article needs two or more reliable sources that are independent from people/orgs associated with the project that provides significant coverage addressing the topic directly and in detail to establish notability. I'm happy to change my vote to keep if there are sources that meet the notability criteria. Perhaps this is a situation where WP:TOOSOON applies. // Timothy :: talk 03:35, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

added. nirmal (talk) 06:52, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Nomination withdrawn. References added. Thanks // Timothy :: talk 15:54, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:21, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I.M. Heart[edit]

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

NN self-help book, fails the GNG by leaps and bounds. Fulfills none of the criteria of WP:NBOOK. Amazon rank just short of 8 millionth (this is not a misprint). Zero substantive coverage in reliable sources found. Notability tagged for over a decade. Created by a SPA for whom this was the sole Wikipedia activity. Prior prod removed with the rationale "I've found at least two sources that could establish notability of this book," but the deprodder -- this was eleven years ago, mind -- never bothered to reveal what those sources were, never mind put them into the article. Ravenswing 13:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no real RS to be found. Caro7200 (talk) 15:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 17:04, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything either - it's possible that sourcing may have existed but could have been sourcing that would no longer be considered notability granting by today's guidelines. Without seeing them I have to go by what I can find, which is not anything that would be considered notability giving. It's mostly sale listings and SPS type of posts. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, warning bells sound when a WorldCat search brings up one library (see here), gsearch reveals zero reviews so WP:NBOOK not met. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:14, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've found nothing that even hints at notability; I can't even tell if this is self-published or not. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)   Kadzi   (talk) 21:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Omaswati[edit]

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. // Timothy :: talk 13:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 13:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 13:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep i don't speak any language prominent in Indonesia, but it's leading English newspaper The Jakarta Post gave her a obit, [7]. Considering all these Indonesian language sources that come up in a google news search [8] and the fact that sources don't have to be in english, i think deleting this would be a example of cultural bias and thus negatively impact our coverage of non euro/american entertainment. i hope someone who understands these sources can add them to the article. GuzzyG (talk) 16:04, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was conflicted about this nom because of the obits. I thought there must be some sources, but all I was able to find were credits and nothing about the person. If someone finds sources, I'll happily withdraw the nomination. // Timothy :: talk 16:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Credits count towards notability, however slight. The lack of biographical detail is a minus point, but is something which would be worked on as the article stub progressed, just like thousands of others with baseline notability, which I suspect this person has/had. (The nomination should probably stay though. If only to confirm non-notable status through deletion, or to show its survival of one deletion request, if kept.) Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 12:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- I believe this article meets WP:GNG due to to the numerous Indonesian-language articles that come up on a quick google search. The results of a YouTube search show many clips of this comedian on talk shows and other types of comedy videos.[1] The list of sinetrons and TV programs meet WP:NACTOR, although perhaps barely so, and the list is unsourced. It is concerning that all of the references on the page obits and I think this page will need some work with both the biographical information and the citations. I think we could put some tags on this page such asking for more citations and the likes, but in my view this is an article can be improved rather than deleted. Terasaface (talk) 03:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 for Keep, after the discovery of SIGCOV (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

831 (Taiwanese band)[edit]

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Appears promotional. // Timothy :: talk 13:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 13:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 13:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 13:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article appears to meet the A7 speedy deletion criterion. No claim of notability, no references. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is in horrible shape. I know that in itself is not a reason to delete an article. But I did not find any reliable sources. The only one that came close is a blurb about them releasing a new album. Actually I don't think we consider that too reliable either since it's basically an ad. The rest of the results were the typical unreliable sites, like blogs, social media, retail sites, streaming sites etc. Many of them also seem to repeat the band's common biography. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - Note that this band's name has been corrupted in various translations, if I am assessing things correctly via my beginner's knowledge of Taiwanese and Chinese. In Taiwan their self-given name is translated into English as Last Day of Summer 831. But in the west they are simply called 831 and they have an album called Last Day of Summer. Under either of those English names I could find nothing beyond the typical streaming and social media sites in which the band promotes itself. They also have two native-language names that I found: 八三夭 and 八三夭831. A search for those reveals more of the same but with Taiwanese or Chinese text, plus additional social media sites like Weibo. Despite a long history, they seem to have received very little reliable coverage. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 00:32, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retraction - In my original "delete" vote above, I speculated that messy translations of the band's name across multiple languages makes searching for sources difficult. It appears that my own search suffered from that same issue. Given the sources found by the voter below, I am retracting my "delete" vote. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:56, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Chen, Michelle (2017-02-09). "Taiwanese rock band 831 release their new album". Special Broadcasting Service. Archived from the original on 2020-07-27. Retrieved 2020-07-27.
蘇士亨 (2020-03-18). "娛樂8點半》從解散走到寫出千萬點擊神曲見證八三夭「一事無成的偉大」" ["Entertainment 8:30" Went from disbanding to writing a Ten Thousand Clicks Divine Comedy to witness 831's "Nothing Greatness"]. China Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2020-07-27. Retrieved 2020-07-27.
關韶文 (2018-01-23). "側寫／記者眼裡最沒梗的樂團！" [Profile/The most boring]. zh:ETtoday新聞雲 (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2020-07-27. Retrieved 2020-07-27.
林玠旻; 劉家娟 (2020-06-24). "八三夭因疫損失「一條大安路」阿璞撇戀情喊多元成家" [831 loses "a Da'an road" due to the epidemic] (in Chinese). Chinese Television System. Archived from the original on 2020-07-27. Retrieved 2020-07-27 – via Yahoo! News.
鄺鈺瑩 (2017-08-31). "【專訪】台灣樂隊八三夭有苦一齊捱　成員阿電：現在還在撐" [【Interview】Taiwanese band Bayi Sanyao suffers together. Member Eden: I'm still keeping up] (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2020-07-27. Retrieved 2020-07-27.
"台歌手割肝救父引两岸关注" [Taiwan singer cuts liver and saves father draws attention from both shores] (in Chinese). Xinhua News Agency. 2016-04-16. Archived from the original on 2020-07-27. Retrieved 2020-07-27.
羅湘; 盧宏昌 (2019-10-27). "八三夭新歌找A-Lin合作　取名「霸凌樂團」" [831's new song in collaboration with A-Lin is named "Bullying Band"] (in Chinese). TVBS. Archived from the original on 2020-07-27. Retrieved 2020-07-27.
王繼緯 (2012-04-27). "八三夭沾831軍妓竟不知" [Ba Sanyao, Zhan 831 military prostitutes didn't know]. China Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2020-07-27. Retrieved 2020-07-27 – via Yahoo! News.
安東尼 (2013-01-05). "台灣樂隊八三夭專訪" [Interview with Taiwanese band Ba Sanyao] (in Chinese). Radio France Internationale. Archived from the original on 2020-07-27. Retrieved 2020-07-27.
戴瑞瑤 (2017-02-28). "滿滿洋蔥！八三夭阿璞捐肝救父併發症團員一路陪護" [Full of onions! Ba Sanyao Apu donated liver to save his father’s complications] (in Chinese). TVBS. Archived from the original on 2020-07-27. Retrieved 2020-07-27.
"Taiwanese bands impress fans at event in New York". Taipei Times. Central News Agency. 2012-10-20. Archived from the original on 2020-07-27. Retrieved 2020-07-27.
張聖恩 (2020-07-03). "831, Justin Bieber top KKBOX charts 八三么、小賈金曲稱霸KKBOX年中榜". Taipei Times. Archived from the original on 2020-07-27. Retrieved 2020-07-27.
华政, ed. (2015-05-13). "八三夭有人说我们在做五月天做过的事" [831: Someone said we were doing what Mayday did] (in Chinese). Xinhua News Agency. Archived from the original on 2020-07-27. Retrieved 2020-07-27.

