Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 July 29

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 28 July	30 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:43, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_Wangan_Midnight_characters[edit]

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

Persistent vandalism from several Indonesian IP addresses, no clarified source material, page neglect, and most of the information could have served a better purpose on the main Wangan Midnight page. FlynnR13 (talk) 23:15, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete, and integrate into main Wangan Midnight page~~ - Abundance of unsourced/dubiously-sourced content. Furthermore, the article is written in a non-encyclopedic style (WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:NOTPLOT). User:FlynnR13 brings up a good point - a short character list, focusing on just the main series characters with short descriptions, would be adequate, and could be kept on the main Wangan Midnight page. Such a section already exists on the main page and could edited to improve its quality. It is worth noting that precedent for deletion exists, with the similar case of WP:AFD/List_of_Initial_D_Characters. --2DKomplex (talk) 12:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not clear if the second participant is advocating delete or merge (merge and delete isn't a good option see WP:MAD)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:11, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to being un-sourced and being mostly plot. Normally I'd go for merging, but I don't think it's a good idea in this case. Since the content isn't sourced. Someone can easily recreate what's worth including in the main article once sources appear if they do without all the plot stuff anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:26, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as the article is unsourced, it fails WP:LISTN. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:24, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In light of the comments above, I withdraw my proposal to merge the article in question with its main page, and we should simply delete the article instead. Given the article's issues with unsourced content, poor style and fancruft, merger is inappropriate. --2DKomplex (talk) 14:10, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Digicell[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV - cannot find any WP:RELIABLESOURCES for this article. Paradox society 21:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Paradox society 21:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Paradox society 21:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Of the twosources, one doesn't even mention this company and the other just goes to the home page of a digital magazine. The content is just self-description type, probably because there are no sources. North8000 (talk) 02:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the references in the article aren't really references and I can find no coverage to support an article. -- Whpq (talk) 01:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No WP:SIGCOV to support the article. - The9Man ^(Talk) 06:44, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Haukur (talk) 20:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Varya Rajput and Chaudharies of Ambota[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sources are unreliable because of WP:CIRCULAR, WP:SPS, British Raj and a bunch of other things. I tried a redirect but the creator told me that was an incorrect target because they're unrelated. Sitush (talk) 20:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sitush (talk) 20:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced with no assertion of notability. Fails on every level. I tried a PROD to allow the creating editor some wiggle room. They avoided that wiggle room and contested the PROD. Fiddle Faddle 21:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 14:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment after much to-ing and fro-ing with unreliable English-language sources which in any case did not support the statements made, the creator has now dumped a mass of obscure non-English sources, produced by mostly obscure publishers, in the article but (a) it still appears to be synthesis/a house of cards; (b) it still makes no mention of the Chaudharies referred to in the title; (c) we still have no idea where Ambota is/was; (d) our article for Bathinda makes no mention of them or of the alleged earlier name of Vitheda for the place; (e) the new sources seem mostly to be relying on ancient writings of people such as Nainsi and usually those writings are criticised by modern academics. I can probably pick more holes in it.
I'm tempted to suggest this is a hoax because I can find absolutely nothing to support the existence of these people, let alone their notability. - Sitush (talk) 04:37, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 11:30, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Keke Wyatt. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ghetto Rose (Keke Wyatt song)[edit]

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

When I did a WP:BEFORE, I only found minimal coverage on the song. I do not believe the song has received enough significant coverage in third-party, reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Aoba47 (talk) 19:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Keke Wyatt: Barely found anything about the song. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Keke Wyatt discography#Singles. This is a more specific target than the artists main bio. -- Whpq (talk) 01:05, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Keke Wyatt Devokewater @ 10:28, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 NH90 crash[edit]

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

Not notable military aviation accident. These are much more common events and not usually notable unless someone with a WP article is on board. WP:NOTNEWS also applies. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meeting all aspects of Wikipedia:Notability (events). Wikipedia is about coverage; not about how severe the incident is. This topic was main news for over a week in the Netherlands. A crash of a Dutch aircraft in this manner is unique. Every half an hour for several days in the news on all radio stations. Maybe there have been more severe incidents, but they have not been that broad in the news. There have been background articles published: read for instance this article. There will be a thourough investigation taking months. It’s highly likely the investigation will change protocols. SportsOlympic (talk) 19:43, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing notable about military aircraft crashing and no wider impact of crash (global grounding or safety recommendations). Mztourist (talk) 06:06, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment all NH90 helicopters stay on the ground: read here. SportsOlympic (talk) 09:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment2 The NH90 have design problems, discovered recently. This crash might have a major impact; as there has been bought recently multiple NH90s. read here. SportsOlympic (talk) 09:10, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grounding is Netherlands only not worldwide, my Delete stands. Mztourist (talk) 06:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Mztourist. Non-notable air crash that can be adequately covered in the NH90 article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. —Brigade Piron (talk) 19:16, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination--Petebutt (talk) 02:27, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sufficiently covered at the NH90 article. Wylie pedia @ 13:30, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL. I am sorry for the families of the two deceased persons, but this happens all the time in the military. Bearian (talk) 14:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:49, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ellengassen[edit]

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

The article bears a striking resemblance to entry on Ellegassen in Eberhart, George M. (2002). Mysterious Creatures: A Guide to Cryptozoology. ABC-CLIO. p. 163. ISBN 978-1-57607-283-7.. Its structure is similar, the details largely the same. "Behavior": Roars or howls like a wolf. Herbivore. Makes its den in a cave." becomes: "Behavior It is known to be howling like a wolf and is believed to be a herbivorous. "Physical description: The size of a bull. Long hair" in the book becomes "Physical Description Ellengassen is said to be have a size of that of a bull while having long hair like horse." Thee book cites these sources:

Francisco P. Moreno, Viaje à la Patagonia austral, emprendido bajo los auspicios del gobierno nacional, 1876–1877 (Buenos Aires: La Nación, 1879), p. 395;
Santiago Roth, "Descripción de los restos encontrados en la Caverna de Ultima Esperanza," in "El mamifero misterioso de la Patagonia, II," Revista del Museo de La Plata 9 (1899): 421-453;
H. Hesketh Prichard, Through the Heart of Patagonia (New York: D. Appleton, 1902);
Robert and Katharine Barrett, A Yankee in Patagonia: Edward Chace (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1931), p. 30;
Carlos Rusconi, "La supuesta existencia de Milodontes en la Patagonia Austral (Milodon listai)," Revista del Museo de Historia Natural de Mendoza 3 (1949): 252-264;
Bruce Chatwin, In Patagonia (New York: Summit, 1977), p. 72.

The article cited (since removed):

Moreno, Francisco P. (1923). Viaje Á La Patagonia Austral: Emprendido Bajo Los Auspicios Del Gobierno Nacional, 1876-1877.
Prichard, H. Hesketh (1902). Through the Heart of Patagonia.
Hauthal, Rodolfo; Roth, Santiago; Lehmann-Nitsche, Robert; Jacob, Christfried; Museo de La Plata (1899). El mamífero misterioso de la Patagonia II (in Spanish).

The creator denies that they have used Eberhart [1] and has added a note that says The content has been prepared by the physical copy of the sources mentioned, citing the relevant page number/s might lead to the undesirable confusion in the process of verifying the sources. That's why no page number has been mentioned. Any inconveniences for this, is sincerely regretted. That is highly unlikely because non of the content of the article appears in any of the cited sources, but it DOES appear in Eberhard (2002). Vexations (talk) 19:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 19:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Outside of the original author's eccentricities, I think that the AfD question is whether Ellengassen are notable or not. I see mentions in some books on Google Books, some of which you mention above:
- Investigating the Unexplained: A Compendium of Disquieting Mysteries of the Natural World by Ivan Terence Sanderson (Prentice-Hall, 1972)
- Through the Heart of Patagonia by Hesketh Hesketh-Prichard et al (D. Appleton, 1902)
- The Cambridge Natural History: Volume 10 ed by Sidney Frederic Harmer and Sir Arthur Everett Shipley (Macmillan, 1922)

This isn't my area, so I'm just posting this as a Comment, but these seem okay to me as references. Vexations, what would you think about TNTing the existing content but using these and similar references to build up an acceptable stub page? — Toughpigs (talk) 20:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Toughpigs, I have an example of such a complete rewrite at Elbst I wouldn't mind in the least if it got deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vexations (talk • contribs)

Vexations: I could help out, but I see that you took the reference to Through the Heart of Patagonia out of the article in this edit. You said that it doesn't mention Ellengassen, but as far as I can tell, it does (see Google Books). Was that a mistake, or am I misunderstanding something? I appreciate your response. — Toughpigs (talk) 21:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Toughpigs, Not sure what happend there. I had downloaded digital versions of all the books as pdfs, loaded them in Acrobat Pro, ran OCR on them and then did a text search. Your find of course confirms the term is used, so it should be restored. Vexations (talk) 21:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vexations, okay, that makes sense; thanks for your answer. I'll see if I can get some time to TNT and rewrite, as Elmidae suggests below. Not today, but hopefully before the end of the AfD. — Toughpigs (talk) 22:52, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on the copyvio concerns. I'm sorry, but looking at the text examples above, the denial is just not plausible. There's at least two other productions of this type that have been draftified just due to the bad quality of the text. These should all be TNT'd and, if someone wants to put in the work, recreated with non-copied wording, non-cringeworthy prose, and honest sourcing. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:59, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Add: if this is indeed a name for Mylodon (can't check the source), then redirect there would be sensible. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:34, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In the current form this is a OR-ish mess just right for TNT or speedy. Sources I see on Books/Scholar are low quality - not reliable and/or not discussing this urban legend in detail. At best, this could be redirected to some list or article about urban legends that mentions it, if any does. PS. I don't think we can base an article on a primary source from 1902. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As the RS Pritchard-Hesketh source (available online) CLEARLY states, this is just another name for one of more species of Mylodon, recently-extinct giant ground sloths. These are not "urban legends" or anything like it - many museums have remains. We don't need an article for "Ellengassen", but some might be suitable for merging to Mylodon. Johnbod (talk) 12:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod, as it is known, the traces of Mylodon were found 10,000 BC which is very unlikely to be mentioned by Hesketh H Pritchard as the same creature to be what Dr. Moreno found during 1897 (the skin of some speculative mammalia). Also, I did not find the exact place where Hesketh H Pritchard have concluded that 'Ellengassen' is 'Mylodon' or have furnished any evidences or ground for such a conclution. My such assertion is backed by the further explanation provided in page 181-183, The Cambridge Natural Hitory Vol 10, some relevant sections from which are:

"After this it seems impossible to suppose that the skin can be of any very great age...... In fact it is impossible to believe that the animal was not alive quite a few years since, relatively speaking. It is admitted that this animal was contemporaneous with man."

Also we see, "..... in Mylodon, the sculptured appearance of the dermal ossicles appears to indicate that they reached the surface of the body and were covered by epidermis alone, which is not the case with the animal now under consideration."

Thus the try to establish the correlation between the two is completely conjectural in nature while lacking evidences which further fails when we consider the timespan.--AranyaPathak (talk) 07:14, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For the charge related to WP:COPYRIGHT, a plagiarism check for the contents added by me will make claim of copyright infringement invalid.

While coming to the question of not having any mention of the word 'Ellengassen' in the three relevant referred books, the same have been proven wrong already through the collective efforts taken by Toughpigs, Vexations and myself.

Besides, the content is undergoing through the process of continual planned enrichment. Thus at this point of time while keeping an eye at WP:ATD, the article should be kept for the general interest of this platform.--AranyaPathak (talk) 20:33, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AranyaPathak, For the charge related to WP:COPYRIGHT, a plagiarism check for the contents added by me will make claim of copyright infringement invalid No it doesn't. That smallseotools doesn't find a match proves nothing. Your claim is falsifiable; all we need to do is show that there is a source that bears a striking resemblance to your creations, and I have already done so. Vexations (talk) 21:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vexations, what happened is simple, you threw the name of the article for search and the very first book that it fetched, you acquired it by some means. From then on, you are engaged in a vicious campaign of defaming, slurring me by accusing of plagiarism and copyright violation by picking sentences from my content and finding a fitting sentence from your book; which is not at all that difficult as the content is descriptive and the original sources are the same. Please stop this malicious campaign of spite. If your intention was otherwise, then you would have stopped while finding your claim that, "the references given doesn't even contain the name" is absurd and false. Due to your tarnishing campaign, the content enrichment process is becoming the primary casualty. I have already given my sources/references which are reliable, notable and verifiable. I have gathered materials from them over the last five months. I don't need the aid of a pseudo scientific cornucopia (without meaning any disrespect) for my articles which are altogether different in scope and objective.--AranyaPathak (talk) 08:05, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AranyaPathak, Actually, what really happened is that I was reviewing Elbst for WP:NPP and came across this sentence: 'The word Elbst is said to have it's origin from the German word "albiz" meaning "swan".' which struck me as wrong, since the German word for swan is Schwan. I did find it fairly quickly on a rather suspicious-looking website, which used it to generate a lot of content to distract from the fact that they were running a scam. That text was easy to identify as copied from the book I referenced, Eberhardt (2002) and indeed the entry in that book says on page 161 "Etymology: From the Old German albiz (“swan”)." Well, alright, Old High German is not contemporary German, so perhaps there is support for this claim in the sources. Then I took a look at the sources you cited, Cysat, Kohlrusch, and Müller. And that claim is not made in any of them. I find that remarkable, and you have not offered a plausible explanation for where you got it. Then I stated looking int your other articles including this one, and found similar problems. We can settle the matter, by showing that you copied or paraphrased it one of the sources you cited. What is that source that says the etymology of elbst is albiz? Cysat, Kohlrusch or Müller? Where does it say that? Vexations (talk) 12:27, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. The only source used in this article is Hesketh-Prichard, Hesketh and that identifies it as Mylodon per Johnbod. The development work suggested by Toughpigs and Vexations should go into that article. // Timothy :: talk 22:17, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: according to the suggestion in favour of redirect (which I am objecting on the valid ground) of Timothy, the content that will remain after exclusion of my contribution will look like this- Special:Diff/970204892, Special:Diff/970327370,i.e. only Bibliography (constituents of which have been copied from my initial content) and a couple of URLs

point: it speaks for itself.--AranyaPathak (talk) 07:32, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete to avoid copyright issues. No objection to creating a redirect afterwards, or even expanding it with reliable sourced material that doesn't heavily copy sources verbatim. Jontesta (talk) 19:10, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Author request, I am relying the request of the author ([2]) that this be draftified.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per total WP:TNT and borderline WP:COPYVIO. I am against userfication, because that does not solve the copyright violation issue. I have turned in plagiarism cases before and gotten students failed for less. If the subject matter easily passed WP:GNG, I would say, let it slide, but this is a subject that might or might not be notable. Userfying it would create a terrible precedent and be used as an argument in future similar cases. It needs to be blown up to protect the Wikipedia Foundation. Bearian (talk) 14:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:54, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Douds Landing, California[edit]