Sources with quotes

Chen, Michelle (2017-02-09). "Taiwanese rock band 831 release their new album". Special Broadcasting Service. Archived from the original on 2020-07-27. Retrieved 2020-07-27.
The article notes:
831 was formed by five high school classmates in the summer of 2003. They're referred to as the "Asian Simple Plan” due to their versatile music styles ranging from punk rock to pop rock, electronic, metal and hip-hop.
The band released their first album “Save the World” in 2008 with Universal Music Taiwan. After two-and-half years, their second album “The Great Escape” grabbed more attention from Asian pop fans. 831 generated a lot of local buzz after producing the opening theme song for popular Channel V program Circus Action's third season.
In December last year they released their latest album “Survival Guide.” 831 invited two Taiwanese iconic singers; Ashin of Mayday and Richie Ren to help them with one of the album's song's, “Cheers”. The band are very close to Mayday and there has been many collaborations between the two bands in the past.
蘇士亨 (2020-03-18). "娛樂8點半》從解散走到寫出千萬點擊神曲見證八三夭「一事無成的偉大」" ["Entertainment 8:30" Went from disbanding to writing a Ten Thousand Clicks Divine Comedy to witness 831's "Nothing Greatness"]. China Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2020-07-27. Retrieved 2020-07-27.
The article notes:
台灣搖滾樂團八三夭，以《東區東區》走紅歌壇，成軍15周年時在小巨蛋首度開唱票房秒殺，為偶像劇《想見你》打造片尾曲，更被評為最療癒洗腦神曲，再創歌唱事業巔峰。
...
八三夭於2003年成軍出道，音樂路走來相當艱辛，五人第一次參加春吶時，觀眾不到十個人，其中有八個人還是團員親戚，不過堅持音樂夢想的他們，並未就此被打敗，4年後在海洋音樂祭海洋大賞衝進總決賽，獲得五月天阿信賞識，多次邀約當演唱會嘉賓，拉拔他們在華語樂壇嶄露頭角。
...
到了2012年他們遇到了更大瓶頸，耗時3、4年製作《最後的8/31》專輯，不僅得不到想要成果，連找唱片公司發行都不被看好，始終闖不出成績的五人，開始對未來感到徬徨，興起了不如先行當兵面對現實世界的殘酷，也做出恐將｢分道揚鑣」的最壞打算，這也是成軍來首度面臨解散危機。
From Google Translate:
The Taiwan rock band Bayanyao became popular with "Eastern District". At the 15th anniversary of its formation, it opened the box office for the first time at the Little Arena. It created the ending song for the idol drama "Want to See You" and was rated as the most healing Brainwashing the Divine Comedy, create another peak of singing career. It is hard to imagine that these five big boys who insisted on their musical dreams faced a crisis of dissolution.
...
Bayanyao made his debut in 2003. The musical journey was quite difficult. When the five people participated in the Spring Festival for the first time, there were less than ten audience members, eight of whom were relatives of the group members. However, they insisted on their music dreams. After being defeated, they entered the finals at the Ocean Music Festival Ocean Awards four years later and won the appreciation of Mayday Ashin. They have been invited to be concert guests many times to draw them to the Chinese music scene.
...
By 2012, they encountered a bigger bottleneck. It took 3 or 4 years to produce the "Last 8/31" album. Not only did they fail to get the desired results, they were not even optimistic about finding a record company to release them, and they were unable to achieve results. The five people began to feel hesitated about the future. They became better off as soldiers to face the cruelty of the real world, and they also made the worst plan to "divide". This is also the first time that Chengjun is facing a crisis of dissolution.
關韶文 (2018-01-23). "側寫／記者眼裡最沒梗的樂團！" [Profile/The most boring]. zh:ETtoday新聞雲 (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2020-07-27. Retrieved 2020-07-27.
The article notes:
其實八三夭成軍多年，每年的8月31日總會舉辦生日趴和歌迷慶生，這些年來他們走過大大小小場地，最小幾百人的、中型幾千人的、最大則是台大體育館，而2018年終於申請到了台北小巨蛋，也終於給了歌迷們一個交代。原文網址: 側寫／記者眼裡最沒梗的樂團！
每個人認識八三夭可能來自不同地方，一開始和Circus合作的《來去夏威夷》、紅透半邊天的《東區東區》、失戀必聽的《我怎麼哭了》、和阿信、任賢齊一同合唱的《乾啦乾啦》、翻新舊作品的《眉飛色舞》，每一首歌背後都有八三夭歌迷的故事原文網址: 側寫／記者眼裡最沒梗的樂團！
...
當了記者後，開始認識八三夭，說老實話，在整個娛樂圈裡面，他們真的很不有趣，每次鏡頭過去，久久他們才能擠出一兩個好笑的話；打開信箱裡的新聞稿，重複看了又看，有時候真的找不到什麼新聞點。原文網址: 側寫／記者眼裡最沒梗的樂團！
From Google Translate:
In fact, the 831 army has been in the army for many years. Every year on August 31st, birthday parties and fan celebrations are always held. Over the years, they have walked through large and small venues. The smallest is a few hundred people, the medium-sized thousands of people, and the largest is the National Taiwan University Stadium. In 2018, I finally applied for the Taipei Arena, and finally gave the fans an explanation.
Everyone knows Bayanyao may come from different places. At the beginning, I collaborated with Circus in "Come and Go to Hawaii", "Eastern District" which is so popular that it is half the sky, "Why I Cry" which must be heard for broken love, and sang with Ashin and Ren Xianqi. "Fuck Up, Go Up," and "Fresh and Dancing", which refurbished old works, have a story about Bayanyao fans behind each song.
...
After becoming a reporter, I began to know Bayanyao. To be honest, in the entire entertainment industry, they are really not funny. Every time the scene passes, it takes a long time for them to squeeze out one or two funny words; open the press release in the mailbox , I watched and watched repeatedly, sometimes I really couldn't find any news points. Although due to work, I occasionally find this group of people really boring and uninteresting. They occasionally laugh at themselves as the "most lackluster rock band", but it doesn't matter, because they put all their energy into it.
林玠旻; 劉家娟 (2020-06-24). "八三夭因疫損失「一條大安路」阿璞撇戀情喊多元成家" [831 loses "a Da'an road" due to the epidemic] (in Chinese). Chinese Television System. Archived from the original on 2020-07-27. Retrieved 2020-07-27 – via Yahoo! News.
The article notes:
搖滾天團八三夭接下第16屆捷運街舞大賽的代言人，8月15日初賽也將在台北東區封街舉辦「東區東區動次嘉年華」，由於新冠肺炎（COVID-19)疫情影響，商演接連取消，僅剩代言出席活動，面對損失，團員開玩笑說「大概掉一條大安路」，成了疫情受災戶。
From Google Translate:
The rock group Ba Sanyao took over as the spokesperson for the 16th MRT Street Dance Competition. The preliminary contest will also hold the "Eastern District East Carnival" on August 15 in Fengjie, East District, Taipei. Due to the impact of the COVID-19 epidemic, The business performances were cancelled one after another, and only endorsements were left to attend the event. Faced with the loss, members of the group joked that "probably off a Daan road" and became victims of the epidemic.
鄺鈺瑩 (2017-08-31). "【專訪】台灣樂隊八三夭有苦一齊捱　成員阿電：現在還在撐" [【Interview】Taiwanese band Bayi Sanyao suffers together. Member Eden: I'm still keeping up] (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2020-07-27. Retrieved 2020-07-27.
The article's summary notes:
八三夭成軍14年，由地下樂團轉變為主流樂團，8月在台北舉行的兩場演唱會門票120秒被掃空，人氣滿滿且多次獲五月天提攜，但他們來港開唱前夕，接受訪問時坦言一路走來不容易，甚至現在仍處於「熬」的狀態，但慶幸是熬的路上不曾感到孤獨，呢啲咪就係愛囉。
From Google Translate:
In the 14th year of the band's 14th anniversary, 831 was transformed from an underground orchestra to a mainstream orchestra. Tickets for two concerts held in Taipei in August were swept away in 120 seconds. They were full of popularity and were supported by Mayday many times, but they came to Hong Kong to sing on the eve During the interview, I frankly said that it was not easy to go all the way, and I am still in a state of "simmering", but fortunately I never felt lonely on the way.
"台歌手割肝救父引两岸关注" [Taiwan singer cuts liver and saves father draws attention from both shores] (in Chinese). Xinhua News Agency. 2016-04-16. Archived from the original on 2020-07-27. Retrieved 2020-07-27.
The article provides information about a band member's donation of his liver to his father. The article discusses the impact of the surgery on the band's work.
羅湘; 盧宏昌 (2019-10-27). "八三夭新歌找A-Lin合作　取名「霸凌樂團」" [831's new song in collaboration with A-Lin is named "Bullying Band"] (in Chinese). TVBS. Archived from the original on 2020-07-27. Retrieved 2020-07-27.
The article notes:
搖滾樂團八三夭，最近推出新歌《來互相傷害》，特別找來A-Lin合作，跨音域飆唱，展現鐵肺功力，雙方首度合作還開玩笑取團名，八三夭加上A-Lin，變成霸凌樂團。
...
《來互相傷害》：「含淚不捨也不委婉，狠心無視你的哭喊，愛過怎麼好聚好散，來互相傷害。」《來互相傷害》這首歌不僅音域跨很大，主唱阿璞和A-Lin充滿情緒的飆唱，也展現A-Lin的鐵肺唱功，這回合作雙方還取了很特別的團名。
...
《迷路在雲端》：「迷路在雲端，才懂所謂的作伴，不是用我的痛苦，綁架你的罪惡感。」 A-Lin和蕭煌奇的合音讓人癡迷，《迷路在雲端》將男女在愛情裡的椎心痛楚，詮釋得淋漓盡致。
From Google Translate:
The rock band Bayanyao recently released a new song "Come to Hurt Each Other". In particular, it invited A-Lin to collaborate, sing across the gamut, and show iron lung skills. The two sides also joked and named the group for the first time. Bayanyao added A- Lin, became a bullying band.
...
" The song "Come to Hurt Each Other" not only has a wide range of vocals, but also the lead singer. Pu and A-Lin sang emotionally, and also showed A-Lin's iron lung singing skills. This time, the two sides of the cooperation also took a very special group name.
...
A-Lin and Xiao Huangqi sang the entanglement they wanted to express. "Lost in the Clouds" is a difficult song , Let the two people say funny that they have the opportunity to sing live together, they may sing well only when they talk to each other.
王繼緯 (2012-04-27). "八三夭沾831軍妓竟不知" [Ba Sanyao, Zhan 831 military prostitutes didn't know]. China Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2020-07-27. Retrieved 2020-07-27 – via Yahoo! News.
The article notes:
五月天的師妹丁噹新歌〈不是你的錯〉成為排行榜冠軍，他們又開黃腔：「很喜歡丁噹在我們上面。」更火辣的是，他們的師弟團名八三夭也是過去軍妓的代號「831」，又與色情有關。
...
聽說團名的另一歷史典故，八三夭團長小橘趕緊說：「我們取名八三夭，是因為８月31日是暑假的最後一天，學生通常對這一天又愛又恨。」唱片公司則不對此發言。
From Google Translate:
Mayday’s junior sister Ding Dang’s new song "It’s Not Your Fault" became the champion of the rankings, and they opened up a yellow accent: "I really like Ding Dang above us." What’s even hotter is that their junior cadet, Ba Sanyao, was also a former military prostitute. The code name "831" is also related to pornography. The regiment member, who has an average age of 27 and has never been a soldier, said yesterday that he had no idea about the "831 military prostitute".
...
Hearing about another historical allusion to the group's name, the leader of Bayanyao, Xiaoju hurriedly said: "We named Bayanyao because August 31 is the last day of summer vacation. Students usually love and hate this day. The record company did not speak on this. Mayday is preparing for a concert in Beijing Bird's Nest. Yesterday, the sexy goddess Lai Linen helped on the Ba Sanyao platform. The members immediately changed from trendy men to shy men, not daring to look directly at the beautiful women.
安東尼 (2013-01-05). "台灣樂隊八三夭專訪" [Interview with Taiwanese band Ba Sanyao] (in Chinese). Radio France Internationale. Archived from the original on 2020-07-27. Retrieved 2020-07-27.
The article notes:
八三夭樂隊是10年前由5個高中好友組成的樂團 : 團長小橘、主唱阿璞、吉他手劉逼、貝斯手霸天和鼓手子瑜。他們年輕，率真，充滿活力。我注意到他們，有兩個方面。一是，台灣知名的歌手，五月天主唱阿信加入到了八三夭樂隊製作行列。這是一個很有趣的現象 : 藝人推藝人，前浪推後浪。二來，和五月天一樣，八三夭樂隊也想到國際舞台試試身手。2012年末，華語流行音樂高峰論壇期間，台北的朋友把八三夭樂隊介紹給我。小橘、阿璞、劉逼、霸天和子瑜向我介紹了他們的音樂追求，他們的舞台夢想和對國際市場的期待。請聽台灣樂隊八三夭訪談。
From Google Translate:
Bayanyao Band is an orchestra formed by five high school friends 10 years ago: leader Xiaoju, lead singer Apu, guitarist Liu Bi, bassist Batian and drummer Ziyu. They are young, honest and full of energy. I noticed them, there are two aspects. One is that the well-known singer in Taiwan, Mayday lead singer Ashin, joined the production of Bayanyao. This is a very interesting phenomenon: artists push artists, wave forward pushes wave behind. Secondly, like Mayday, Bayanyao Band also wanted to try their skills on the international stage. At the end of 2012, during the Chinese Pop Music Summit, my friends in Taipei introduced the Bayanyao to me. Xiaoju, Apu, Liu Bi, Ba Tian and Tzuyu introduced to me their musical pursuits, their stage dreams and their expectations for the international market. Please listen to the interview with Taiwanese band Bayanyao.
戴瑞瑤 (2017-02-28). "滿滿洋蔥！八三夭阿璞捐肝救父併發症團員一路陪護" [Full of onions! Ba Sanyao Apu donated liver to save his father’s complications] (in Chinese). TVBS. Archived from the original on 2020-07-27. Retrieved 2020-07-27.
The article notes: From Google Translate:
The rock band "Ba Sanyao" (831) is loved by many students because of its passionate and positive songs. Recently, the touching story of lead singer Apu donating liver to save his father last year was also exposed. The members of the group accompanied Apu before entering the surgery room, and stayed in the hospital lounge during the operation, waiting for 12 hours, even in After being infected with his wound, Apu rushed to the hospital to get shit, urine, and rehabilitation. The strong feelings of the members moved the fans very much!
"Basanyao" are five former high school friends who were successful high school friends. They have accumulated profound revolutionary emotions over the years. Even after Apu's surgery, the five older boys mentioned it mostly lightly, but on the 25th, "Basanyao" was around The staff revealed this touching story to the public through Facebook.
"Taiwanese bands impress fans at event in New York". Taipei Times. Central News Agency. 2012-10-20. Archived from the original on 2020-07-27. Retrieved 2020-07-27.
This is a passing mention of the band. I am not using it to establish notability. I am using it to verify the band's English name, 831. The article notes:
Three hundred concertgoers at the annual CMJ Music Marathon filled the Union Square Ballroom for the concert by the Taiwanese groups — 831 (八三夭), Da Mouth (大嘴巴) and Chemical Monkeys (化學猴子).
張聖恩 (2020-07-03). "831, Justin Bieber top KKBOX charts 八三么、小賈金曲稱霸KKBOX年中榜". Taipei Times. Archived from the original on 2020-07-27. Retrieved 2020-07-27.
华政, ed. (2015-05-13). "八三夭有人说我们在做五月天做过的事" [831: Someone said we were doing what Mayday did] (in Chinese). Xinhua News Agency. Archived from the original on 2020-07-27. Retrieved 2020-07-27.
This is an interview so is not independent coverage. It can be used to verify information about the band's name and formation. The article notes (from Google Translate), "831 said it was an honor to be compared with Mayday. From left: Xiaoju (keyboard and chorus), Liu Bi (guitarist), Apu (vocal and guitarist), Adian (drummer), Batian (bass player)"

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow 831 to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 09:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I expanded and added sources to the article.
Cunard (talk) 09:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Cunard, thank you for taking the time to find and post these sources. I'll happily change my vote to keep or redirect based on your feedback. What I'd like to know is the article here named correctly? How would they most commonly be searched for in English? It seems like Bayanyao would be a better name and this page name could be a redirect to that. Please let us know. Thank you again. // Timothy :: talk 10:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, TimothyBlue (talk · contribs)! Google Translate is using "Bayanyao" as a translation for "八三夭" in some cases, but I don't see "Bayanyao" used in any sources. I think the article is named correctly since the three English-language sources all use "831" to refer to the band:
1. Chen, Michelle (2017-02-09). "Taiwanese rock band 831 release their new album". Special Broadcasting Service. Archived from the original on 2020-07-27. Retrieved 2020-07-27.
2. "Taiwanese bands impress fans at event in New York". Taipei Times. Central News Agency. 2012-10-20. Archived from the original on 2020-07-27. Retrieved 2020-07-27.
  The article notes: "Three hundred concertgoers at the annual CMJ Music Marathon filled the Union Square Ballroom for the concert by the Taiwanese groups — 831 (八三夭), Da Mouth (大嘴巴) and Chemical Monkeys (化學猴子)."
3. 張聖恩 (2020-07-03). "831, Justin Bieber top KKBOX charts 八三么、小賈金曲稱霸KKBOX年中榜". Taipei Times. Archived from the original on 2020-07-27. Retrieved 2020-07-27.
Cunard (talk) 10:32, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with no redirect. Changed vote based on Cunard's sources and feedback. Thanks. // Timothy :: talk 10:55, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the multiple reliable sources showing significant coverage that have been identified in this discussion and added to the article so that it clearly passes WP:GNG and deletion is no longer necessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn per AleatoryPonderings Keep notes. Thanks (non-admin closure) // Timothy :: talk 16:34, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Chartres[edit]

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. // Timothy :: talk 13:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 13:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 13:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 13:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NPOL. As Australian High Commissioner to Kenya she has held "international" and "national … office", and is thus "presumed notable". I don't think that presumption is rebutted, given news coverage; see, e.g., here, here, here, etc. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:40, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per AleatoryPonderings // Timothy :: talk 16:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:24, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Premadasa Hegoda[edit]

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

NN musician, fails the GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Zero substantive news coverage (beyond casual mentions and namedrops), no evidence of meeting any of the criteria of MUSICBIO. Notability tagged for over a decade. In the prior AfD, there were only two keep proponents: the article creator, who's since been indeffed for many abuses, and an editor proffering three short bits about the subject's performances, all of which are broken links. Ravenswing 13:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 13:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 13:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 13:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NMUSICIAN. Dan arndt (talk) 03:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to the level of sourcing we would need to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSICBIO and WP:PROF. No evidence they are known as a performing artist. We almost never keep associate professors. Bearian (talk) 16:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SMP Negeri 1 Banjar Agung[edit]

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL // Timothy :: talk 13:16, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 13:16, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 13:16, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not notable. –Austronesier (talk) 13:34, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only top level secondary schools are considered default notable. Even that view is starting to be challenged more, but schools that are less than top level secondary are almost never notable, you need really, really good sourcing in those cases.John Pack Lambert (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Natg 19 (talk) 01:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rowdy No.1[edit]

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

Article does not meet WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. Before revealed only film database entries. // Timothy :: talk 13:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 13:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 13:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Spiderone 07:11, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Its rather difficult to find online sources for old non-Hindi films of India. The film features Krishna, who was one of the leading stars of Telugu cinema, so its very likely that film is widely distributed.^[1] Here is the film receiving full length reviews from two well known Telugu-language newspapers: Andhra Patrika^[2] and Zamin Ryot.^[3] Hence, the film fulfills #1 of other evidence of notability. -- Ab207 (talk) 18:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ab207 thank you for the sources, I'm happy to change my vote to Keep. Hopefully others will add more. // Timothy :: talk 19:04, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Rowdy No. 1's Ad on the very first page of leading Telugu newspaper".
^ "చిత్ర సమీక్ష: రౌడీ నెం. 1" [Film Review: Rowdy No. 1]. Andhra Patrika (in Telugu). 1988-06-21.
^ "యువతను ఉద్రేక పరిచే నవరసాల సమ్మేళనం: రౌడీ నెం. 1" [Rowdy No. 1 is a feast for youth] (PDF). Zamin Ryot (in Telugu). 1988-07-01.