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

A couple of buildings at the end of a dirt road are the only things shown on topos, and they are either gone or cloaked in trees now. And that is all I can find about this place other than name drops as a location, none of which provide any description or even a hint as to what was once there. I find no evidence that it was a "settlement" beyond, perhaps, a single household. Mangoe (talk) 19:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:11, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:11, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lots of non-notable "landings" along California waterways. This is just another example. Does not meet basic notability threshold. Glendoremus (talk) 21:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:57, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Summerville Plantation[edit]

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

No references and no indication of importance. Google search gives some results about Summerville, South Carolina and a different plantation in Thalia, Virginia, but nothing in Chesterfield County. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will finish the article in the next couple days as well as add references. As for notability, Thomas Jefferson stayed there for a night while fleeing from the British during the Revolutionary war. It was also the home and death place of William Fleming (judge), the third chief justice of Virginia and an important figure in early Virginia politics. I think this house would qualify for "lost history," perhaps that is why there are little to no search results for it.Bradylang (talk) 00:14, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think we jumped the gun on this deletion proposal. The Chesterfield Historical Society article is a solid start. Glendoremus (talk) 21:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Glendoremus and Bradylang. I think this has good potential. Should be given time to develop. // Timothy :: talk 13:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Check your sources before you nominate the article for deletion. BMB 722 (talk) 05:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Flashy724 (talk) 15:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC) Deleting comments from blocked sockpuppets. Nfitz (talk) 02:11, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, at least for now -- This seems to be a case of a nomination made when an article is still a stub, before the article has been finished. The article now has a source in 1988 article. The ultimate question may be whether the plantation was a notable one. That is a different issue and one on which I cannot judge. Posting an AFD on an article as soon as it is created is bad form (WP:DONOTBITE). I recall having this done to me many years ago when I accessed the Internet over a dial up connection, when an admin deleted a stub that i had created as an initial placeholder. When I complained about this I was advised to tag it as {{underconstruction}} .Peterkingiron (talk) 17:00, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Delete unless more sources are found. In its current state the article is really just a series of mini-bios of people who lived there, with very little about the property itself. I'm not finding sufficient coverage to establish notability. –dlthewave ☎ 22:51, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to put some of my thoughts out here. I made this page to give a researcher who stumbled over the name "Summerville" a place to look over the history of the house and the people who lived there. In many books, articles, and other sources of information, people can see the names of plantations such as "Monticello," "Westover," "Shirley," and many other notable estates. If the reader desires more information on these houses and farms, they can usually go to Wikipedia to find a pretty decent article to read. However, some plantations have not been kept up as well as others and have been demolished thanks to neglect or they have been burned by fire, or sometimes there is some other reason. Then, the surrounding cleared land where the house stood becomes reclaimed by nature or built over by new developments (sometimes ignorant of the fact that a once large plantation house stood there or that people may have been buried there, as is the situation with Summerville). The plantation ceases to exist but in memory and written material. For many plantations, there is scarce written material and it can often be hard to find, at least by a simple web search. A Wikipedia article brings all this information to one easily accessible place. I'm not sure if Summerville would fit your notability clauses but I still think that it would be a good article to be out there. – Bradylang (talk) 16:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Has several sources, seems to be a notable plantation. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the article, I see once source that covers the plantation itself. The other two are just genealogical records for people who lived there. –dlthewave ☎ 03:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:44, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Phone Bhoot[edit]

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

This unreleased film does not satisfy film notability. In particular, it does not satisfy the guidelines on unreleased films, according to which unreleased films are only notable if production itself has been notable, and this article says only that principal photography has taken place, nothing to indicate that it was notable.

Was Proposed for deletion. PROD removed without explanation, which is the author's right.

Google search finds this article, and tries to offer 'Phone Booth'.

Listing a film that is still in development at this point is promotional. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vote to delete - as the nominator says, it does not satisfy notability. A a s i m 17:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG Spiderone 12:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination Sweboi (talk) 15:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and wait until it is more notable. Zindagi713 (talk) 04:56, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON, in essence. None of the sources offer anything in-depth, so fails WP:GNG. Sources are low-quality WP:BOMBARD. Since the film is not released, this is basically an advertisement. Author's only edits are about this movie, which sounds like a big COI, so there's nothing to salvage until there is proper reception after release. Draft copy-pasted to mainspace with no AfC approval and PROD removed with no explanation, so they are clearly interested in following the process. Furthermore, their first edits manage to format and present everything relatively nicely, so they are probably some PR firm anyway. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 17:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The argument that the subject is notable as a member of a dynasty is weak, but that does not also weaken the argument that he meets GNG, and the sources provided in that respect have not been convincingly refuted. There was insufficient discussion with respect to whether merging this with his wife's bio is a viable option, but that's something that can be discussed at the article's talk page. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Christian of Hanover (born 1985)[edit]

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

Contested prod, not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatGallacher (talk • contribs) 15:33, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject has lots of coverage. His marriage was covered by Vogue, Harpers' Bazaar, and Town & Country. When he and his wife were expecting a child, Vogue covered it. The birth of his twins made People, In Style, Hello Magazine, and Cosmo. He has an entry in the Bright Young Royals book and in Debrett's Peerage (second result down in Google snippet). There's a lot of coverage out there, and that's not including deprecated sources like Daily Mail. --Kbabej (talk) 17:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More on case for deletion The Kingdom of Hanover ceased to exist when it was annexed by Prussia back in 1866. This person is not even a pretender to this throne, or likely to become one or head of the deposed family, since he has an older brother and a nephew. Even some claims about his place in the line of succession to the Hanoverian and British thrones looks dubious (see article and its talk page). Some of these sources look like trivial entries in reference works or gossip. PatGallacher (talk) 17:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per points made by Kbabej. Subject has been the subject of press from credible sources. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:43, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:43, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a tabloid or a gossip rag, and coverage that just exists in that level of articles is not enough to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Johnpacklambert: Per WP:RSPSOURCES, multiple sources in the ones I listed above are considered generally reliable (People, Vogue x2). While those publications can lean in the gossipy direction, these articles are on points of fact (marriage, births, etc), not speculation on who's dated who, etc. --Kbabej (talk) 19:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Senior member of a major royal dynasty. The fact that the throne itself no longer exists is neither here nor there. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Major royal dynasty? The Kingdom of Hanover was an odd political entity which existed covering a limited area of northern Germany for a relatively short period, from 1814 to 1866. Up until 1837 it was in personal union with Great Britain. This Hanoverian royal family is a junior branch of the British royal family which only ruled Hanover as an independent entity for 29 years, and only produced two actual monarchs. PatGallacher (talk) 14:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - As a kingdom it was indeed a major royal dynasty. Also a very well-known one, especially when ruled by the British Crown. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Being (possibly) second in line to a position that has not existed for more than 150 years does not confer notability. Smeat75 (talk) 12:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have attempted to excise the monarchy fancruft and other nonsense from the article. Whether "he got married and Vogue ran pictures of it" is enough for an article I leave to others. --JBL (talk) 21:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per the reasons listed above by Kbabej, Willthacheerleader18, and Necrothesp. -- West Virginian (talk) 21:21, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't bother you that Necrothesp's "arguments" range from unconvincing to unambiguously false? If I wanted this article kept, that would bother me. --JBL (talk) 21:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good, another personal attack on my integrity. Presumably linked to the one on my talkpage. This editor clearly has a bit of a vendetta and has decided to do a bit of stalking. Not sure why, given I'm not aware of having any knowledge of him whatsoever. Obviously someone else who is so convinced they're right and they're doing what's best for Wikipedia (unlike us other editors with differing opinions) that they won't brook any disagreement. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Evidently, in addition to repeatedly offering incredibly poor deletion rationales based on nothing more than vigorous assertion and your imagination, you also don't know what a personal attack is. --JBL (talk) 11:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, I think that claiming an experienced editor's argument is "unambiguously false" is a clear attack on their integrity. As is alleging incredibly poor deletion rationales based on nothing more than vigorous assertion and your imagination. As is going to another editor's talkpage for no good reason and advising a completely univolved editor who was leaving a message on another topic that I know nothing about this particular article or its broader subject, but having observed Necrothesp's comments at a number of recent AfDs and RMs, I would advise you to take statements like the one above with a grain of salt. What would you call actions like this? As it says at the top of WP:NPA: Comment on content, not on the contributor. However, I think I'm just going to shrug off your comments as an inability to accept a difference of opinion rather than take them any further. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Your argument is false" is a comment on content, not on any contributor, likewise the other. By contrast, saying that I have "a bit of a vendetta" is a comment on me, not on any content. The statement that the subject of this article is a [s]enior member of a major royal dynasty is unambiguously false. Words have meanings. --JBL (talk) 15:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that editor gets to proclaim "the fact that the throne itself no longer exists is neither here nor there." I think it is very much an issue. Having an encyclopedia article about someone just because they are (possibly) second in line to a throne abolished more than 150 years ago is utterly ridiculous imo. All this "deposed ruling family " fancruft needs to removed.Smeat75 (talk) 23:11, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think I get to "proclaim" whatever I like when expressing an opinion on an AfD. Are you maybe actually suggesting I'm not entitled to an opinion that conflicts with yours? -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Kbabej. A lot of deletes and comments seem to be based on ignorance, for starters this family ceased to reign in 1918 (Duchy of Brunswick) - - dwc lr (talk) 06:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying this guy was a prince of −67 years instead of −125? --JBL (talk) 12:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Had a look at this, the full story of this family's reign in the Duchy of Brunswick is complicated, but they only effectively ruled for a short time, 1913 to 1918. This article describes this guy as a Prince of Hanover, it is that on which his claim to notability is based. PatGallacher (talk) 13:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with his wife's page. He's not notable on his own aside from having royal ancestry, and all current coverage as far as I can tell has been on his marriage or his children's birth, with the primary focus always on his lawyer-model-businesswoman wife Alessandra (2 of the 4 cited articles on the couple mention only her in the title). We regularly delete articles of women who are "noble" but whose only notability outside genealogy books is in relation to their husbands; this isn't any different. JoelleJay (talk) 16:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- His wife is probably going to be deleted as well. PatGallacher (talk) 16:43, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't see why. She is notable in her own right, and her article is well-sourced. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, I was getting confused between his wife and his mother, but I still have some doubts about her notability. PatGallacher (talk) 18:33, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The question is not whether the throne of Hannover is defunct or whether we like articles that has some genealogical issues about it. The purpose of Wikipedia is to be able to provide articles about every major topic that is of interest to humanity or at least some part of the human society in the world, and for those who have a keen interest in the royal families of Europe, whether they for those who have a keen interest in the royal families of Europe, whether they still occupies a throne or not, this will be one of these articles, that people with that kind of interests would expect to find in an encyclopedia like Wikipedia or not, this will be one of these articles, that people with that kind of interests would expect to find in an encyclopedia like Wikipedia. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 00:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

for those who have a keen interest in the royal families of Europe, whether they still occupies a throne or not, this will be one of these articles, that people with that kind of interests would expect to find in an encyclopedia like Wikipedia - if they don't "still occupies a throne" they are not royal families. Let those that "have a keen interest" in such fantasies satisfy them somewhere else than this encyclopedia.Smeat75 (talk) 02:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, this seem rather couterproductive and out of touch with the real world - I would even suspect that you by a statement like that wish in advance to exclude certain topics from Wikipedia, regardless of the interest in this topic and the notability of particular articles - or is it merely anti-royalist sentiments, that sets your standards for judging articles like this?? Oleryhlolsson (talk) 06:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

out of touch with the real world No, though that does seem like a good description of calling someone born in 1985 a "Prince of Hannover". --JBL (talk) 12:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

step into the real world, then safely come back to the bosom of Wikipedia. - dwc lr (talk) 12:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Um, sure, whatever you say. --JBL (talk) 14:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG - not as the younger, unlikely ruler of a country, but because he has been in the news several times. There's nothing that excludes someone from having a biography on Wikipedia because of being in the "scandal rags"; many actors, models, and royalty end up being covered in popular newspapers and magazines. We just can't use those as the only sources, but in this case, there's plenty of reliable sources available. If it is the consensus, I would not object to a merger to the article of an appropriate relative. The consensus seems to be that younger/more remote royalty are not automatically notable, unless they also satisfy GNG by coverage in the news because of Charity work, scandal, or business. Bearian (talk) 15:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Canadian Screen Awards. T. Canens (talk) 03:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