Keep as per the reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion and in the article so that deletionis no longer necessary, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:18, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:31, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orit Fuchs[edit]

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

Unambiguous promotion. Not a single independent reliable source. "Orit Fuchs becomes an international artist in February 2017, after presenting in the Artist Project in the Better Living Centre in Toronto, Canada" may sound impressive to people who are unfamiliar with it, but it really isn't, they'll show anything, as long as you pay, of course. The rest of the sourcing isn't much better: galleries (not independent), youtube (her own channel), a one-line mention in a blog (artzealous), user-submitted content (createmagazine), the torontoguardian, ("original and thought provoking custom content"), facebook, a designer's blog (inbarbi), instagram. The Canadian Jewish News is better, but offers preciously little: "Artist Orit Fuchs, who lives and works in Tel Aviv, is a storyteller with a deep appetite for creative self-expression." The rest is quotes by Fuchs. cultureowl.com has the most in-depth coverage, but it should be noted that they have Self-Publishing Members and this article doesn't look like editorial content; it's an ad, just like this article. Vexations (talk) 12:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

i Fix the text, and add shources, let me know what you think אור פ (talk) 12:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 12:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I’d already considered nominating this myself for these reasons. Mccapra (talk) 14:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep will fix the article and find more sources. אור פ (talk) 17:47, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For an Israeli/international artist one would expect a lot more independent reliable coverage in the Israeli press than exists presently. All I could find was a mention of her new studio in this celebrity news site and a protest action in an obscure magazine. Note also that there is an Israeli model/actress with the same Hebrew name spelling who has the unambiguous article of that name in he-wiki (although in English it is spelled Orit Fux) and the overwhelming Hebrew language coverage. Havradim (talk) 22:36, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

here is coverage in hebrew: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16] אור פ (talk) 11:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1 and 8 do not mention Fuchs at all. 7 is the celebrity site that I mentioned. The rest are passing mentions, some consisting of a name mentioned among a list of other artists, of Fuchs' contributions at shows and galleries. None of these has any significant coverage of the subject, the kind we would need to build a complete biographical article out of. Havradim (talk) 05:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find SIGCOV. The current sourcing is mostly primary, not the independent coverage that would create notability. The article itself is highly promotional. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:18, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

i Fix the text, let me know what you think אור פ (talk) 12:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing is still really poor. I am really curious about how you got permission via OTRS for 18 of her images, which are all marked ©Orit Fuchs. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I worked on this article a little more, and the more I did the more I discovered the article sources to be promotional, unreliable or not RS. Stylistically, the article has a lot in common with the type we normally see in cases of professional editing.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:32, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:32, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:32, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:32, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The depth of coverage is not there; sources are weak, primary or of the "artists submit your content here!" variety. No indication of museum collections or meeting the criteria for WP:ARTIST. The article is promotional, and the inclusion of the copyrighted images is indeed odd. Netherzone (talk) 20:29, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt with prejudice per WP:MILL, WP:SPAM, WP:TNT, and WP:SIGCOV. Lots of "group shows" indicate that this is not a well-known artist, international she may for a single show outside of Israel and one work of art at one gallery in South Korea. The gallery of her "art" is a shameless ploy for publicity. The coverage stinks, to be blunt. We could have excused this spam in 2008 but in 2020, it's untenable because everybody knows what Wikipedia is and is not. I'll stop there. Bearian (talk) 16:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Line of succession to the former Afghan throne[edit]

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

This kingdom has been defunct since 1973. This unsourced article looks like unverifiable original research, including about the supposed royal status of living persons (WP:BLP). See also WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line of succession to the former Austro-Hungarian throne for a similar case. Norden1990 (talk) 12:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It looks like a translation of the ru.wiki article which is sourced to Royal Ark and that’s not reliable. Mccapra (talk) 14:34, 23 July 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). It is impossible to attribute the current line of succession to the Afghan throne to WP:RELIABLE sources, because there is no current line of succession, because the monarchy doesn't exist anymore. TompaDompa (talk) 16:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 17:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom and per (some of) the reasons I outlined for the deletion of the current line of succession to the former Austro-Hungarian throne. It's a bunch of non-notable, private citizens who may or may not even want anything to do with the former monarchy. If there is a legitimate movement to restore the Afghan throne, wherein a line of succession is enumerated, and which has been reliably reported, then we could consider keeping this article. JoelleJay (talk) 18:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the other comments above. Smeat75 (talk) 20:11, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The problem is not that the monarchy is defunct - it could be re-created - but that there's no law of succession since the 1964 Constitution of Afghanistan was abrogated. Bearian (talk) 16:52, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elaine J. Coates[edit]

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

Prod by another editor was disputed. No WP:SIGCOV from reliable sources; mentioned in the Baltimore Sun, other than that, just write-ups in University of Maryland publications (article was created by a properly self-disclosed paid graduate assistant at the University of Maryland). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 12:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I'm the one that deprodded. Although the coverage is mostly from the university, it's sustained (starting in 1992) and in depth: it includes an honorary doctorate and oral history interview. And I'm inclined to think that first African American student at a southern university meets WP:ANYBIO C2. Comment that the Washington Post has coverage similar to the Baltimore Sun's [17], perhaps in slightly more depth. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:04, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Meh, currently neutral on this one. I don't think that being the first African-American woman to graduate from a given university is a strong enough claim of notability to override a lack of substantial independent sourcing, although the fact that she has an award named after her and recently earned an honorary degree shows that there's a bit more notability than "first X to do Y". And we do tend to be lenient on independent sourcing for academics, but IMO her claim to notability is more of a historical one than an academic one, i.e. one based on her research or academic positions. The mentions in the Baltimore Sun and Washington Post articles are just mentions, IMO, and not SIGCOV - I've added another reference from the Baltimore Sun which I think is SIGCOV, but it's still just one reference... If someone can find another decent independent source I would probably be persuaded to vote keep. Spicy (talk) 14:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Subject is also profiled in brief (with picture) in a coffee table book [18]. There's another book on the history of UMD [19] that might say something more about her, but I can't easily get it. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I still don't see significant coverage, and am the one who did the original PROD. Other than being the first African American woman to graduate from a particular college (is she the first African American or just the first African American woman, she may be DUE on the college's article), I don't see any claim to notability. Did she enroll in the same year as the other African Americans, or the other ones allowed on campus? If so, then if there's coverage of that, an article on the group could exist and this be merged into it. It's also a question of sustained coverage. Jerod Lycett (talk) 15:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- [20] states "By the time Elaine Johnson was ready to graduate, she was one of two black students, and the first woman.". Spicy (talk) 16:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Jerodlycett. He's right in suggesting a combined article on the group and merging this into it, but until then I don't see notability either. — Czello 07:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:21, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per my comments above. I don't think the mention in the coffee table book is SIGCOV, and I haven't been able to find any other independent sources with significant coverage of her. (The journal article recently added to the page does not mention her). I wouldn't be opposed to mentioning her on the UMD page and redirecting there, but I'm not sure it's WP:DUE. Spicy (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 05:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a perfect example of how subjective AfD discussions actually are: we like to pretend that they are based on objective measures of significant coverage in reliable sources, but when a topic comes along that by any objective standard does have significant coverage in reliable sources, but where we don't think the subject should be notable because she's just another black woman who had to struggle against discrimination, we get comments like the ones above saying that the coverage is somehow not significant. Hints for discussants: A newspaper article in the Baltimore Sun primarily about the subject is significant coverage, according to the clear wording of WP:SIGCOV which says nothing about the coverage describing notable accomplishments. An article in the alumni magazine primarily about her, and a recorded oral history interview of the subject, are also significant coverage, by the same wording. So is a full half page about her in a published book. These are, in fact, a lot more wide in their scope and in-depth in their coverage than the typical coverage of an athlete's performance in a single professional game, something that we pretend is indeed SIGCOV because we think the articles on those athletes are worthy of being kept. If you think the notability standards we use should be based on accomplishments rather than coverage, then push to make that change to our guidelines. But, even if you fail to see it as an accomplishment to succeed in being the first black graduate in spite of so much adversity, don't pretend that the coverage is at the level that you expect it to be based on what you think of the subject's accomplishments rather than the level that it actually is. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:29, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV as explained by Woodroofe and Eppstein. TJMSmith (talk) 15:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the subject meets WP:GNG as there is significant coverage. Additionally, she's got the honorary degree that counts towards WP:NPROF, though she's more well known for trailblazing than professor work. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV that makes clear why it was a notable (and noted) accomplishment for her to stick it out and graduate. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein, DiamondRemley39 et al. XOR'easter (talk) 17:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:ANYBIO, WP:PROF#C2, and David Eppstein's brilliant explanation of WP:SIGCOV on Wiki's notability. Earthianyogi (talk) 16:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there is sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient coverage to meet WP:BASIC. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:42, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Line of succession to the former Iraqi throne[edit]

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

This kingdom has been defunct since 1958. This unsourced article looks like unverifiable original research, including about the supposed royal status of living persons (WP:BLP). See also WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line of succession to the former Austro-Hungarian throne for a similar case. Sandstein 12:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 12:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 12:12, 23 July 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). It is impossible to attribute the current line of succession to the Iraqi throne to WP:RELIABLE sources, because there is no current line of succession, because the monarchy doesn't exist anymore. TompaDompa (talk) 12:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The line is unsourced, hypothetical, and includes the names of multiple private minor citizens. Ra'ad bin Zeid could also use a look, as it makes the contentious claim that he is a "pretender" despite no such statement in the (sparse) references. There is a movement to restore the monarchy, promoted by the ICM party and led by Sharif Ali bin al-Hussein (who would not have been eligible for the throne by the old Constitution), but there is no published line of succession proposed on their website (which is in Indonesian for some reason??). Even if it did, the line would also have to be reported on by secondary sources. JoelleJay (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for all the reasons already given at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line of succession to the former Austro-Hungarian throne for that page. It is unclear to me from the relevant pages that the enthronement of Faisal I created an Iraqi royal right for his younger brother to begin with. On Ra'ad's page we say, without citation, that Zeid was "recognized as the Head of the Royal House of Iraq by his remaining agnatic co-heirs of Jordan" after the fall of Faisal II. That suggests he was not the recognized heir at the time the kingdom ceased to exist, and that the whole page is just reflecting a monarchist conceit among the Banu Hussain that named him as head of something that no longer existed (along the lines of the English kings calling themselves Kings of France for almost 400 years). Agricolae (talk) 19:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Usefulness is often not a valid reason for keeping an article. This seems to be a hobbyist's hardwork, which would be a shame to delete, but the throne no longer exists, so much of this article is speculation, assumption, and uncited creativity. Not enough to retain. doktorb _words^deeds 14:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the other comments above.Smeat75 (talk) 20:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Pretenders to the throne of Iraq and prune to s short article covering the claims of Ra'ad bin Zeid and Sharif Ali bin al-Hussein. The question probably depends on the pre-1958 constitution of Iraq, displaced in a revolution when the king and his family were murdered. The first is the nearest male heir, the second claims through the female line. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:20, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not against lists of succession per se of sovereign countries, but a stubification and renaming as per Peterkingiron might be in order. Let's discuss more. Bearian (talk) 16:55, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Line of succession to the former throne of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies[edit]