9th Canadian Screen Awards[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON article about a future award ceremony about which there's absolutely nothing substantive to say yet. Literally all we can say at this point is that it's expected -- and even then, there's a possibility that it'll end up just not happening at all, if this pandemic thing isn't solved in time for there to actually be any potential nominees. Unlike the Academy Awards, which already have 11 sources about the 2021 ceremony, this has no coverage at all yet -- even the one source present in the article is just a cut-paste of a source from 2019 about the 8th CSAs, not a source that's in any way relevant to the 9th CSAs. Creating a new article isn't difficult enough that we would already need a placeholder page to exist this far in advance of actually having anything at all to say about it -- so no prejudice against recreation in December or January (I'd likely be the creator of it at that point anyway!), but there's just no content or sourcing available yet to justify already having an article about it now. Bearcat (talk) 23:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My thoughts...why WP:RUSHDELETE to delete? The scheduling will likely go on, and if it does not we can delete. 8 previous years the awards happened and there is not a reason to believe they will not happen in 2021. The awards went on in 2020 after the Covid cancelled them, and they will likely happen again. Lightburst (talk) 23:59, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The 8th Canadian Screen Awards had already released their nominations before anybody knew that any of this was going to happen at all, and an already scheduled in-person ceremony was cancelled literally at the last minute and replaced with a virtual one on the fly. But in the case of the 9th ceremony, given what the current situation has done to film and television production and distribution, it's not so much a question of whether the ceremony will be live or virtual as it is a question of the distinct possibility that there won't be enough qualifying Canadian film and television content released in 2020 to actually issue a complete slate of nominees at all (a very real risk in a country where the film and television industries are much smaller, and produce much less content even in normal times, than the American equivalents.) So it's not so much a question of "why rush to delete", as of "why rush to create the article this early, instead of waiting until we actually have anything verifiable to say or source about it"? Next year's ceremony simply doesn't have any media attention to support an article with yet, so why do we already need an article to exist this far in advance of any sourcing? Bearcat (talk) 00:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:45, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I agree with Lightburst, we should keep this article and wait until The Canadian Academy updates. Plus, the Juno Awards of 2021 page was created before CARAS announced anything. User:Hockeyisthebest123 (talk) 21:32, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Juno Awards of 2021 already have actual reliable sources about them, establishing for example the exact date and venue of the ceremony — and no, the article didn't exist before CARAS announced anything: it only came to exist after there were sources to verify that CARAS had already announced the date and venue. It's not in the same boat as the 9th Canadian Screen Awards, about which we literally know absolutely nothing whatsoever yet. We know no date, we know no venue, and there are literally no sources saying anything at all about it to support an article with. Bearcat (talk) 15:13, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, as the creator of this article, I think if this will be deleted, it shall be redirected to the Canadian Screen Awards main page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rushtheeditor (talk • contribs) 20:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Canadian Screen Awards for now. Unreferenced, unverifiable, without much significant content, but almost certain to be resurrected and filled out when the time is right, whether the event is actually held or not. I think a redirect is the least-destructive option that fits this situation. --Lockley (talk) 20:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft and redirect the title to Canadian Screen Awards. The draft can be updated as new information comes in, even if that information is not yet sufficient to justify restoration to mainspace. BD2412 T 05:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is literally nothing sourced to say about this topic right now. -- Whpq (talk) 01:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Canadian Screen Awards for the time being. Moving the current content to draftspace per BD2412's suggestion is a good idea too.....PK T(alk) 12:41, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. T. Canens (talk) 04:03, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hambone, California[edit]

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

Part of the problem in this one is that the coordinates are way off, because the label on the topo maps was also way off, because the rails were moved in the mid 1950s. The actual spot is on the abandoned railroad grade due north of the coordinates given; and the Great Northern label is a bit misleading in that, though they owned the track east of Hambone, it was always operated by the McCloud Railway, whose line it was coming in from the west. There was a lumber camp at the original site for some years before it was moved south to Pondosa, but there has never been anything like a town here. Mangoe (talk) 00:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:10, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:10, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as per WP:GEOLAND. Coordinates can be fixed, no need to delete the article. I-82-I | TALK 00:13, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is not whether the coordinates are wrong, but whether this was a settlement. As a rule, points on the railroad do not pass WP:GEOLAND more substantial evidence of their notability than being listed in GNIS. Mangoe (talk) 01:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it was a lumber camp and not a settlement, would it make sense to keep it as a stub with the information presented above in the nom, or as perhaps a redirect to McCloud Railway? I assume there's a reliable source for that info, which might be enough to establish notability. Station1 (talk) 17:50, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am considering that. The sites I've been using for this are, however, self-published railfan sites; I don't doubt their general accuracy, and there doesn't seem to be much disagreement among them, but given they don't cite references or the like I would at least prefer book sources. I'm going to look into this a bit more. Mangoe (talk) 18:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Flori4nK ^{t • c} 14:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there seems to be enough evidence that this is a real place, although perhaps never a town [[3]]. I'd keep it as a stub and add a link to the McCloud Railway article. Otherwise it's going to be continually recreated by people who see that McCloud Railway article. This discussion can also be linked on the talk page for posterity. BTW - I also see references to a place called Hambone Island, similarly poorly sourced. Might be a great place to visit in isolation during the virus! TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:11, 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 no consensus. The article has been substantially changed since the nomination and the first half of the AfD. A new nomination would be needed to determine if it still merits deletion. Sandstein 05:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The B*tchelor[edit]

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

Delete per WP:GNG. The information is already contained at RuPaul's_Drag_Race_All_Stars_(season_3)#Episodes. This article adds nothing new and serves as a synopsis of the episode. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 21:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 21:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other episodes of drag race (Rusicals S9-12, Makeover S10, Queens behind bars & divas lip sync live) all have the same format and they were not deleted. Why is The B*tchelor & I’m in Love! episodes being considered for deletion? It is just examining the episode in further detail and having all episode info in one place (synopsis, lip sync [including lip stic choice] and queens placement). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaacwshearer (talk • contribs) 20:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 19:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. There's coverage out there. Billboard called it "One of the Show's Best Challenges Yet"; there's an in depth review by Vulture; the A.V. Club stated "Drag Race’s The Bachelor parody is so good it should be its own show"; and coverage by the New York Times. And those are all notable publications whose coverage is solely about the episode, not just a mention. --Kbabej (talk) 19:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Currently unsourced, so move into draft space to give editor some time to improve. If not improved, the draft page will be deleted. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We’re well past the point now where every episode of the show is covered worldwide by media outlets including a universe of ancillary shows digesting facets of what happens. This article like the rest easily meets GNG and just needs to be improved, WP:DINC. Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 06:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:16, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thanks for re-opening this discussion (I, for one, was bothered to see the previous closure to keep). I see an editor has started adding sources to this entry, none of which are specifically about this episode. I still feel strongly about moving this page into draft space until someone is willing to create a page which actually demonstrates notability. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect No clear purpose of article that duplicates season article. Reality shows can generally maintain the full competition's content in a single place, and there may be other RPDR episodes that can be merged as well Reywas92^Talk 18:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The references in the article are all episode recaps or passing mentions. Episode recaps are routine entertainment news coverage that always appears just after the show airs and does not represent any sort of enduring coverage that would establish notability. A bunch of passing mentions is not even remotely close to significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 14:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems to be at best an oversimplification of reality. Indeed that metric would wipe out thousands of Good Wikipedia articles on not only television episodes but also books, plays, operas, movies, and all live performances of dance and music which Wikipedia editors have built using exactly these reliable sources. Gleeanon409 (talk) 10:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, article WP:Hey re-written, and more than enough sources added fulfilling both GNG, and the stated concern of material simply being repeated from parent articles. The vast majority is now unique only to this episode and article. As I stated previously every episode has much more than run of the mill coverage, that might be unique to this show riding the zeitgeist of minority gender and sexuality discovery.
AfD is about determining if a Good article is possible, not if one already exists. Draftifying also amounts to deletion unless and only if someone commits to putting in the work. I found 50-60 sources although more certainly exist. I hope other enjoy reading the article and may see other articles for their similar potential. Gleeanon409 (talk) 10:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Gleeanon409 (talk) 12:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Click the Wikipedia reliable sources search at the top of the AFD for plenty of good results. The New York Times covers the episode. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/09/arts/television/rupauls-drag-race-all-stars-season-3-episode-3-recap.html Other reliable sources also give it ample coverage https://www.vulture.com/2018/02/rupauls-drag-race-all-stars-3-bachelor-parody.html https://www.avclub.com/drag-race-s-the-bachelor-parody-is-so-good-it-should-be-1822853153 Dream Focus 00:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn, the self-promotion piece will stay here with a few tags on top--Ymblanter (talk) 15:13, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marianna Yarovskaya[edit]

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

The article has been twice at AfD and twice deleted as a result of solid consensus as a self-promotion piece. Apparently, it was recreated (unsurprisingly, by a single-purpose account; the subject of the article was in the past known to use socks), and I do not see much of an improvement. This time it was accepted as a submitted draft. but we still need to discuss whether this self-promotion piece is notable enough for Wikipedia. Ymblanter (talk) 15:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 15:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 15:07, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kat Steel[edit]

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

Notability issues going back to 2010. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 14:47, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 14:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass any notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:11, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the roles do not add to a pass for the notability requirements of acotrs.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The referencing in the article consists of 4 sources which are useless for establishing notbility. They are a tweet from the subject's twitter account, the subject's web site, an interview published by a marketing and consulting firm and a modelling directory listing. My own searches turn up no reliable source coverage beyond her name being mentioned. -- Whpq (talk) 01:32, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Natsuki Fujiwara[edit]

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

I think does not pass the standards for notability in this state. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 14:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 14:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable entertainer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:38, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:33, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Ravensfire (talk) 03:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Huzaifa Mohyuddin[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, some mentions for death, but no real significant coverage. Ravensfire (talk) 14:27, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator Missed critical information as Robert McClenon pointed out, withdrawing nomination. Ravensfire (talk) 03:57, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 14:27, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 14:27, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 14:27, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject appears to have been the head of a major denomination within Shi'a Islam and should be considered ipso facto notable. (If the guidelines don't provide this notability, the policies should be revised.) Robert McClenon (talk) 22:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Robert McClenon, yup, you're correct. I totally missed that before hitting the AFD button. That alone should basically meet GNG, even if the sources aren't what I'd like to see. Hmmm, only vote is a keep, I think I can still withdraw the AFD?Ravensfire (talk) 00:15, 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 Nomination withdrawn. Apparently my POV is the minority. Closing as no reason for this to run when consensus is clear. StarM 20:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Jill-Lyn Euto[edit]

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

Yes, this is the 3rd nomination. However, the last (both no-consensus closes) was 8 years ago and much has changed in terms of notability since then. This does not appear to be a notable death, nor was she notable in life. StarM 13:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note here's the first nomination, when it was under a different title Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jill-Lyn Euto StarM 14:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 14:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 14:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, article has good sources, and the fact that this case has been on America's Most Wanted proves that it is indeed notable. Davidgoodheart (talk) 19:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - good sources. Plus part of notable shows. Falls within WP:GNG. BabbaQ (talk) 22:35, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 06:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ammar Jamaluddin[edit]

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

Nothing to support notability of this person. A draft article already exists, so this is the only option left. Ravensfire (talk) 13:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 13:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 13:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 13:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no where near the level of sources that would be needed to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:40, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete references only have passing mentions. Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. // Timothy :: talk 19:00, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per all of the above Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 06:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 12:07, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing significant to establish the notability of this WP:BLP. - The9Man ^(Talk) 06:47, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sudhu Ekbar Bolo[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. Most links ae dead-links and those that work simply confirms that this film existed. Searches reveal nothing of any merit. Appears to be another "B" movie that sunk with very little fanfare. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable --Devokewater @ 15:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to concerns around WP:NFILM and WP:GNG Spiderone 19:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:54, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Castlestone Management[edit]

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

Written, now, as an advert, and so tagged since August 2017, the references in this article are totally lacking in depth or breadth, with PR pieces taking pride of place. The only thing it appears to be notable for is a raid by the regulator. Seems not to be trading in at least that form. Fails WP:CORP. Ironic that I was the AFC reviewer who accepted it in 2014, but that revision survived immediate deletion. Fiddle Faddle 12:57, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 12:57, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 12:57, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable, PR, with a history of SPA’s —Devokewater @ 02:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Article reads more like a puff piece than anything else.TH1980 (talk) 02:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Reads like a PR article Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 08:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I am not swayed by the lackadaisical keep argument. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joke Bakare[edit]

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

New page review. Promotional and partly unsourced bio tagged for notability since March. The lede makes the big claim that she is ‘best known for her contribution to the formalization of standards in the Nigerian Pharmaceutical industry’ which might well make her notable, but this claim is not supported by the sources. She has won some awards but they don’t really look notable either. Does not pass WP:BLP. Mccapra (talk) 12:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Em-mustapha ^talk 16:31, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 12:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 12:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 12:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree does not satisfy WP:BLP. Hughesdarren (talk) 13:13, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BASIC and ANYBIO. Em-mustapha ^talk 12:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Press releases & mere announcements do not count for much hence the BASIC argument above is rendered invalid. Celestina007 14:13, 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) 16:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mac Nuru[edit]

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

doesn't appear to be a notable musician. I was a little surprised when I dug into the sources that the first 4 didn't even mention him (I've since removed them) and were about a different artist entirely (Mali Zani, afaict is not his song.) The remaining sources are unreliable or basic press releases about nominations for awards he did not win and those that he did are not notable. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nuru (rapper) Praxidicae (talk) 12:21, 29 July 2020 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 14:59, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 14:59, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable rapper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The song (Mali Zani, as mentioned above belongs to Mac Nuru) Nuru recently re-branded to Mac Nuru quite recently and the said song which shot him to fame in Ghana was Mali Zani in 2015. The song since last year was redistributed to online streaming platforms under the Mac Nuru brand name. Reference links are available to show this. Itspoojkins (talk) 22:21, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - First, some clarifications to the above votes and comments. "Mali Zani" is not a different musician but the title of one of this guy's songs. Meanwhile, the fact that the song is available for streaming (as said in the "keep" vote above) is meaningless because anyone can get their songs on basic streaming services, either by uploading it themselves or having an agent/manager do it. What matters in Wikipedia is getting reliable and significant media coverage per the requirements at WP:NMUSICIAN. This singer has not achieved such coverage, and is only visible in the basic streaming services and some media outlets that merely reprint basic press releases. And finally, the awards he won are themselves non-notable if they did not get any reliable media coverage either. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My nom wasn't meant to imply MAli Zani was a person, but that it's a song and it's not by him according to the sources, unless he goes by a totally different name. Praxidicae (talk) 20:55, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, Spotfiy says the song is by him. It's all immaterial for his notability anyway. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — doesn’t seem to really meet any criterion from WP:MUSICBIO. Celestina007 21:34, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable Devokewater @ 15:28, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Preetham Nagarigari[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN. No significant coverage, not an elected politician. The only "news article" about him is that he was elected as a seceratry for the "student wing" of the Indian National Congress party. Not a standalone article about him. Other than that, he is the chairman of a state-level wing of a political party which is not currently in power. Daiyusha (talk) 12:20, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Daiyusha, totally agree, fails clearly WP:POLITICIAN, still not sure why Richie333 removed CSD A7 Tag. CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CommanderWaterford: I removed the tag because it does not meet the criteria and consequently refused to delete it. See WP:ATD-R, User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to A7 or User:SoWhy/Common A7 mistakes Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 15:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 15:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable party functionary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He has not held any level of political office that confers an automatic WP:NPOL pass, and the article is not referenced even remotely close to well enough to claim that he passes WP:GNG in lieu of having to hold a notable political office. Bearcat (talk) 16:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 14:10, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Is only a party functionary, not an elected deputy Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 08:46, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable --Devokewater @ 10:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Pakistan Air Force cricketers. There is a relatively broad consensus, not only in this AfD but in several others, that sportspeople about which only a few match statistics are known should not be covered in separate articles but in list articles containing said statistics. Sandstein 05:58, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ziauddin (cricketer)[edit]

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

A first-class cricketer from around 45 years ago, Ziauddin (or Zia-ud-Din) played one match. We do not know his dates or birth or death, meaning that we don't know if this is a BLP or not. We do not, in fact, know very much about Ziauddin at all. We don't know if he bowled right-arm or left-arm, fast or spin. We don't know if he batted right-handed or left-handed, if he was chosen because he was mates with the captain, or was prodigious at a lower level. The only sources we have are CricketArchive and ESPNcricinfo, both of which give bare statistical summaries. Other searches reveal nothing of note. In summary, the subject does not meet WP:GNG. Although he does meet the very inclusive criteria set down in WP:NCRIC, as noted in the 2017 RfC that does not have precedence over the GNG. If a List of Pakistan Air Force cricketers existed, then a redirect/merge to that list might be appropriate. Harrias ^talk 12:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Harrias ^talk 12:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Harrias ^talk 12:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Harrias ^talk 12:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I was wondering if there were any more names to be discovered. I know we can't know for certain but I'm sure Ziauddin would have been the name he went by. (I'm not basing that on any kind of fact, by the way, just assuming). I've been reading through the 2017 RfC and it was an utter mess and I wonder how on Earth anyone found any consensus in it at the end of the day. Copying this because all it will be is the same comment. Bobo . 12:15, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would have bundled this with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amanullah (Khairpur cricketer), but the fact that he played for Pakistan Air Force does give us a variable, in that he almost certainly was therefore a member of the Pakistan Air Force, though that hasn't helped with any online searches I've done. Harrias ^talk 12:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "They'll be dancing on the streets of Total Network Solutions tonight!" Bobo . 12:21, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Changed my vote after what Bobo said

An easy problem to fix. Scorecard has been provided. Please reconsider your vote since this is your only objection.. Bobo . 15:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, Keep. Like I say, I'm sure Ziauddin would have been the name he went by - just as Ziauddin (cricketer, born 1964) (linked here) did the same. And... y'know... Madonna. Bobo . 20:18, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Ziauddin" is Arabic for "light of the faith", and this sort of mononymy is certainly not uncommon amongst South Asian Muslims; consider also the more recent international cricketers Inzamam-ul-Haq ("joining together of the truth"), Misbah-ul-Haq ("lamp of the truth"), Imam-ul-Haq ("Imam of the truth")... you get the idea. It's really not just "the name he went by"; I'm certain that this was his full name. I don't think the comparison to Madonna, whose mononym is the exception to the rule in her culture, is apt for that reason. (For what it's worth, I myself have ancestors with names like "Sadaruddin" and "Abd-us-Sattar"). M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 20:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know - please forgive me, I was being ironic. Indeed, if these were the names they went by, then the very notion that we "don't know their full names" - or at least, most commonly assigned names - is nonsense. I'm assuming, therefore, that the same is true about Amanullah. Bobo . 20:46, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the relevance though? At no point did I suggest that we don't know his full name. I did query whether it should be Ziauddin or Zia-ud-Din, because while the article is titled Ziauddin, the article itself uses Zia-ud-Din. That wasn't a notability point though, just an aside. Harrias ^talk 13:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, it wasn't a response to anyone in particular, it was just an observation to one of the usual objections. Bobo . 14:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into a List of Pakistan Air Force cricket team players or similar. Firstly, this is not a biography but a badly disguised match scorecard. As stated in WP:NSPORT, Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may be used to support content in an article, but it is not sufficient to establish notability. This includes listings in database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion, such as Sports Reference's college football and basketball databases. Trivial database scrape coverage is all this article has and if the cricket sub-SNG conflicts with this guideline, then too bad for the cricket sub-SNG. The 2017 RfC confirmed this. Secondly, the Pakistan Air Force team played only eight matches in its existence, were pretty uncompetitive, and their star players were ex-Test cricketers in their 40s. This suggests that the team had problems getting players together. I think a guideline designed to give a temporary and rebuttable presumption of notability to competitive first-class players is a poor fit when used as a permanent exemption to WP:V and WP:N for fill-ins plucked off the runway. A list of players who turned out for this team is a better way to present all these database entries. Since the team played only a few games there ought to be no issues with length. Reyk _YO! 09:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet the basic requirements of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC; it has been shown time and time again that the criteria laid down by WP:NCRIC are overly inclusive and a poor indicator of notability for players who have appeared in very few matches – nothing has changed with the guideline since the RfC linked above, which reinforces that view and makes it clear that arguments based WP:NSPORT guidelines alone should carry little weight at AfD. Per SPORTBASIC, scorecards are nothing more than WP:ROUTINE proof he played; claiming notability requires much more than that. Incidentally, his performance in his one fc match suggests he may have merely been making up the numbers. As the only sources are indiscriminate statistical repositories (Cricinfo, CricketArchive, etc.), this falls well below the threshold required by GNG as there is zero significant coverage. Unfortunately, as a result of the limited sourcing, this is also nothing more than a mirror of those websites converted into a couple of sentences. If there were an appropriate "list of.." article, he would probably belong there. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:43, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

People keep saying "overly inclusive" without being willing to suggest alternative brightline inclusion criteria. Saying "this is a problem" without being prepared to give a solution to the problem is pointless. If the guideline is "too inclusive", suggest your own and if it's suitable to our aims, we will adopt it. The guidelines have been fine for the last 16 years. It's easy to say "this is a problem", but if people have no idea how to alter the brightline criteria, these comments cannot be acted upon. Not a comment specifically aimed towards you, just in general. As for List of X, there should be one of these for every first-class team anyway. Bobo . 10:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The 2017 RfC, innumerable discussions, and the outcomes of countless AfDs over the past few years prove the cricket guideline is not "just fine", especially in this area (very few domestic matches). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't my point. People keep saying "the inclusion criteria are too inclusive" without providing alternative criteria. I still maintain the RfC was a complete mess and nobody has been able to convince me otherwise. Bobo . 10:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Bright line criteria" is a euphemism for "no thoughts allowed". Reyk _YO! 10:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC):[reply]

That's precisely the point. If people were willing to follow brightline criteria we wouldn't have to "think" about it, and go through this every two months for the sake of boredom. Bobo . 10:26, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And if I may quote you directly (and I'm saying this in your defence(!)), why do you consider the article for George Burbury to be, as you said yourself, "gibberish"? This article is absolutely not gibberish and incorporates every necessary piece of knowledge. The fact is that if this, and other, such articles, contained infoboxes, nobody would bat an eyelid. Bobo . 10:32, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can have "brightline criteria", but only for a presumption (or likelihood) of notability. To actually establish notability where that presumption is questionable, more work is required, which includes thinking and making a judgement (usually starting with substantial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, for which there is none in this case). And, to be clear, the claim that infoboxes prevent deletion is ludicrous, as well as patently untrue. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then put three quarters of all the articles I've ever created, and most of the articles 02blythed ever created, up for deletion please. Or work on them yourself. Whichever you think is more beneficial to the project. Bobo . 11:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or delete. I'd be quite happy to merge to the list suggested but don't have time to create the list itself just now.

We simply don't have enough information about the chap to justify a stand alone article and have no real biographical details other than a single name. We know only that he played in a single cricket match - we don't have any club matches etc... to give us a greater chance of showing notability. That match was a first round one in a knock out tournament and marked the only first-class match for a number of players. I have some concerns regarding notability as a result. Put that together with the issues with verifiability and a total failure to get anywhere close to meeting the GNG and I think it is extremely unlikely that we will ever find out anything that would come close to the GNG. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the subject has not received enough coverage to qualify for a stand-alone article, however trival mentions making it clear that he played for Air Force first class team, therefore, it be redirected to the List of Pakistan Air Force cricketers (not exist) or be merged into Pakistan Air Force cricket team. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 05:56, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The list now exists. It's full of red links which worries me greatly, and is only basic list for now at least. But it's there. A strange bunch - lots of one or two match wonders with no dates of birth etc... and then a 40 Test player thrown in. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:49, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That Test player's name sounds oddly familiar. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 09:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I admire the person who's going to send all (eight) of the single first-class match players merely of this team to deletion. You ask why there's so many red links? I think you have the answer, my friend. Exclusionism isn't the fault of those who created the project. I would point out that Mohammad Naeem (Pakistan Air Force cricketer) is in exactly the same position as this guy, but because he has an infobox nobody will bother sending him to deletion... If you (I don't mean you specifically, BST) want to help rather than destroy the project I think you have your answer. None of you would bat an eyelid if they had infoboxes. (Check out User:02blythed's contributions to see what I mean). Bobo . 10:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up Bobo192; merger discussion here. Harrias ^talk 11:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Humpf. Makes you wonder whether I should have said anything.... Well, have fun doing that with every Indian and Pakistani first-class team... Bobo . 11:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:RED, they should probably be unlinked. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what was worrying me. I found an article the other day linked from a list of 1980s Canadian badminton players or something. Chap had died in the 1910s iirc... I wonder if someone could double check and make sure that I haven't missed anyone. I was thinking that a tabular format with a brief career summary might be a better way to go about this list, which will avoid the red link issue. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:REDLINK states: "In general, a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a title that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there is no existing article, or article section, under any name. "

The fact that people are invalidating these redlinks by eventually sending their (eventually) bluelinked articles to deletion is not the fault of those who care for the aims of the project. Bobo . 10:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A table would definitely be better and enabled any useful detail to be presented in an accessible format. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked whether we should do the same - regarding the inclusion of statistics in a first-class team article list - several times and the answer has been an outright "no". Makes you wonder... Bobo . 10:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a start - there are different ways to do this, but a prose summary is my preferred route. I won't do any more for a while and see if there's any feedback, but it won't take too long to do them all. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As we've seen before in these discussions, whether someone's biographical details are known or not bears no logic upon whether people send the articles to AfD... Once again, it makes you wonder what these people's aims for the project are when they contain all the information you would expect of an article...I maintain that any other information in the article is mere excessive bumf. Bobo . 11:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much exactly what I had in mind, although probably include dob/dod where known; don't see any need/value in including an excessive amount of statistical detail/analysis. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Delete for now as there is no list to merge to; anyone who wants to create such a list ping me and I'll restore for a merge. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amanullah (Khairpur cricketer)[edit]