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

This kingdom has been defunct since 1860. This mostly unsourced article (tagged as such for 7 years) looks like unverifiable original research, including about the supposed royal status of living persons (WP:BLP). See also WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line of succession to the former Austro-Hungarian throne for a similar case. Sandstein 12:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 12:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 12:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The level of detail in House of Bourbon-Two Sicilies#Heads of the House since 1861 is sufficient. No need to list multiple descendants in a line of the succession of both current claimants.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 12:18, 23 July 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). It is impossible to attribute the current line of succession to this throne to WP:RELIABLE sources, because there is no current line of succession, because the Kingdom itself doesn't even exist anymore. TompaDompa (talk) 12:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the point made by Eostrix. Listing multiple non-notable children as "claimants" to a throne abolished 160 years ago is ridiculous, even if there are members of the family living in a parallel pretend world where they can pass "acts" and issue "decrees" on succession law. However, if the ongoing dynastic dispute wasn't covered by another article, I think some sort of WP presence would be DUE as the feuds seem to be reported by secondary sources. Of course, we wouldn't be treating the line as if it was equivalent in power and legitimacy to the line before 1860, and stronger independent sourcing would be required to include any of those minors. JoelleJay (talk) 19:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - poorly-sourced presentation of people making up their own rules to succeed to something that doesn't exist. Agricolae (talk) 19:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Full of BLP violations and OR. Plus it's UNDUE to have an article speculating about who would hold royal positions in a non existent monarchy abolished since 1860.Smeat75 (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to House of Bourbon-Two Sicilies#Heads of the House since 1861. Identifying who are the Pretenders to thrones is of interest, though their chances of succeeding are minimal, though we should not forget that the Pretender to the throne of Spain became its king on the death of Franco. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:05, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but there was a country, Spain, for the pretender to be restored to the throne of. There is no such country as the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies and has not been since 1860. The chances of any "pretender " to a nonexistent throne of a nonexistent country are not minimal, they are nonexistent.Smeat75 (talk) 17:25, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Smeat75:. Not that I am contesting deletion, but revolutions do occur (e.g. Belgian Revolution, Greek War of Independence), and newly formed or recreated countries may seek a king (e.g. Leopold I of Belgium, Otto of Greece who had Komnenos and Laskaris heritage). The pretenders yet have hope, however forlorn, to be an expedient political solution.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thankfully, we have a policy for that. --JBL (talk) 11:22, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that a line of succession to a past kingdom is of value in case a country establishes a monarchy again is predicated on an invalid central assumption. A country can pick anybody they want, and further they can set any succession rules they want (e.g. strict primogeniture vs male-preference primogeniture; distinguishing morganatic marriages or not). Laying out a line of succession for a reestablished monarchy based on the rules of a dead kingdom from a dead era is simply 'what if . . .' philosophizing. Agricolae (talk) 15:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTCRYSTAL and Agricolae. It's extremely remote a possibility that Sicily will become a separate country again, and they will call back their monarchy form 160 years ago. If this country still existed, or if it was in the past century, I might be in favor of a keep, but this is not the case. I do not oppose a selective merger or redirect. Bearian (talk) 16:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Starshipit[edit]

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

non-notable company MurielMary (talk) 11:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per WP:NOTFORPROMOTION. —Unforgettableid (talk) 15:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, PR --Devokewater @ 15:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 17:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 17:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG but unsurprisingly this got deprodded by an WP:SPA who ~~wrote~~ has edited that article for pay. Schwede 66 19:38, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Schwede66: Please re-check the article’s history and the contribution’s history of User:TCM579. The article was created by another account in 2014 and there’s no reason to suggest they might be connected. Moreover, while it’s true TCM579 did de-prod the article (which pretty much anyone can do per WP:DEPROD), they have made only three edits to the article (none of which seem to have been done in bad faith or were disruptive) and they have made an effort to try and comply with both WP:UN and WP:PAID. It seems that TCM579 is, at least so far, trying to do things in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines as much as possible. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:20, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. Yes, upon checking the history, TCM7579's contribution has been rather minor and most importantly, that user did not create the article. Have edited my rationale above accordingly. Schwede 66 00:22, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing notable about this company. Article appears promotional. Ajf773 (talk) 09:14, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. what is even here to discuss? Light2021 (talk) 01:24, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NCORP and WP:SIGCOV. There's two sources, one a blog and one "lifestyle" article'. What gives? Bearian (talk) 16:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bicycle Hills[edit]

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

Non-notable book. PROD was removed under the argument that merging with the author would be preferable, but as neither are notable they should both be deleted (I already nominated the latter for AFD) Dronebogus (talk) 10:56, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 10:56, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:NBOOK, orWP:GNG, zero useable reviews found in a gsearch. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:00, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I suggested the merge or redirect but that possibility has been deleted. ~Kvng (talk) 13:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, I don't see, as is, this meets notability. --Surv1v4l1st ^{▌Talk|Contribs▌} 23:48, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Northwood (estate agent)[edit]

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

Non notable small estate agent, does not meet the requirements of WP:NCORP Article reads more like PR. Devokewater @ 10:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. An unremarkable business with no significant coverage. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 12:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very clearly promotional, no sources in the article, and nothing found. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Centrism[edit]

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

Non notable neologism, with references that are questionable at best. It also appears to be an advert, a way of establishing quasi-notability for the neologism's creator. It has escaped from AFC after multiple verdicts of "Decline", but I see little point in simply moving it back to Draft space. Fiddle Faddle 10:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 10:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 10:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 10:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 10:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. The article looks more like a thinly-veiled BLP than an article about a neologism. Without wanting to pre-empt the outcome of the sockpuppet investigation, the edit history is, at best, suspect. The page lacks reliable sources: apart from the first two references (YouTube and Reddit) and a passing unrelated mention of the term in the article by Matt Jameson, none of the cited footnotes even mention the phrase, let alone support GNG. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 12:28, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: would be WP:TNT-worthy even if a notable topic. No content here which usefully belongs at Draft:Greg Guevara instead. The YouTuber who it is about uses the term for satire/comedy rather than as serious political theory, I believe. — Bilorv (talk) 16:51, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: It is a satirical ideology, yes. I'd consider it part of Political satire. It's a comedic/ satirical ideology created by one person, it's hard to find more and better sources/ references. I'd suggest merging it with Draft:Greg Guevara, or moving it back to Draftspace in case more (reliable) sources become available in the future. JonahF (talk) 04:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Draft space is not a storage area for things where no notability exists today. If and when notability can be proven for this neologism then the article may be written afresh or undeleted. Fiddle Faddle 07:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fair enough, I didn't know you could undelete articles, I'd still suggest to merge it though. --JonahF (talk) 15:24, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nothing is ever lost here, at least as far as I know. But what is there to merge? The draft target you're suggesting doesn't look as if it will fly, or didn't when I looked last. The article we're discussig is (probably) intehded to generate faux-notability for the artiste Fiddle Faddle 15:31, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as prime example of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. --Lockley (talk) 06:09, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Something made up and fly with an attempt to make it fly further. scope_creep^Talk 14:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What? Yes of course. So is literally everything else, that's not a point. Every ideology (and things like it) are something people just made up one day, and Wikipedia helps ideas/ knowledge of ideas spread. You don't have any point there --JonahF (talk) 15:24, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I remember declining this in Draftspace multiple times because it seems to be an "ideology" that some Reddit user created one day. Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX for you to try out your satirical japes. Bkissin (talk) 13:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lockley and Bkissin. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ajab Prem Ki Ghazab Kahani. MBisanz ^talk 01:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tu Jaane Na[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONG. Poorly sourced. The article has reception, but that's not for the song but for all film songs. It has 1 dead source from filmistan connection, 2 YouTube sources and other sources, source very little information. It contains more information on artists than on song. Some material could be merged into Ajab Prem Ki Ghazab Kahani or Atif Aslam. Empire AS ^Talk! 09:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Empire AS ^Talk! 09:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Empire AS ^Talk! 09:23, 23 July 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 July 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ajab Prem Ki Ghazab Kahani: The song is mentioned in a number of articles, but was barely discussed. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 05:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination, no notability. Empire AS ^Talk! 06:43, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as was nominated. Ziyaard (talk) 04:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew G Naimanye[edit]

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

No evidence that this person passes WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 08:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 09:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 09:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable --Devokewater @ 15:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:29, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the subject has received in-depth coverage in two reliable sources [21], [22], however only media coverage is not enough to determine notability, the subject should meet at least WP:ANYBIO, WP:ARCHITECT or local government officials.

TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 04:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Fails WP:BIO. Should have been speedied.scope_creep^Talk 14:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Essentially, I see a split between keeping and merging; what to do next can be done once this debate is closed. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Samwise Didier[edit]

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

Procedural nomination: this article was converted to a redirect in 2016, and was recently nominated for RfD. The RfD outcome was that the article should be restored and brought to AfD. The subject doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG; I was only able to find mere mentions and non-independent coverage. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment might meet GNG or even NARTIST through the frequent mention of his work in gaming-related sites like ign.com. Personally I think there's a big difference, in terms of originality and control over work product, between an independent artist and one paid to crank out games by a company. However my opinion doesn't impact our notability rules.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Seems like a notable artist. https://www.engadget.com/2007-03-16-samwise-didier-warcraft-icon.html and elsewhere gives him coverage. His contributions to the creation of a notable series like Warcraft if mentioned at Wired magazine. https://www.wired.com/2013/10/stay-awhile-and-listen-book/ He interviewed at https://venturebeat.com/2019/05/14/warcraft-at-25-how-blizzards-strategy-game-became-a-media-empire/ Dream Focus 03:03, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I found a two-page profile of Didier in an Edge article about Blizzard: "Cold calling" (2004). There's also a capsule review of his 2017 book Grimbeard: The Last Dwarf in Starburst here. He's also got an art book, Brutal: The Art of Samwise, coming out later this year. No reviews yet, because it's coming out in October. I think there's enough here to demonstrate notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 05:38, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Actually looking at the sources presented, I've an entirely different take. Even presuming that Engadget blogs are reliable, that source gives all of five gushing, fawning sentences about the subject; certainly not the "significant coverage" the GNG requires. The Wired entry just namedrops the subject in a single sentence. The Venturebeat item is an interview of the subject, which explicitly cannot be used to support the notability of the subject. And that two page profile in Edge is not about Didier: it is an interview where Didier discusses Blizzard's art direction. Does anyone have any sources to proffer about the subject that aren't namedrops, casual references, interviews of him and the like? Which of the criteria of WP:ARTIST does any keep proponent claim the subject meets? Ravenswing 07:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I found a profile of Didier from the Orange County Register called "His doodles turn into video game monsters: Now art director for 'StarCraft II,' Sam Didier has been creating orcs, elves and trolls for Blizzard for more than 20 years." (Proquest abstract) Ravenswing, I believe that this is the significant coverage that you were asking for. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: with the extra sources, seems like a slam dunk for criteria 3 and 4 of WP:ARTIST. Krinndnz (talk) 03:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:21, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Toughpigs' source. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Blizzard Entertainment. Since his contributions are so enduring, there should be no issue paraphrasing them within the existing article on the topic. Ravenswing's analysis is spot on and I'm really surprised to see the lack of critical engagement with his points. As for the ProQuest abstract, that article is freely online. I wouldn't call it a profile and I'd note that it's from a local paper. Not seeing what significant coverage in these links would be used to build a dedicated article on the topic. Most of the actual coverage is about Blizzard art rather than the individual. Merger with potential to expand is the best compromise of the above points. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 17:32, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding the full text of the OC Register profile; I used it to add more content to the article, and did the same with the Edge profile. As for Ravenswing's argument, I partly agree with it; I don't think that the Engadget, Wired or Venturebeat references would be that helpful, and I haven't used them in the article. But I think his view of the Edge article is wrong; saying that a profile called "The Art of War: Blizzard's art director, Samwise Didier" is not about Samwise Didier is an odd claim. Ravenswing complains that it discusses Blizzard's art direction, but obviously it would; Didier is the Senior Art Director, and it's discussing his work. The OCR, Gaming Illustrated and Edge sources are useful (and have been used) to build the article. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

concur with Toughpigs — given that Didier has worked for a single employer for 30 years as an increasingly senior & influential contributor, how could one expect to see coverage of him that ignores the massive body of work he's created for that employer? Krinn DNZ (talk) 04:17, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Toughpigs // Timothy :: talk 01:24, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Czar. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 00:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see the problem with keeping the page, as he appears to pass WP:NARTIST, all four criteria are met._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:09, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Made further improvements to the article since its re-listing. Didier has a lot of work that wasn't reflected on the page which is now present. Particularly, I feel that the article now very, very clearly meets criteria 2 of WP:ANYBIO and criteria 3 & 4 of WP:ARTIST. Krinn DNZ (talk) 21:11, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per WP:G7 (non-admin closure) Vulcan's Forge (talk) 03:21, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kanhu Charan Pradhan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. All the referneces are from www.cprindia.org (where the subject apparently works). Include two references to Livemint and Financial Chronicle, apparently written by the subject. Seems like WP:DUCK too me. Zoodino (talk) 08:15, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 08:15, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG. only 1 or 2 tangential third party refs. GreaterPonce665 ^(TALK) 08:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom --Devokewater @ 09:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Looks like a CV.--Mvqr (talk) 11:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCV. Best, GPL93 (talk) 11:51, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too low citation count, and no obvious reasons to pass WP:NPROF, perhaps WP:TOOSOON, but really delete because WP:NOTCV. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CSD Zoodino, please tag it correctly, it is a CSD G12 - cprindia.org/people/kanhu-charan-pradhan

@CommanderWaterford:, thanks for your suggestion. I have tagged the article for CSD G12. Zoodino (talk) 17:21, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:08, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This page has already been deleted, I am closing as delete because XFDcloser has failed to close the discussion (non-admin closure)   Kadzi   (talk) 20:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Work (project management)[edit]

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

This article, with no substantive edits for at least 3 years, is unreferenced except for an external link; unfinished with no indication of any intent to finish it; and the lead is either so poorly written or so poorly translated as to be incomprehensible (to me, at least). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 09:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, even the external link amounts to nothing of comprehensible substance. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICT: this doesn't seem valuable as a concept in its own right as distinct from Work (human activity)/project management etc. It's perhaps a technical usage of the word "work" distinct from more general uses, but we're not a dictionary. — Bilorv (talk) 16:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Complete gobbledygook. And what's worse, it has been incorrectly linked to the 'work' article on all those other-language wikis; just imagine looking at the German article on 'Arbeit (Sozialwissenschaften)', then clicking the English link and seeing this! How nobody has picked up on that in all these years is beyond me. Little point in even listing all the policies this little gem falls foul of — just get rid of it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not completely insane, a short definition within the discipline of project management, but there's nothing here worth saving. BTW @DoubleGrazing: I've just fixed the interwiki linkage to a more sensible choice, good heads-up there, thank you. --Lockley (talk) 02:22, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete similar result to hitting the next word on autocomplete. PainProf (talk) 04:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - unsourced and incomprehensible. There appear to be several related articles which are almost as bad, including Duration (project management). power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ritesh Pandey (singer). And protect. Sandstein 14:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gori Tori Chunari Ba Lal Lal Re[edit]

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

Fails WP:SONG. A song with no standalone notability. Was recreated for the third time after speedy deletion. Zoodino (talk) 07:20, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 07:20, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 07:20, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt per nomination. I couldn't get the third link to open, but even if it worked, "one of the most googled Indian songs" isn't sufficient to pass WP:NSONG. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article looks like it has references to reliable sources like Times of India, etc. but those are to the publicity services at those papers in which they allow musicians to post links to their videos, announce new releases, etc. (BBC in England does something similar.) This song has not been reviewed or critically analyzed in any reliable source, and only appears in the typical streaming and retail listings. This title could possibly be redirected to the singer's article if required by policy, but it is pretty obvious that someone is trying repeatedly to promote this song. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:49, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ritesh Pandey (singer): The song is mentioned in a number of articles, but was barely discussed. An article about its music video isn't good enough to pass WP:NSONG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 05:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - still not notable Spiderone 07:11, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete - It is one of the most googled song, and has been recreated several times. It meets WP: Songs.Instead, It should be improved. NIA3000 (talk) 09:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment NIA3000, as the (re-)creator of this page, please could you explain which of the WP:NSONG criteria you believe the song passes? ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:49, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is one of the most Googled song, which shows it's notability, secondly it has been independently released by several artist. That's why, correct me if I'm wrong somewhere! NIA3000 (talk) 09:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of your statements demonstrate notability - the WP:NSONG guidelines stipulate that the song should have been recorded "by several notable artists, bands, or groups" (my emphasis).

In addition, please could you sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~), so everyone can see whose comment it is. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 13:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NIA3000, if you believe the article is good enough to meet WP:NSONG, prove it by showing us some reliable articles which show in-depth discussion about the song. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harun Osman[edit]

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

Non-notable descendant of royal family ousted from power a decade before his birth. Does not have SIGCOV. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:09, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 07:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 07:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment His article has been deleted in late February this year but with a different name [23]. There are some Turkish sources if you use his real name: [24] [25] [26] including this one from Milliyet:[27]. ~Styyx (talk) 09:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only reference is deprecated, and all the info in the article is in relation to his family and heritage, not about him--for example, one of the two times he is mentioned in his own Early Life section is After his grandfather Mehmed Selim Efendi passed away in 1937, Harun Osmanoğlu had no one but his mother. JoelleJay (talk) 19:06, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being part of an imperial family that lost power before you were born is not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:43, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per WP:G5. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Emil Joshua[edit]

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

A7 speedy tag removed by IP editor. This young person does pass GNG or MUSICBIO. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 07:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Page was created by an SPA and there's nothing to demonstrate notability per WP:SINGER. At best, a case of TOOSOON. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:40, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Run-of-the-mill music producer. Nothing in this article establishes either musical notability or general notability. Author may be trying to use Wikipedia as a director or for resumes, but Wikipedia is not a directory. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable, decent chance it's an autobiography, none of the sources are reliable (and most trace back to a PR outlet). GeneralNotability (talk) 14:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the page's creator has been perma-banned as a sock/meatpuppet of of Spread Media Global - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Spreadmediaglobal. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 16:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable music producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:32, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gomolo[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a run of the mill website. No evidence of significance or notability. M4DU7 (talk) 06:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 06:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 06:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 06:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 06:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 06:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - run of the mill indeed Spiderone 07:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about the Indian "putlocker". ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 05:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete waste of time to discuss this one. Light2021 (talk) 01:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The AfD has been withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 14:04, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moses Boyd[edit]