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

A first-class cricketer from around 60 years ago, Amanullah played two matches. We do not know his dates or birth or death, meaning that we don't know if this is a BLP or not. We do not, in fact, know very much about Amanullah at all. We don't know if he bowled right-arm or left-arm, fast or spin. We don't know if he batted right-handed or left-handed, if he was chosen because he was mates with the captain, or was prodigious at a lower level. The only sources we have are CricketArchive and ESPNcricinfo, both of which give bare statistical summaries. Other searches reveal nothing of note. In summary, the subject does not meet WP:GNG. Although he does meet the very inclusive criteria set down in WP:NCRIC, as noted in the 2017 RfC that does not have precedence over the GNG. If a List of Khairpur cricketers existed, then a redirect/merge to that list might be appropriate, but it does not, and honestly, the title is a pretty implausible search term. Harrias ^talk 12:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Harrias ^talk 12:13, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Harrias ^talk 12:13, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Harrias ^talk 12:13, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Comment copied from here. I was wondering if there were any more names to be discovered. Bobo . 12:16, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - "We do not know much about this person" is not a deletion criterion. "We do not know this person's birthdate" is not a deletion criterion. Just as with Ziauddin, this may have just been the name he went by. Bobo . 20:22, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a List of Khairpur cricketers per my reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ziauddin_(cricketer). In short, this isn't a biography but inflated match scorecards and the information shouldn't be dressed up as a biography. This team played few enough games for a list to be feasible in terms of length, and I do not think the cricket sub-SNG, which conflicts with WP:NSPORT, is a good fit for obscure players for whom no biographical information is ever going to turn up. Reyk _YO! 09:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet the basic requirements of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC; it has been shown time and time again that the criteria laid down by WP:NCRIC are overly inclusive and a poor indicator of notability for players who have appeared in very few matches – nothing has changed with the guideline since the RfC linked above, which reinforces that view and makes it clear that arguments based WP:NSPORT guidelines alone should carry little weight at AfD. Per SPORTBASIC, scorecards are nothing more than WP:ROUTINE proof he played; claiming notability requires much more than that. As the only sources are indiscriminate statistical repositories (Cricinfo, CricketArchive, etc.), this falls well below the threshold required by GNG as there is zero significant coverage. Unfortunately, as a result of the limited sourcing, this is also nothing more than a mirror of those websites converted into a couple of sentences. If there were an appropriate "list of.." article, he would probably belong there. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete. I'd be quite happy to merge to the list suggested but don't have time to create the list itself just now.

We don't have enough about the bloke to justify a stand alone article and have no biographical details other than a single name. We know only that he played in two cricket matches - we don't have any club matches etc... to give us a greater chance of turning up in depth sources. Adding issues with verifiability and the resultant total failure to get anywhere close to meeting the GNG and I think it is extremely unlikely that we will ever find out anything that would come close to suitable sourcing beyond statistical databases. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: If there is in fact no target to which to merge this, merge is an inappropriate suggestion. I agree that neither knowing much, or a birthdate, about a person are valid deletion grounds, but such an argument ignores that the nom proffered a valid deletion ground. I agree with that ground, and agree with the broad swathe of editors who feel that NCRIC is far too lenient on utterly obscure athletes, this not being Cricketpedia. Ravenswing 01:07, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:12, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Michael (real estate developer)[edit]

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

I looked at this article under new page review. This bio looks very doubtful to me in terms of notability. The notability tag was added by another editor but removed by the creator. I don’t really see anything here that would clearly get the subject over the line, so would welcome a consensus view. Thanks. Mccapra (talk) 11:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Taking a quick look at the sources, subject appears to meet WP:GNG with sig cov in quite a few reliable, independent sources including Forbes and CNBC. Article could use a little help to more clearly establish notability, but sourcing shows notability by wiki guidelines. Rainchecker (talk) 14:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It seems there are issues pertaining to WP:VER, WP:PROMO, WP:NBIO, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV. Regarding WP:OR, no reliable public sources exist for the subjects birthdate or school affiliations. How did the editors obtain this information? The editor who called light to this was blocked from editing. Next, the edit history reveals a Danish website saying this person attended Roskilde University as a school newspaper editor. Zero sources list subject as attending Harvard University. Regarding WP:VER, the subjects birth name is in question. Reference links to the Danish Business Authority and persons previous published journalism are linked in reference links #1 & #2. They say his name is Philip Michael SHANGE and links were provided by a previous editor in the history. There are concerns about WP:PROMO as IMBD links are self created promotional pages. Reference link #16 “Building Community…” from the Business Collective mentions no established author or dates and appears to be a self bio. Reference link #14, “Top Entrepreneurs you Can’t Miss During Covid19,” is an AccessWire Press Release uploaded to Yahoo Finance, which is pure self promotion. Reference links say the subject is crowdfunding right now. They may be using wiki as an extension to their marketing efforts. Even the Forbes & CNBC pieces are written by content contributors, not staff writers from Forbes & CNBC who vet content. WP:NBIO is in question. Proximity to a celebrity (being their cousin who develops real estate) doesn’t make you notable. Launching a crowdfunding campaign to purchase real estate doesn’t make someone notable. Some of the articles linked for references are actually about the notable futbol star Martin Braithwaite and merely reference Philip Michael Shange. Not certain this was edited with a WP:NPOV seeing promotional references were used and subject is not mentioned in some of the the WP:REF tags. Reference #12 about the Bisnow Sale “Bisnow purchased for a reported $50 million,” does not list the subjects name anywhere in the article. Mark35JayM (talk) 06:29, 29 July 2020 (EST)
Comment The above delete vote is obviously coming from a blocked SPA who is likely one of the 3 editors that have been vandalizing the page for no just cause. A look at the page history reveals that. They include User:Chinablack3004, User:BrandonTaylor404, and User:Givana Angela. 2 have been banned alongside User talk:Mark35JayM. All 4 only focused on this page. They were warned to desist from such. Few days after the warning came this AFD nomination and then this "delete" vote. This is certainly disheartening. Could be a case of WP:ATTACK.Mariah200 (talk) 13:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article has suffered from a lot of undisclosed paid editing, and I don't think this meets GNG. Many of the sources (such as Forbes) are blogs, not reliable; others merely mention him, but do not qualify as "significant". Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL, WP:SIGCOV, WP:NOTRESUME, WP:TOOSOON, WP:NOTINHERITED, and WP:GNG. Even if everything is true, and the promotional tone were fixed, he hasn't done anything by himself yet that would make him notable. Writing a book, becoming a manager, co-hosting a sporting event does not make a person notable. If this were 2007, we could excuse this resume masquerading as an article, but in 2020, everybody knows we are a charity and not a web-host for profit. One more thing: for someone supposedly well-known, he has 1,200 fewer Twitter followers than I do, and I'm a nobody. Bearian (talk) 15:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I’ve never solely focused on this page nor did vandalized it. All my contributions to Philip Michael's page have been credible and positive. You can check my page history for my contributions. I also updated Martin Braithwaite's page when I saw an article about his wife being pregnant. Then I enhanced Philip Michael's notability by adding an article to his page. I also updated a minor fix where a reference was listed incorrectly. Stop dragging me into your edit wars. Mariah200 It’s clear this Mariah200 commenter and editor is protecting this page from anyone else who contributes to it (good or bad) for some odd and emotional reason. It's against community guidelines to try and block me just because you want to control a story on a page, that's WP:EW. Now, I didn’t continue editing on Wiki because I have a lot to learn and I learned of editors like you who try to attack and limit new users Mariah200. I didn’t know this was such a negative community when I joined and I don’t want to participate in foolishness. What’s disheartening are editors like you who make people not want to join the Wiki Community. I NEVER vandalized this page. All the contributions I made were from valid sources and done because I found positive edits that could improve the page. Givana Angela(talk) 08:35, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rubal dhankar[edit]

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

Creator appeared to move this from draftspace to mainspace themselves, otherwise would have been a non discussion draftify. Horrifically laid out article and by the end of it I'm still not sure who Rubal dhankar is.   Kadzi   (talk) 10:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 15:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 15:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - zero notability whatsoever Spiderone 12:22, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON; there isn't sufficient coverage in independent RS to consider him notable, nor enough roles of note to meet WP:NACTOR. He does have 1.57 million followers on youtube however, which is no small amount. Zindor (talk) 21:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:TOOSOON Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 08:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Haukur (talk) 13:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese Society (book)[edit]

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

Has two citations, which are the book itself. Otherwise, has remained unsourced for 13 years. I cannot find any reliable secondary sources to establish notability. — Goszei (talk) 06:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Goszei (talk) 06:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Goszei (talk) 06:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — Goszei (talk) 06:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems nothing groundbreaking here. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: substantial discussion in reliable sources exists, for example, this article in the Journal of Contemporary Asia; this book by Ross Mouer and Yoshio Sugimoto, published by Routledge (see pp. 60, 281–4); this review in The Journal of Asian Studies; and this review essay in the Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NBOOK, a gsearch brings up numerous reviews some of which are listed above. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:00, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

more indications of wikinotability - held by over 1100 libraries (see here), has been the subject of study (eg. see here), from Rethinking Japanese Studies: Eurocentrism and the Asia-Pacific Region - "There are cases whereby the works by the first type (by local authors for the local audience) have been translated into English and become influential amongst the Anglo-Western readership. For example, Chie Nakane's Japanese Society (1973) (2,404 citations)...". Coolabahapple (talk) 14:51, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as a review of the sources shows WP:POTENTIAL. It's not clear to me how much is in those sources to write an article. My best guess is that it's enough though. Archrogue (talk) 18:37, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Kadzi   (talk) 09:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep needs improvements + references added --Devokewater @ 10:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources exist, WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 13:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable enough. --Lockley (talk) 19:56, 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:52, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flaiz Adventist College[edit]

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

Seemingly non-notable college. Only one source in the article isn't primary and it's about "Adventist schools", not this particular college. Nothing about them comes up in a search that would pass WP:GNG or WP:ORG either. As an alternative to outright deletion the article could always be merged with or redirected to Andhra University since they seem to be affiliated. Adamant1 (talk) 04:59, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability and nothing worth merging into another article Spiderone 08:31, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no sign that a notability search was carried out in languages other than English; a tertiary school of 1,000 students seems likely to be notable.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a rather bold assumption. Until such sources are found, we can't assume that it will pass GNG Spiderone 11:06, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete In short: the college fails general notability criteria, as well as criteria for organisations (see WP:NSCHOOL for further details). In India, having ~1000 students is not a big deal. It is mandatory in India to affiliated with a university, so its not an achievement either. Notability is not inherited, so being part of the Seventh-day Adventist education system is immaterial for this discussion as well. As there is no significant coverage for this college in reliable sources, it fails GNG. I know Hindi, and English very well. I dont understand Telugu language, but it was clear whatever results I got, were listings, and not significant coverage. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:09, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for checking in other languages.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:46, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Epiphyllumlover: thank you for thanking :) —usernamekiran (talk) 20:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 05:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Kadzi   (talk) 09:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Steven (Editor) (talk) 17:03, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. New WP:RS sources added. The article passes WP:NFILM (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 18:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CandyFlip[edit]

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

Couldn't find any reviews for this film. one source. - ^[1] TamilMirchi (talk) 01:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.thehindu.com/entertainment/movies/the-film-candyflip-is-now-avilable-on-netflix/article26278303.ece

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 01:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 01:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was a previous AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CandyFlip (film). Do you think that the sources listed there are sufficient for notability? GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GeoffreyT2000: There is not enough sources in the article. TamilMirchi (talk) 02:50, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

personally i have watched the movie in Netflix .. also have a look into few more link ^[1]^[2] Playlikeastar (Playlikeastar) 10:58, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.

KEEP, @TamilMirchi: not having "enough sources in the article" does not mean sources don't exist. If sources exist (and they do, just look at the 2016 notability discussion Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/CandyFlip_(film) and you will find plenty. If you feel the article needs them listed, then please go ahead and add them. Deletion is not the answer. Donaldd23 (talk) 22:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 05:20, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Kadzi   (talk) 09:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient sourcing exists for this to pass WP:NFILM [4][5][6][7] gobonobo ⁺ ^c 19:52, 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 merge to Municipal council (Netherlands). (non-admin closure) ——Serial 16:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Duo-raadslid[edit]

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

It exists, it has mentions (only really in Dutch) and a Dutch article on WP. However, I'm not convinced it meets the threshold for notability needed for a stand-alone article. It is essentially a definition, as are the other sources I could find. There are WP:ATDs: a possible merge/redirect or just redirect to either Municipal council or Municipal politics in the Netherlands. There is also the less-good option of a soft redirect to Wiktionary. Boleyn (talk) 13:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 13:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Municipal council (Netherlands) per nom. Reywas92^Talk 19:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 04:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 05:00, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Municipal council (Netherlands). Regardless of notability, as a matter of good information stewardship. gidonb (talk) 22:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment my only concern about a merge rather than just a redirect, is that all the info in this article is completely unsourced. Boleyn (talk) 08:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Boleyn, I have added a first reference, undermining your point and that of user:ravenswing below me. [LATER ADDITION: As it was at that time. Has since been expanded to one that is closer to that of Reywas92 and me. gidonb (talk) 15:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)] It's easy to add more. When information is correct, it should be disucssed on its merits for WP, not on possibly missing references. gidonb (talk) 14:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're kidding, right? Did you actually read the source, or just linked the first hit you found for "duo-raaslid?" The part of the link you posted referring to the subject is "- duoraadslid: een raadscommissielid, niet zijnde een lid van de raad" or, roughly translated, "dual member of the council: a member of the council, other than a member of the council." That is, at level best, a dicdef, and it certainly doesn't support the statement to which you tagged it. It likewise does not meet the GNG, nor any notability criteria extant on Wikipedia. If you're going to lecture us on the "merits," kindly do us the honor of doing so with genuine qualifying information, rather than hoping we're not paying attention. Ravenswing 15:07, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not kidding. It supports exactly the text it references. As the intro correctly states "It exists, it has mentions (only really in Dutch) and a Dutch article on WP." We should merge it. gidonb (talk) 20:52, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then I don't know what to say that would be within the bounds of WP:CIVIL, since the real sentence that cite allegedly supported was "The Duo-Raadslid is a representative of a political party who is not elected into a city council." I have removed it again. Ravenswing 06:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Word of advice: always question yourself before you question others. You seem to read Dutch through autotranslator. This can easily lead to wrong conclusions. To the discussion closer: there is another valid reference that you can find in the edit history that was twice "removed". I'm not going to edit war over someone's misunderstanding of Dutch. gidonb (talk) 15:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree that there's nothing sourced to merge. That being said, the concept's already discussed as far as it's noteworthy in the Municipal council article, and a redirect would not be inappropriate Ravenswing 09:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Kadzi   (talk) 09:53, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Monogamija[edit]

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

can someone pls complete the afd with reason Not notable with poor sourcing. 181.94.224.64 (talk) 13:15, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination on behalf of IP. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep WP:SKCRIT no nomination rationale is articulated here. Lightburst (talk) 15:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable rapper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:47, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 04:44, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Kadzi   (talk) 09:52, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Refbombed with sources that don’t support notability. Mccapra (talk) 07:44, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL, WP:NBAND, and WP:SIGCOV. Like many terns of thousands rappers and DJs, this is an ordinary, locally-known musician. There's lots of coverage, but it's either Discogs or local only. There's no good evidence of touring throughout Europe, for example. Bearian (talk) 16:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mari Rodriguez Ichaso[edit]

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

Some trivial coverage from CNN but notability is not inherited. It's been tagged for approximately a decade. Coverage of Ichaso is patchy at best. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 21:13, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I added some recent articles that I think get her over the hurdle. The article definitely needs a rewrite. Patapsco913 (talk) 10:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 04:38, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I'm probably looking at the sources enhanced post-AFD but I see two sources there with medium length coverage. North8000 (talk) 01:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Switched mine due to more detailed analysis of sources by Ravenswing and others below. North8000 (talk) 12:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: For my part, I actually read the new sources proffered. One is an interview of the subject, which cannot bolster the notability of the subject. The second is an extensive piece by CNN, which would certainly count as a reliable source ... if it wasn't about her being hired by CNN, and thus blatantly primary. Of the two sources already in the article, they both are the exact same thing: a three-sentence long profile by an organization of which she is a member. 0+0+0+0=0. Ravenswing 06:27, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Kadzi   (talk) 09:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete when the main source on someone is from their employer we lack enough secondary source coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and points above
Comment. I'm not sure if she passes the notability bar for WP:NARTIST, but I believe that her 1999 documentary Marcadas por el Paraiso / Branded by Paradise is notable. pburka (talk) 16:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 03:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not much in the way of coverage. scope_creep^Talk 18:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, per the Arabic language sources satisfying the general notability guideline. Steve Smith (talk) 06:48, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 International Conference on Imam al-Maturidi[edit]

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

individual conferences are not usually considered to be of encyclopedic importance. DGG ( talk ) 02:38, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:39, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:39, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:39, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a normal conference. It's an international conference, with approximately more than 70 attendees from over 20 countries.--TheEagle107 (talk) 15:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Kadzi   (talk) 09:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article references and WP:BEFORE do not meet WP:GNG or WP:NEVENT. All coverage is WP:ROUTINE. // Timothy :: talk 19:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm confused. There are plenty of news articles referenced that easily meet WP:42, e.g. I really don't see what's wrong at all with this, or this (in Arabic), or this (in Farsi). I doubt WP:BEFORE was followed at all here, contrary to what a comment above implies. (Full disclosure: I was canvassed here off-wiki, and have advised the user not to do so again. However, I think it's quite obvious from my contributions that I am not a WP:SPA.) M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 22:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is also good media coverage in Russian (1), (2), (3), (4).--TheEagle107 (talk) 23:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keepThis conference is very important for Maturidi Muslims and the Arabic sources are very good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Owais Al Qarni (talk • contribs) 11:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The wall of refs to official Uzbek sources doesn’t tell us much but the Arabic ones tell us it was discussed in the international media at some length and considered important, so passes WP:GNG. Mccapra (talk) 07:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Blue October discography. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 19:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Live From Manchester[edit]

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

Does not address musical notability guidelines. No references, and does not satisfy any of the numbered musical notability criteria.

Already moved to draft space as undersourced once, and so also in draft space, and cannot be draftified again. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Kadzi   (talk) 09:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Blue October discography Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Blue October discography. Ss112 04:16, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Detailed analysis of the sources showing the coverage is not indepth has not been refuted and detailed analysis is always given more weight then assertion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:29, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Freddie Brown (American football)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NGRIDIRON, never played in the NFL. His college career was not distinguished enough to pass WP:NCOLLATH. I'm not finding enough coverage to see a WP:GNG pass, although the existence of Fred Brown (wide receiver), who is notable, makes it hard to find coverage about this specific player. Hog Farm _Bacon 00:53, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 00:53, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 00:53, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 00:53, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 00:53, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment I'm not ready to make a call on this one, I'm finding some coverage of his college career--but there's a lot of "noise" in the search engines so it may take some time.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:44, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly a non-notable football player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:40, 22 July 2020 (UTC) removed contentious material about living person per policy WP:BLP.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Was selected in the NFL draft, Also per [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]. This is based on another article. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 13:29, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Being selected in the NFL draft is not a sign of notability, you actually have to play to move towards notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the sources found above seem to point to passing WP:GNG based on coverage. Subject has multiple mentions in the news speaking to WP:IMPACT of his paying ability at the college level. I ignored the bleacherreport and blocku sources, but coverage New York Times, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, and Billings Gazette point toward impact on a national stage. These should be added to the article to avoid confusion in the future. That he has not played in the NFL is irrelevant because of WP:GNG is already met.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Kadzi   (talk) 09:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Agree with the above comments; although sourcing is a little tricky to find, reliable sourcing exists and needs to be added to the page. Meets GNG regardless of NFL status. Rainchecker (talk) 14:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per Editorofthewiki's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 07:10, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the sources found by Editorofthewiki above are either clear passing mentions or from not-so-great sources like "BlockU" and "CheeseHeadTV". The Fort-Worth Star Telegram article has one sentence about him: "Utah QB Brian Johnson completed 7 of 9 passes on the drive, the last going for a 9-yard touchdown to Freddie Brown." The New York Times article mentions his name four times but only as stat recaps. I did a quick search of Newspapers.com for other articles, but found mostly the same types of articles that only mention Brown in passing. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep the player Meets WP:BASIC. There is enough here for WP:N. Wm335td (talk) 18:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Eagles247's analysis of the sources, I don't believe the subject meets WP:BASIC at all. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Juice Project[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG Grey Wanderer (talk) 00:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Grey Wanderer (talk) 00:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Grey Wanderer (talk) 00:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Grey Wanderer (talk) 00:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Kadzi   (talk) 09:48, 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 redirect to Becoming Jiff. If the series gets deleted than this will also get deleted as a redirect to nowhere. If the series is kept than this is a legitimate AtD for a non-notable topic. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:21, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Silvers[edit]

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

There is a bunch of sources, but none establish independent notability. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR. GSS ^💬 14:38, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 14:38, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 14:38, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not worth the hassle, turned it back to a redirect. --Fsilvers (talk) 16:09, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please do not do any major changes (ie making a redirect) until a consensus is reached here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Kadzi   (talk) 09:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to the series he is so closely connected to.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:40, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: The series is also up for deletion. GSS ^💬 04:12, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:54, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quail Oaks, California[edit]

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

GNIS's source for this spot is "Welcome to Calaveras County and Western Alpine County. Modesto, California: Compass Maps, 1993"— not my idea of a reliable source. It doesn't show up on topo maps for the very good reason that there wasn't anything there until a subdivision built sometime after 1979, which was the date I found for an archaeological survey of the area in preparation for construction. Other than that I get hits on address in the neighborhood and on one wildfire started in the area. Clearly not a notable settlement. Mangoe (talk) 18:22, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:29, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:29, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article does not meet WP:N. // Timothy :: talk 01:18, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Kadzi   (talk) 09:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails geoland Reywas92^Talk 18:33, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Should never have been added to GNIS. Junk listing. Not notable. Glendoremus (talk) 21:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:34, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Kadić[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NHOCKEY. Mostly played in the Slovenian league which does not qualify for #2 nor #3. Also has never played for Slovenia in senior level ever let alone the World Championship which is needed to pass #6. Subject does have 16 links under references but none of them come directly from the article. If I've missed anything, sorry, it's been a while from I've done one of these. Tay87 (talk) 23:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC) Tay87 (talk) 23:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 23:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 23:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 23:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I couldn't find any substantial coverage about the subject and it also fails WP:NHOCKEY, as stated above by the nominator.--Deepak G Goswami (talk) 16:06, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Kadzi   (talk) 09:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:36, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:01, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will Scully-Power[edit]

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

Non-notable businessman. Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. Lots of passing mentions but no real secondary sources. scope_creep^Talk 09:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 09:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 09:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not finding much coverage to establish notability. Agreed that the subject fails WP:SIGCOV. Rainchecker (talk) 14:13, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete asper nom. Teraplane (talk) 23:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Devokewater @ 11:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nebula (streaming video service)[edit]

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

promotional : in the plainest sense--a list of programs, and a list of those who have appeared on the channel--almost none of them individually notable DGG ( talk ) 09:14, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 09:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 09:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 09:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pure promo. Made obvious after reading The streaming service currently costs $3 per month, or $30 per year. However, a current bundle deal with CuriosityStream is $2.99 per month or $19.99 a year for both services when customers sign up with CuriosityStream using a promotional code supplied by one of the Nebula creators. This doesn't appear to meet notability policies anyway. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know that it is accurate to say that almost none of those who have appeared on the channel are individually notable. Several of them have Wikipedia articles (I added links). TompaDompa (talk) 10:21, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (weak). Very promotional in nature. Nebula could be notable in future, but I don't feel like it's terribly notable now. The article definitely needs fixing in either case. Skylar MacDonald (talk) 14:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional as is, but WP:DINC. However, it is WP:TOOSOON as not sufficient independant coverage. Kj cheetham (talk) 15:59, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A quick highlight-and-delete improved the tone considerably. A news search revealed some sources that might be reliable [13], but some of that coverage was actually talking about how (comparatively) obscure it was [14]. This seems more of a "too soon" than a "kill it with fire". XOR'easter (talk) 17:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- thanks XOR'easter for adding links to creators with Wiki pages. Also I think those articles are worth adding to article as they are verified 3rd parties. Interesting to note that Quibi now only has 72,000 paid subscribers while Nebula has over 100,000 making it bigger than Quibi but a lot less notable because "whatever budget Nebula has, it isn’t being spent on publicists." so there is a lot less 3rd party articles on it. --Lefton4ya (talk) 04:22, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I created the article and have edited many times. I probably did write it too much promotional, but because I am a novice and was/copy pasting other articles I found as a template - not because I work for or am paid by company. I did find it hard to find reliable 3rd party references, but still feel the article is notable and worthy of a WP article. Maybe the Advert tag can stay on but not be deleted - you guys are way too brutal and lazy as WP:DINC - article needs cleaned up not deleted as there is tons of notable authors with exclusive content on this site. But since I made article, others can disagree but you must provide strong evidence on why content on the site is notable but not the streaming service that provides that content in order for the article to not be notable enough to delete.--Lefton4ya (talk) 03:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about the sreaming service. Definitely WP:PROMOTIONAL. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: None of the programs listed have an article. Out of the 4 references, only 1 is to a 3rd party source. This does not look notable at all. --Gonnym (talk) 17:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Its deeply misleading to say none of the creators are individually notable, so lets just forget that. But it does seem to be a case of too early for coverage - also it faces the same problem most YouTubers do. They regularly provide content to more people than major terrestrial television networks and the media never covers them.JT_dale^Talk~ 11:35, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Between the two Tubefilter sources available (the one in the article and the one cited above) and the Vox bit, I think there's just barely enough coverage to get over the bar. I won't weep buckets if it goes, but I don't think the current content is so objectionable that it would disgrace the encyclopedia if it remained. XOR'easter (talk) 22:28, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, to early for Wikipedia eligibility. Maybe in a few months/years. Cheers! Nadzik (talk) 10:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Template:Advert needs to be kept and addressed but there is really no question that a streaming platform of this size meets the criteria for credibility.Tar-Elessar (talk) 05:24, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Batman family enemies. (non-admin closure)   Kadzi   (talk) 11:40, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Lupus[edit]

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

Only one reliable secondary source provided, and no other found during WP:BEFORE. Fails WP:GNG. Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 09:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 09:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 09:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with List of minor DC Comics characters. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:38, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If redirect is the outcome, I'd recommend List of Batman family enemies as a more useful target. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 08:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect per above, fails NFICTION. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:09, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Batman family enemies per above. Redirection is a much better solution than deletion. Rhino131 (talk) 12:15, 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 speedy keep. Per nominators request in discussion comment, the nomination is withdrawn as a Speedy Keep (non-admin closure) // Timothy :: talk 16:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Kincaid[edit]