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

The person fails WP:MUSICBIO and consists of unreliable and some made up references ~ Amkgp 💬 06:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 06:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 06:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: The subject is notable according to WP:MUSICBIO (clause 8 references the "Mercury" prize which he has just been nominated for). I will expand the article to indicate notability, Amkgp. HeyitsBen ^talk 10:56, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
HeyitsBen, I appreciate your contributions on making the article notable. ~ Amkgp 💬 12:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw I would like to withdraw my nomination, as it is notable after improvements by HeyitsBen. Thank you. ~ Amkgp 💬 12:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Amkgp, you may close this discussion yourself as Speedy Keep per WP:CSK #1 :) --Dps04 (talk) Dps04 (talk) 13:46, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete. Deleted by Cryptic under G11 criterion (non-admin closure) Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 09:15, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Atul Singh Arjun[edit]

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

Notability is being disputed. NYC Guru (talk) 06:03, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 06:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 06:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The subject of the article has donated blood and started a non-notable company. None of the sources in the article, or otherwise available, provide any sign that the subject of the article is notable (failing WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG). To be frank, the article is promotional vanity. --Jack Frost (talk) 06:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Plain old G11. Java Hurricane 06:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3E Accounting Pte Ltd[edit]

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

Accounting firm with no significant coverage (sourcing is PR puffery); failing WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3E Accounting. Jack Frost (talk) 05:56, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 05:56, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The sources in the article are either press releases (not independent) or passing mentions (not in-depth). Narky Blert (talk) 08:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — no in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 10:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable --Devokewater @ 11:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 3E Accounting is notable. Everyone in Singapore know about the company. Jyxxx (talk) 05:40, 29 July 2020 (UTC) — Jyxxx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete this firm lacks significant coverage from reliable and independent sources that are required to establish notability. Are current sources fail WP:CORPDEPTH. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 11:48, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:NCORP, and WP:SIGCOV. -Hatchens (talk) 02:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Naukrinama.com[edit]

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

Lack of significant coverage for what seems to be a run of the mill website. There are a few routine news articles on the website launch which are not sufficient to establish notability. M4DU7 (talk) 05:51, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 05:51, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 05:51, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 05:51, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 05:51, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable, PR --Devokewater @ 11:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - run of the mill indeed Spiderone 07:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about the website. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Donald Trump on social media#Satire, archives, and reactions. although there are only three discussion points here, it is clear that the SuspendThePres page isn't notable in itself and would be better suited merged into the Donald Trump social media page as per discussion (non-admin closure)   Kadzi   (talk) 20:57, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SuspendThePres[edit]

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

This article is about a Twitter account (suspended and flagged many times) and a Facebook account solely dedicated to a question of suspending the US President. Twitter/Facebook speculation on suspending the US President are considered to not meet general notability criteria Whiteguru (talk) 05:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Whiteguru (talk) 05:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Donald Trump on social media#Satire, archives, and reactions. There's a pretty good amount of coverage in papers like Vice, The Independent, Der Spiegel, Complex, suggesting that the account is notable in the context of coverage of Donald Trump's usage of social media. Of course, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and atm it seems highly unlikely that the account will have any sort of lasting effect, and there's no indication it merits much more than a sentence in the corresponding section. Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:29, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - per Eddie891. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with merge. DS (talk) 15:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:40, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Farhan Haji Ali[edit]

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

Biographical subject does not seem to meet notability requirements. WP:BEFORE was done and only the most fleeting of mentions were found. TimeEngineer (talk) 04:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:38, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:38, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:40, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without blinking an eye. Fails WP:GNG. -Hatchens (talk) 05:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable --Devokewater^talk 18:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It is not sufficient to allude to the existence of lots of sources without presenting specific ones that are believed to best indicate the subject's notability (WP:THREE). Currently all we have to go on is the NYT article, which is not enough. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Marie Cécile of Prussia[edit]

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

No evidence of notability via WP:GNG or otherwise. Coverage consists solely of minor mentions from genealogy sites and short news coverage of her wedding. — MarkH₂₁^talk 06:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 06:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: the very suggestion it be deleted is utterly ridiculous. Highly important German family still constantly in the press. A Google News search for "Marie Cécile Prinzessin" brings up 164 results -- not all for her, because there's more than one princess who bore that name, but a very good many. It's critical to know their backstory and who is who. ClearBreeze (talk) 12:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If this particular person receives significant coverage in independent reliable sources, which is the most general notability guideline, then this person is probably notable. If this person was just a member of a notable family and never received her own significant coverage (and doesn’t satisfy another notability guideline), then there shouldn’t be a standalone article about her. Notability also isn’t about usefulness in writing other things nor genealogical background. — MarkH₂₁^talk 12:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ClearBreeze: I hope you know that Google hits is not a valid deletion argument. Trillfendi (talk) 20:40, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Trillfendi: ClearBreeze has already been indefinitely blocked, so they may not read that. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't seem to have any individual notability herself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:B610:2484:F653:CB12:53FE (talk) 00:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I’m satisfied if even just for one event (marriage) she passes GNG although I suspect there will be more coverage. She appeared on the cover of Stern (magazine), her marriage the first by a Hohenzollern in Berlin since 1913 was widely reported (NYT is cited in article, news reels covered). - dwc lr (talk) 07:37, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds exactly like what WP:BLP1E says shouldn’t have an article on Wikipedia: If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This person has not received the level of coverage throughout her life that would justify having a stand alone article on her. If one event got huge coverage than that is a clear case of not showing actual notability. The insistence that Wikipedia give consideration and deference to all members of a royal house that has been out of power for over a century is also not justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Three out of the four sources are self-published sites/blogs, one of which is deprecated. That leaves a single wedding announcement as her claim to notability, and likely the only topic specific to her that would remain on the page after clearing out the (BLP-violating) list of non-notable living minors. JoelleJay (talk) 05:45, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SIGCOV. While some of the sources are trash and speculate that she would be Queen of England, there are literally Megabytes of information on the Interwebs about her. The subject is the firstborn of the firstborn going back to Queen Victoria. That alone has made her notable and periodically she gets more than a footnote in a news article. BLP1E doesn't apply because her marriage, her philanthropy, and being in the British line of succession mean that every royal birth and death changes her position in the line and it's reported breathlessly in the European media. It's not important to Americans, because we got rid of royalty, but for many people around the world, she is important and thus in the news from time to time. Bearian (talk) 15:58, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you can select one or two of the megabytes of information about her that most clearly demonstrate notability? --JBL (talk) 17:12, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearian: Isn’t this the third-born of the second-born of the first-born of the first-born (and last German Emperor) of the first-born of Queen Victoria? She is not the firstborn of the firstborn going back to anybody.
There are also megabytes of info about lots of non-notable people. Please provide RSes with significant coverage about her in relation to more than a single event. — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They might have gotten her confused with Princess Felicitas of Prussia.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 04:21, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to her spouse, Duke Friedrich August of Oldenburg, who just might have the barest notability. This person who has only received coverage relating to their wedding. The lack of coverage means that they fail WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:38, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication of notability.Smeat75 (talk) 10:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be a genealogical database. This applies even to people who were part of royal families. Even there we need to demonstrate actual actions, power and coverage. Not every child born to a monarch is notable, especially when the child dies before her parent becomes a monarch. This applies doubly to members of deposed royal families. As they say in Disc World, some things need to be "dragged kicking and screeming into the century of the fruit bat".John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:08, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alain Baudet[edit]

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

The article is currently sourced to some YouTube videos featuring the subject, and a commercial website selling a book published by an organisation he worked for. I've looked online for better sourcing, but am not finding anything better. The name Alain Baudet seems to be quite common, so it's possible that I'm missing some stuff about this person amongst all the obituaries and random websites about other people called Alain Baudet, but I don't think he passes WP:GNG. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, would have recommended a "redirect/selective merge" to the relevent section at Qigong but unfortunately that article does not have one about practitioners. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My search found none of the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:BASIC. Youtube videos and pinterest shots do not make someone notable. He doesn't appear to meet any martial arts notability criteria and I didn't find him on the French WP. There's simply no evidence of him being WP notable. Papaursa (talk) 13:31, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 04:20, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: I believe the relist above was unnecessary per WP:NOQUORUM. If considering an NAC of this discussion, please bear WP:RELISTBIAS in mind. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article lacking any reliable 3rd party sourcing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:25, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trisha Genesis[edit]

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

A college level player. Fails WP:SPORTSPERSON and WP:GNG - The9Man ^(Talk) 08:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:06, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:06, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable volleyball player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 04:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable --Devokewater @ 09:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry D. Thomas[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable author. The only two sources in the article aren't reliable and I'm not seeing anything that would pass WP:BIO. Adamant1 (talk) 12:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per nomination. No evidence of significant coverage. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 15:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 04:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable children's novelist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:57, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS - there are only two sources, neither of which is independent of the subject, and it's such a common name that a search online would be ineffective. Bearian (talk) 18:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vickey Deb[edit]

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

This was self moved form AFC to main namespace having been thrice declined. A sample of the references shows primary sources (interviews with the gentleman) and nothing that has convinced me that he passes WP:NACTOR. When he does he may have an article about him here. Fiddle Faddle 13:10, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 13:10, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 13:10, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"AFC Draft" Apart regular interview on daily journal, I have added article in leading daily journals and online news/newspapers from The Telegraph and Times Of India discussing on his contributions to a field of entertainment in form movies and daily television soaps . Other reputed movie site like imdb , moviebuff, bookmyshow, cinestaan classify him as actor, why is the notion being set otherwise. People already classified as actor Srabanti Chatterjee on wikipedia have mentions on their page with him as co-actor for his role in famed movie Dhrisyantar. What further are we looking for to qualify him as WP:NACTOR.Saket.agrahari (talk) 19:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 04:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete speedily, preferably. It's all, for lack of a better word, bullshit. Utterly non notable vanity spam. Praxidicae (talk) 14:36, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable Devokewater @ 15:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Page was created by an SPA and none of the references pass GNG. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:52, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:23, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald B. Colby[edit]