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

sources do not offer evidence of notability. further independent search didn't yield any better sources. AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 09:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to pass WP:GNG and director of notable films Robot Holocaust and Breeders. Theroadislong (talk) 09:13, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 09:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 09:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Theroadislong. Can't say it reads terribly well, though. Skylar MacDonald (talk) 14:21, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and Ugh! Here we go again nominating another AVN Hall of famer. Meets GNG, and this is undoubtedly another of noms less than stellar job at any semblance of following WP:Before and actually looking for sources. Gleeanon409 (talk) 10:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gleeanon409: stop attacking me. I am tired of you. just talk about the subject. hall of fame means nothing, we need sources, if there are available sources to prove notability the article has to stay. this is it. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 13:57, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gleeanon409: One more time, porn awards, including Hall of Fame, don't count towards notability without independent RS acknowledgement. That said, a Google Books search for Tim Kincaid/Joe Gage brings up some interesting hits.[15] It would be more productive to identify the good sources than to beat the PORNBIO dead horse. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn’t beating pornbio, I was pointing out that nom’s track record includes targeting other AVN Hall of Famers and this has been a waste of everyone’s time and energy.
Nom has been shown to utterly fail in looking for, and identifying sources, consistently. And when others do he typically builds walls of texts frustrating the entire process. It’s hard to continue to see their efforts as good faith concerns, or something else could be going on. In any case it’s wasting a lot of energy on the community to deal with. Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:09, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AVN/GayVN Hall of Fame is an appeal to PORNBIO, and it does not count anymore. My observation of the nominator's track record is that more articles are getting deleted than kept. The last GayVN Hall of Fame member result was no consensus. One of the most recent AVN Hall of Fame members (Sharon Kane) was no consensus. Please argue the sources, policies and guidelines, not the nominator. • Gene93k (talk) 06:11, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That anyone is able to delete crap articles is unsurprising and a red herring. The issue is not, or unable to look for and locate obvious sources, wasting the community’s energy.
I was not appealing to pornbio even if you read it that way. Having said that, if one’s goal is to delete as many gay male porn bios as possible maybe avoid the ones who have the industry’s highest awards and focus on the rest. Gleeanon409 (talk) 06:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gleeanon409: ok, someone needs to help me with this person because I can't stand his accusation no more. I nominated 39 articles (getting rid of garbage porn bios), 7 where kept, 2 where No Consensus, 24 where deleted and 6 are not closed yet. Now, please, please, please someone stop this person from molesting me otherwise I will end up telling him and I will be the blocked one at the end. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 08:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just actually do the research work instead of whatever you have been doing. Or better yet try improving an article on one’s you do like. Gleeanon409 (talk) 09:27, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CREATIVE and possibly WP:BASIC. Despite the article's junk-quality references, this filmmaker's mainstream and porn work gets sufficient available RS coverage. Both the director and the film articles can be improved. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CREATIVE; he's the director of two notable films. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:52, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment reading your votes I can see I did a bad nomination and I would like to withdraw it so that I don't waist other people time any longer. the problem is that this discussion became the focus of another discussion and I don't want to make mistakes. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 18:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. The WP:AFD has been withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 19:07, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Wylde[edit]

Withdraw by the nominator --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

many, many, many sources, most of which do not even mention the subject name. I went through this pile of sources most of which do not mention the subject, other only mention him once, his personal web site and blogs. none of this sources prove notability and independent search didn't yield anything better. it upsets me to see this type of behavior: to make an article survive they simply fill it up with meaningless sources. AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 08:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 09:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 09:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable pornographic performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I see coverage in four mainstream reliable sources: Vice ("We Talked to Porn Star-Turned-Novelist-Turned Metalcore Frontman of Chiildren Danny Wylde", 2015), Newsweek ("Danny Wylde: Ex-Porn Actor Christopher Zeischegg on Why #MeToo Should Include Sex Workers", 2018), Forbes ("A Male Porn Star Discovers Leaving Porn Is Harder Than You'd Think", 2017) and The Independent ("Danny Wylde: Former Porn Star on Pay, the 'Stigma' of Doing Both Gay and Straight Scenes and Why He Left the Industry", 2017). These are all interviews, but I don't think you get interviews by Newsweek, Forbes, Vice and The Independent about your career if you're not notable. They're not based on a news event, the coverage is over several years (2015-2018) and they address different aspects of his career. I believe that this helps to demonstrate notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:12, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Toughpigs: I must admit that Toughpigs made a good point. Even though interviews do not count to prove notability these are very highly notable media. I shall withdraw this nomination. Thank u Toughpigs for pointing this out. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AlejandroLeloirRey:: Great. I'll add those links to the article as a Further reading section, so that people who want to improve the article can use them as sources. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Toughpigs: thank you, I appreciate that. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 18:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per sourcing identified. Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:33, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Fiction[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. I reviewed the existing references and attempted to find others but I do not believe any of them meet the guidelines for significant coverage. Paradox society 08:33, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Paradox society 08:33, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 08:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 08:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom No significant coverage in sources. There is one medium length company formation story in the references but it's not about this company. (unless they had a name change which is not covered in the article) North8000 (talk) 02:34, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 15:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the games have coverage but the developer has only passing mentions. I'm searching my mind for some way to cover this, but seems impossible to verify more than a publishing history. Would not object to creating a category. Jontesta (talk) 18:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Night Shadows[edit]

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

This album doesn't seem notable. The article hasn't cited any sources since at least 2009 and I couldn't find any reviews of the album in a WP:BEFORE. So, it seems like there's nothing about it that would pass WP:NMUSIC. Adamant1 (talk) 07:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 07:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:XY. Barely found anything about the album. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 06:30, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Not a notable album. rRedirect to Dive Wm335td (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails the GNG and WP:ALBUM, and as ICE T correctly observes, there's no obvious sole redirect target. Ravenswing 01:01, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - not sure a redirect to Dive works, since it was a split release with Controlled Bleeding, and they have an article as well. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:39, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:31, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Devang Dave[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL as well as WP:ANYBIO. Only one reference found worthy of WP:RS. All other seem passing mentions or just related info. Nizil (talk) 06:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nizil (talk) 06:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Nizil (talk) 06:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Nizil (talk) 06:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a very clearly not notable political background functionary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:37, 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 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. This seems appropriate given the potential for this being just WP:TOOSOON. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HLV2514[edit]

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

From everything I've read, the asteroid is not particularly notable in any regard except its discovery circumstances. There is no science-oriented news site coverage, and even the discovery circumstances aren't too exceptional. Many other people participated in the collaboration this year and other years and have discovered asteroids as well, and amateur asteroid discovery isn't uncommon at all (Example), as well as neither are Indian school kids discovering an asteroid in a public outreach research program. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 06:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 06:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How big is the asteroid? If it's larger than say, several tens of metres, then I'd say it's worth keeping an article. Wjfox2005 (talk) 06:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Currently unpublished, as it hasn't been reported yet. However, judging by the fact that it was only discovered now, I would say not very big. Keep in mind though, that there are (literally) over 9000 known earth-crossing asteroids with sizes more than 100 meters. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 07:45, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree that this page has been based entirely on press reports that are themselves full of errors. HLV2514 is not a "designation" by the IAU or MPC which are the only official bodies responsible for nomenclature. Once these data are submitted to the MPC, the object will get a temporary id based on the standard process. As far as I know, this has not been submitted to the MPC yet. As far as getting a name - NASA has nothing to do with it. Once the orbit is well enough determined that the object is eligible for a number (also MPC), the discoverers are eligible to suggest a name to the IAU Working Group for Small Body Nomenclature. It will be approved, or not, by that group.

HLV2514 is a temporary designation, which will be replaced by another temporary designation (likely 2020 O-something) before being given a name, if one ever comes. By then we should have enough info to write a decent-sized article on it. This is really an article being written too early. We don't even have data on the orbit or designation, which usually dominate these types of articles. Wait and maybe we'll learn more about this asteroid. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 11:57, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds to me like grounds for deletion at the moment based on WP:NOTNEWS. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 23:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Logs: 2020-07 ✍️ create

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I will make a redirect to Fighting McCooks as a normal editing action. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Latimer A. McCook[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:SOLDIER. The National cyclopedia of American biography lists him, but more because his family is notable than of his own accord. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 07:31, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 07:31, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG, no lasting notability. Mztourist (talk) 08:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fighting McCooks. Only notable as part of that family. Hog Farm _Bacon 11:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect only hits in Jstor are for Robert Latimer McCook, a general. Biography entry is limited. PainProf (talk) 01:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC) edited - redirect is good idea. PainProf (talk) 20:56, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - there's not even an allegation of notability. I won't oppose a hard redirect per WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 16:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nominator withdrawal, and no non-keep votes. (non-admin closure) Kj cheetham (talk) 09:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CuriosityStream[edit]

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

pure advertisement, complete with program listing, device compatibility, and prices. And name dropping and extensive links. DGG ( talk ) 05:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Comment I cut out a lot of advertorial text. XOR'easter (talk) 07:11, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, wait till you see Nebula (streaming video service), a child company of CuriosityStream. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nebula (streaming video service) DGG ( talk ) 09:15, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I created Nebula (streaming video service) and added links on this article to it, but it is not a child company but a promotional partner. Their bundle deal together is probably where a lot of people hear about CuriosityStream but the issue is that there are very few notable non-promotional sources for this. IMHO the page is probably a WP:STUB but does meet notability requirements and does not feel like an advert. But the issue is valuable content such as cable or satellite providers they have partnered with, more info on actual documentaries they produced, or their board of directors have gotten removed as it seems more like an advertising, but that is the very same content that adds to notability and substance of article. So my questions is: what content can/should be added to it that would be considered substantive and notable but not seem like an advertisement? Oh and case anyone thinks I am paid - I am not, nor do I think anyone who made recent edits is. IMHO ProcrastinatingReader added {{Undisclosed paid}} with no evidence for this --Lefton4ya (talk) 04:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as stub: Agreed that the page is written like an advertismeent and clearly needs to be trimmed of all the promotional content and condensed, but with a history of 5 years I don’t think we should be so quick to delete altogether. Work on trimming the blatant promo, add back the npov history section as is typical for these types of articles, keep as stub page and flag to allow for other editors to improve. Rainchecker (talk) 14:21, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It might need further reduction from the current point, but the worst was easy enough to trim. Between the sources already present and the ongoing news coverage that the news search indicates, I think the wiki-notability case is made. XOR'easter (talk) 16:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per coverage in Variety ([16] , [17]), Forbes ([18]), LA Times ([19]), Wall Street Journal ([20]), and Bloomberg ([21]). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: With reliable sources indicated above, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 08:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Quite a popular streaming service actually. Sources are more than enough presently to pass GNG as per Ahecht. - hako9 (talk) 12:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing afd since the promotionalism has been removed. My nomination was not for lack of notability, but pervasive promotionalism , which if not removed is an equally good reason for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 04:37, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:09, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Belmont[edit]

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

I had initially declined this article at AfC but someone created it anyway, so here we are. I am still of the belief that this article fails WP:GNG. While Simon Belmont is a well-known and notorious character in gaming, there is nothing that indicates he is individually notable as opposed to just being in List of Castlevania characters. This article was WP:REFBOMBed with a bunch of low-quality sources and lists, and I couldn't find any substantive discussion of the character himself. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:38, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:38, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:38, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A merge is reasonable. --Izno (talk) 14:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Castlevania characters#Simon Belmont, with no qualms about salvaging any useful content to the parent article. While a reception is there, it’s much lighter than it appears due to the use of listicles and passing mentions. Certainly though, the search term is valid, and I wouldn’t be opposed to someone continuing to incubate it in draft space if actual independent significant coverage comes to light. Red Phoenix ^talk 21:46, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is List of Castlevania characters notable though? It's also refbomb'ed, with a lot of primary sources. Did the Castlevania characters ever receive significant stand-alone coverage? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:07, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I look at it this way: as it stands, if that’s the way we feel then maybe an AFD for the list is warranted. In the context of this article, with things the way they are, a redirect is warranted. If the character list is deleted or redirected, this as a redirect can be retargeted to Castlevania or one of the game articles - it’s still a plausible search term regardless. But let’s not put the cart before the horse unless we decide to expand this AFD or start a new one for the character list, which for the moment is the most logical target. Red Phoenix ^talk 10:54, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Can I still work on the draft article for this page?(Oinkers42) (talk) 17:53, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @(Oinkers42): I’d recommend you do some searching for reliable sources that have detailed coverage, not just passing mentions or mentions in lists. The concerns are really about notability, not how it’s written. If you are looking to develop the article, establishment of notability needs to be the first step, not the last. Red Phoenix ^talk 23:34, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a recent coverage of Simon on TGCOM (in collaboration with IGN Italy) [22] and at Comic Book Resources [23]. The fact he appears in Super Smash Bros. Ultimate and DreamMix TV World Fighters (none of two being Konami games) also adds to notability. I'm on fence right now. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The reception is just listicles and passing mentions, it doesn't establish any notability. While I'd consider a redirect to List of Castlevania characters, I don't know if even that article passes notability or not and would suggest that be brought to AfD at some point too. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 15:43, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but potentially rewrite it. I found a few sources that talk about Simon directly, but they're a little "puffy". There are lots of other passing mentions. Someone should probablyy re-organize and summarize them better, and focus on quality over quantity. There's the makings of a decent article here with enough sources. If it's not going that way, then we should discuss whether it's better to write an article about the "Belmont Family", since most of the protagonists are variations on that same theme, and have gained enough notoriety as a sort of meta-character. Archrogue (talk) 18:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, however find some more suitable sources for a cleaner script per Archrogue. Captain Galaxy (talk) 18:52, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The reception section is decent, even through it is built on many questionable sources. But some are borderline, at least, and there's plenty of them. He is called fan-favorite by Ars Technica, and so on. I think we can let him stay. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge the raw sources have been found. Once this is cleaned up, it might be better off merged. But it's at the stage where the normal editing process can take over. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Reliable sources mentioned in the reception section of the article give the character significant coverage. Dream Focus 23:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Allowing more time to see whether incorporation of additional sources and other editorial work can provide a more definitive outcome to the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BD2412 T 05:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Regardless of the quality of the article right now, I feel like there's just no way there isn't enough coverage of Simon to get rid of this article. He's an iconic character, and his Smash appearance led to some standalone articles all about him (e.g. [24]) JOE BRO 64 00:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks like there's more than enough dedicated RS coverage here. Phediuk (talk) 03:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - am I missing the WP:SIGCOV here? There is presence in reliable sources, but I'm still not seeing significant coverage - i.e. sources actually focused on the character, not merely passing mentions. Red Phoenix ^talk 20:38, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Response to Comment - A qoute from WP:SIGCOV: ""Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."" (Oinkers42) (talk) 20:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - That doesn't necessarily mean it's worth an article when it could be adequately covered as part of another. Red Phoenix ^talk 21:10, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Long article with good sourcing. 176.215.144.107 (talk) 07:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Isuzu Motors#Current commercial vehicles. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:32, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Isuzu Giga[edit]