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

Largely passing mentions, created promotionally, concerns of undisclosed paid Naleksuh (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OUTCOMES - we have tended to delete producers, cinematographers, and the like. I don't see how this person has had special coverage or that this would change consensus. Bearian (talk) 20:50, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 04:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unable to find any sources/articles focused on him specifically. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:46, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 15:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Glover Blackwell[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. KidAd (🗣️🗣🗣) 20:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 08:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 08:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete she clearly does not meet notability guidelines. I have doubts the organization she founded does either, but that is a different discussion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep/Merge with PolicyLink. Per WP:NEXIST, the current state of the article has nothing to do with the state of sourcing in the article. I put forth the following sources for meeting GNG: SF Chronicle and Harvard News. (Also, not that this gets us anywhere with GNG b/c interviews are not secondary sources, but see Forbes Interview and GRIST interview for evidence of media coverage of Blackwell that shows there is enough info in the media such that one could easily make an article about her.) If others do not agree that these sources (albeit, barely) meet GNG, then this should obviously be a merge or a redirect and not a delete as she founded PolicyLink and this info could reasonably be included there. Samsmachado (talk) 03:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 04:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as not satisfying WP:BIO. --Lockley (talk) 06:10, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Yahoo! Messenger. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yahoo! Messenger Protocol[edit]

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

Article does not cite any sources for this defunct Yahoo! product, there may a few paragraphs that could be salvageable for the main Yahoo! Messenger article but other than that it should be deleted. Pahiy (talk) 20:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 20:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.Pahiy (talk) 20:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.Pahiy (talk) 20:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the only way this article could be permitted would be if there were non-primary sources to cite. But they will certainly never appear because this protocol is now only interesting for software archeologists. --Ysangkok (talk) 23:38, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Weirdly, there is quite a bit of coverage in scholarly article specifically of the network protocol rather than yahoo messenger. The sources seem to contrast it with IRC which is a highly notable network protocol. I would think of it more on that term than this. I'll add these in if the article is a keep ^[1]^[2]

https://www.usenix.org/legacy/event/sec07/tech/full_papers/cui/cui.pdf

http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~nahum/papers/ieee-network-instant-messaging.pdf PainProf (talk) 02:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete To pass WP:GNG, sources must be secondary, reliable, and significant. Neither of those papers pass. The first one is about a system for reverse engineering chat protocols. The second one is a study of the protocol directly, which means it is a primary source rather than a secondary source. Edit: The articles in the refs are primary as well: studies of the messengers using techniques such as traffic packet capture, due to the protocol being closed source. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 23:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Yahoo! Messenger: Barely found anything about it aside from the papers indicated by PainProf. It's best to summarize it in the target article. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 09:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kj cheetham (talk) 21:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 04:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Yahoo! Messenger --Devokewater @ 09:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 1997 Cuba hotel bombings. (non-admin closure)   Kadzi   (talk) 20:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fabio di Celmo[edit]

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

This individual tragically died in the 1997 Cuba hotel bombings. He is mentioned in the other article, and has details about him and why he was where he was when he died. However, this article doesn't go into any detail as to why he should have his own article. He is noteworthy only for being killed in the attack and nothing else. All relevant information about him from here can be merged into the other article. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:45, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:45, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:45, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:45, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Seems non-notable as is, but Google search brings up many articles. Perhaps someone can add more references. I will see if I can add some myself. Expertwikiguy (talk) 02:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 1997 Cuba hotel bombings. He received some coverage (as it generally happens in these tragic events), but it is not enough for a separate article per WP:VICTIM and WP:BIO1E. --151.52.254.197 (talk) 07:46, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 04:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the good merge target 1997 Cuba hotel bombings per above. No sign of independent notability. --Lockley (talk) 20:31, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested. Nothing more to add. Bearian (talk) 18:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. Per WP:HEY. Should probably look into getting a Newspapers.com account for BEFORE searches. (non-admin closure) Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 13:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2000–01 Marquette Golden Eagles men's basketball team[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG. Only coverage cited is WP:MILL stats-style coverage. No postseason appearance or other landmark-esque event to make the season notable. Open to redirecting to Marquette Golden Eagles men's basketball per ATD. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 02:47, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 02:47, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 02:47, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NOTPAPER is a policy, and it serves our readers to keep the article about a Division 1 major basketball program. WP:MILL is just an essay,and any article on this team's season will pass GNG. Lightburst (talk) 03:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I find it hard to say it will pass GNG without showing the sources to back it up. What's on the page currently is essentially lifted from [28] and [29], and that's where it should stay. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 03:34, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NEXIST Lightburst (talk) 03:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not questioning that. It's just that significant coverage of the season does not exist, sourced in the article or otherwise. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 03:40, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added a few sources and will look for a couple more later. In truth most division I college basketball program seasons meet WP:GNG when you look (certainly for the major basketball programs). You have to remember that each team has numerous beat writers that cover every game as well as preseason outlooks and postseason reviews. The result is constant news coverage for every game and development in multiple papers and other news outlets. It is definitely an issue that many college season articles are created without independent sources and often without any prose at all. But if the question is if this season was notable - yes. Rikster2 (talk) 12:04, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Victor Olson[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This person seems to lack the notability required to pass WP:BIO since all the sources in the article are primary and I was unable to find anything at all about them that would work for notability when I looked. There was an AfD on the person already that resulted in keep, but it was a while ago and the keep reasons where extremely weak, like "lets keep the article because I want to work on it." Which never seemed to happen. Nothing meaningful about sourcing and notability came up though. Adamant1 (talk) 05:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, it appears the bot accidentally posted this twice by posting the old AfD. If anyone knows how to fix it that would be great. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:42, 15 July 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 July 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NBISHOP guidelines; he isn't Catholic but if he had been the equivalent status would have at least been a bishop.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 00:56, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The bishop guidelines have never been accepted as actual policy. What we need is 3rd party sources not published by the Church someone is a leader in, and we lack those in this case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. BD2412 T 00:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Resistance (Malley novel)[edit]

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

NN novel, fails the GNG and WP:BOOK. No reliable sources proffered (for over a decade), zero substantive coverage in reliable, third-party sources found. Article has been notability tagged for several years. Created by a SPA whose sole Wikipedia activity is in this article and another article of a book by this same NN author. Deprodded with the fascinating edit summary of "Part of a notable trilogy by a notable author. Consider merging, perhaps." (As it happens, articles on the author have already been deleted three times, so merging to what, exactly? is at issue.) Ravenswing 00:03, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 00:03, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (the book has been reviewed in The Times) or merge to the first book of this notable trilogy, i.e. The Declaration (novel). The trilogy has been noted by members of the academy who study dystopian themes in young adult literature, e.g. [30][31][32]. pburka (talk) 00:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is at least a merge to The Declaration (novel) but might be a keep as demonstrated by Pburka. To which I would also add this review from Kirkus. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NBOOK, and WP:GNG, multiple independent reviews of this book, in addition to Kirkus, there is School Library Journal, and Booklist (here), Horn Book Guide (which some may call tiny and irrelevant, i call them succint:)), and Voice of Youth Advocates (here). Coolabahapple (talk) 05:43, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pburka. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:31, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, reviews suggest borderline meeting of NBOOK. Would be nice to add them to the article which currently is a fancrufty mess. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to pare back the fancruft though it is hard having not read the book. I don't really like linking to library catalog reproductions of critical reviews and it appears that all but Kirkus' review will be need to be accessed using subscription databases so I have not incorporated those into the article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:38, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ Hong, Fei; Liu, Rui; Hu, Liting; Bai, Yu (December 2009). "Analysis and Characteristic at the Chat Session Level in Instant Message Traffic". 2009 First International Conference on Information Science and Engineering: 1666–1669. doi:10.1109/ICISE.2009.300.
^ Khoshbakhtian, Masoumeh; Darvishan, Amir Hasan; Eghtedari, Parisa (April 2008). "Comparative Analysis of IMP services". 2008 3rd International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies: From Theory to Applications: 1–6. doi:10.1109/ICTTA.2008.4530203.

[1] ttps://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/kannada/movies/news/with-law-we-highlight-an-issue-of-great-importance-ashwini-puneeth/articleshow/76896688.cms

[2] ttps://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/kannada/movies/did-you-know/Puneeths-wife-is-a-costume-designer/articleshow/32195501.cms

[3] ttps://vijaykarnataka.com/entertainment/news/priya-sudeep-ashwini-puneeth-rajkumar-geetha-shivarajkumar-ragini-chandran-hobby/articleshow/76970901.cms

[4] "Rowdy No. 1's Ad on the very first page of leading Telugu newspaper".

[5] "చిత్ర సమీక్ష: రౌడీ నెం. 1" [Film Review: Rowdy No. 1]. Andhra Patrika (in Telugu). 1988-06-21.

[6] "యువతను ఉద్రేక పరిచే నవరసాల సమ్మేళనం: రౌడీ నెం. 1" [Rowdy No. 1 is a feast for youth] (PDF). Zamin Ryot (in Telugu). 1988-07-01.

[7] Hong, Fei; Liu, Rui; Hu, Liting; Bai, Yu (December 2009). "Analysis and Characteristic at the Chat Session Level in Instant Message Traffic". 2009 First International Conference on Information Science and Engineering: 1666–1669. doi:10.1109/ICISE.2009.300.

[8] Khoshbakhtian, Masoumeh; Darvishan, Amir Hasan; Eghtedari, Parisa (April 2008). "Comparative Analysis of IMP services". 2008 3rd International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies: From Theory to Applications: 1–6. doi:10.1109/ICTTA.2008.4530203.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]