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

An article with no source whatsoever and having lists of engines and a long gallery. It does little to give a comprehensive overview of each generation of this truck. U¹ _quattro TALK 04:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. U¹ _quattro TALK 04:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: to Isuzu_Motors#Current_commercial_vehicles. Ravenswing 00:58, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:53, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ameri-Indian Alaskan Husky[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Can find nothing at all about these dogs, the webpage sited in the article [25] is not only short of WP:RS as a self-published webpage from an enthusiast, but it makes no mention of these dogs. A google search revealed nothing attributable, only a Wikipedia mirror page and a cushion cover available from Amazon. Searches of Google books and Google scholar found nothing. Cavalryman (talk) 00:04, 29 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

https://www.canadashistory.ca/explore/first-nations,-inuit-metis/the-hair-of-the-dog — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.249.229.10 (talk) 00:21, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 104.249.229.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), the link you have provided above makes no mention of these dogs either. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 00:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 07:33, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is based on one un-WP:RELIABLE source with no author given nor references provided. It claims that this dog is a "type" of Alaskan Husky, which is a mix of dogs itself. There is no evidence of "Amer-Indians" owning this husky. William Harristalk 07:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In addition to being virtually unreferenced (one citation to a non-RS source... which calls the breed by a different name altogether!) and hence failing WP:GNG / WP:V, at least one passage has been copied verbatim from the cited source, with other content that looks like rewordings. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:38, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. per nom. Apple731a (talk) 08:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC) Struck !vote from blocked disruption-only account editing here to WP:GAME autoconfirmed. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:52, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:53, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Canyon Preparatory Academy[edit]

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

This school never established notability, and especially not now that it is out of business Trevey-On-Sea (talk) 03:48, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 07:33, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 07:33, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment notability is not temporary. The current functioning of an institution should have no baring on notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: Yes, but something that has not established notability is less likely to posthumously. Trevey-On-Sea (talk) 01:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC) P.S. for future reference it's "No bearing", not "No baring".[reply]

Wow, this is quite close to me and I can't even say I'd heard of it despite having written many a high school stub in this state. The Arizona State Board for Charter Schools has a document indicating that the school was closed December 2016 due to low enrollment. Street View reveals that another school, "AZ College Preparatory Academy", operated here beginning in 2017, and it apparently has since moved to operate out of a strip mall one mile south. There is no coverage in local papers that would allow this article to meet WP:N and WP:ORG. Delete. Raymie (t • c) 20:33, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I see I did add an infobox to this article back in 2011...yeah, this is definitely a case where the 2017 RfC removing auto-notability for secondary schools really matters. Raymie (t • c) 20:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So I should mention, I went here until it was shut down; Also when looking through the history of this page there were major edits by three people with connection to the school, 63.226.49.222; which must be the school's own ip, as it is only edits on this page and childish vandalism, then there is Kielsky, who is fb friends with the "Chancellor"(founder), and then of course there is Grandcanyonprepacademy. Trevey-On-Sea (talk) 22:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Trevey-On-Sea: Yeah, I see that too. Also looks like the AZ College Prep has more than a physical connection to Grand Canyon Prep, though as someone who went there, you probably know more about that than I do. Thanks for the disclosure. Raymie (t • c) 00:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Raymie: I think it was bought out, and the new school moved there, but then moved back to it's strip mall location. Also could you please Vote? All Best Trevey-On-Sea (talk) 21:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Trevey-On-Sea: It looks like it, too, given the continuity of leadership. (And by the way, I did vote—look at the end of my comment.) That said, not even the Pinnacle-era AZCPA adds enough to meet WP:ORG. Raymie (t • c) 21:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Raymie: Sorry about that! Trevey-On-Sea (talk) 22:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG, WP:MILL. This was a briefly-existing charter school, one of thousands, that was de-chartered. Bearian (talk) 16:41, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:53, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

808 Audio[edit]

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

There doesn't seem to anything notable about this company. There are only three references in the article. The first one is a review of their headphones and doesn't really talk about the company at all. While the second one is about a product release and doesn't really talk about the company either. Which WP:NCORP considers trivial coverage. Whereas, the last reference is just a brief mention of them wining a CES award. Which also isn't notable according to WP:NCORP. I couldn't find in-depth coverage about them in a search either. Adamant1 (talk) 03:14, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 07:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 07:34, 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Samir Abdulhadi[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. Could not find any substantial sources on him that are reliable or independent.

I also attempted an Arabic search using a Google translation of his name, and the name might be wrong or he might have a common name, but most of what I could find were about different men (an architect, a politician, etc), with nothing substantial about him. Whisperjanes (talk) 02:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 02:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 02:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 02:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 02:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 02:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. -Hatchens (talk) 03:19, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 11:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL and WP:GNG. Ordinary business person, far from notable. Bearian (talk) 16:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, after extended time for discussion, although nothing that there is a definite trend towards keeping. Clearly, the article still needs work, or it will likely be subject to further deletion efforts in the future. BD2412 T 01:33, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Off-air pickup[edit]

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

Ladies and gentlemen,

I hope that I am not acting in haste: I came across this article by a strange chance and, finding it unsourced for its nearly fourteen years of existence, decided to investigate the term. I find it used nowhere in any scholarly literature; when these exact words do occur in documents, e.g., by the FCC in the order presented, they do not appear to refer to the arrangement written of in the article. A few articles do contain links to this article, but the links seem inaccurate: KHOU contains an instance of the phrase "over the air" which could better direct one to the article on terrestrial television; the term in question is also there invoked as part of an incident that took place in 2017, long after the signals described in the article supposedly ceased to be used. In short, the phrase "off-air pickup" would seem to be little used & little understood, perhaps too obscure for inclusion in the encyclopedia; I leave this to hands & heads more experienced in these matters than I, and I regret if this first nomination of mine be a waste of anyone's time or attention. Twozenhauer (talk) 08:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "acting in haste"? An article that has been out there since 2006, completely unsourced? I vaguely remember hearing this term bandied about decades ago. It never occurred to me to wonder what it was. But it does seem to refer to broadcasting on some level. And also seems to be connected in this way: "Off-air pickup and remote control operation"

Commission, United States Federal Communications (1978). "Federal Communications Commission Reports: Decisions, Reports, and Orders of the Federal Communications Commission of the United States". U.S. Government Printing Office.

However, this article reads like reference material. If it can't be sourced, I'm not sure what use it is to Wikipedia. — Maile (talk) 16:34, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - Thank you for your comment! It is good to read that someone has heard the term, and I agree with your assessment of the paper cited. Some further research finds that Wikipedia has articles on broadcast relay stations and the like; perhaps some history could be added to these articles to the good effect of covering the sort of thing related in the article under examination. There is scholarly literature on related topics, to be sure! Also, I have looked further into the articles that link to "Off-air pickup": two are obscure stations in Wales, outside the scope of any AT&T cables; another is a defunct TV station in Ohio, one WGSF, for which one can find attestation but whose article cites only teachers at a neighboring high school, a personal page, and an inaccessible link. Surely something like the phenomenon described existed, and, indeed, may have been fairly widespread, but, given the dearth of citations, one begins to wonder whether this exact term was ever used for precisely that: could it be that the article is the result of an anecdote or a misunderstanding? Twozenhauer (talk) 22:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Twozenhauer: I did a random search via HathiTrust, and there are numerous US government reports that mention this term. (search results). It looks like by the dates, that this technology probably went out of use with the arrival of the internet, and and more modern ways of accessing TV. Hard to say if this article is accurate. It might be, but it's unsourced, so there's no way to verify its content. — Maile (talk) 23:28, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a very good rabbit hole. This article is about three things, all related to the period of an incomplete national television network infrastructure in the U.S.: kinescope distribution of programming, relayed broadcast transmission, and the dangerous split-second art of local insertion. Roughly between 1951 when the networks first got access to a nationwide terrestrial system, and 1975 when the networks went to satellite. Unfortunately in a sweeping summary the author misses a lot of stuff & makes some poor connections. There were four networks in 1950, not three. Kinescope was once a primary means of distribution, not just for po-dunk towns on the fringes. There was another whole attempted network with content mailed to affiliates. The bit in the middle about relayed transmission comes closest to the supposed topic "off-air pickup" but is not technically clear or complete, and doesn't mention piracy. Not much here worth saving, and no obvious merge target. --Lockley (talk) 11:22, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you folks for your interest in this matter. I have looked into some of the government documents cited, and this would seem to be an actual term used in the industry, however obscure or inaccurately applied. But, following on Lockley's comment, maybe the term could be incorporated into articles on kinescope and the like. In anyone's opinion, how is it that the article got made? Is it the result of a misunderstanding but written in good faith? Intending only curiosity, not offense, I am a little confused, given the dearth of available citations, as to how anyone came across the term! Twozenhauer (talk) 02:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Twozenhauer:, most likely the original editor StanislavJ had personal experience, probably as a station engineer, maybe at small stations at the ragged fringes of the network. See their comments about individual east-coast stations here and here, as well as their creation of Sermonette and Indian Lord's Prayer after creating this one. I think they're describing job experience. That fits the content & the tone & the use of an old-school technical term. --Lockley (talk) 04:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed! He certainly seems to have extensive knowledge of the industry. I do not know whether he would be available for comment; his last activity was in 2017 and, before that, in 2010. Thanks for your help! Twozenhauer (talk) 05:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a legitimate, notable term from the early days of radio and, later, television industries. Its an important term to have defined in its own article because it relates to the history of many radio/television stations and cable television systems, as well as having a big impact on copyright and regulation (many of the government record mentioned above relate to court cases about how and when such signals can be rebroadcast). Sources are difficult to track down, but as WP:NOTTEMPORARY, some leeway should be given. I've added one source (as of this vote), and can devote some time locating others. I found ~300 mentions on WP:Newspapers.com to go through. -- Netoholic @ 02:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC) (edited)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs work, but the sources exist in the broadcast trade (about 250 results on worldradiohistory.com) and mentions in newspapers to demonstrate notability. There are likely others using different phrasing. I added a source showing that as late as 1977, 12 NBC affiliates depended on off-air pickups, some of which definitely were not zero-hop. Raymie (t • c) 04:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Does appear to be notable (echoing what others have said). Doesn't seem to be a particularly commonly used term nowadays per a quick WP:GOOGLE I just did, though. Still, a possibly useful article with some tidy-up. Skylar MacDonald (talk) 14:30, 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 redirect to BotCon. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 19:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3H Enterprises[edit]

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

The article hasn't had any references since at least 2014 and there doesn't seem to be anything notable about the company. Maybe one the comics it published is, but notability isn't inherited and this company lacks the in-depth reliable information it needs to pass WP:NCORP. Adamant1 (talk) 01:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:13, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:13, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article doesn't have a single reference and practically no independent coverage exists; does not meet WP:SIGCOV. Rainchecker (talk) 14:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to BotCon, which has quite a bit of background on the company. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Argento Surfer. WP:CHEAP and easy WP:ATD to take. -2pou (talk) 16:35, 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 delete. The title may be redirected at editorial discretion. Mz7 (talk) 21:18, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13cm[edit]

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

This publisher doesn't seem to be notable. The article only cites a single source. Which is an interview and therefore doesn't work for notability. Only two of it's published works have articles, both of which have extremely questionable notability, and I didn't find any in-depth coverage of the company in a WP:BEFORE that would help them pass WP:NCORP. Adamant1 (talk) 00:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Defunct developer that doesn't meet WP:N. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 19:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The name unfortunately makes it hard to look for sources, but I couldn't find anything in a quick google search, either. The article says it's one of Visual Arts' brands, so should be redirected to that.--Alexandra^IDV 09:46, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete sources are not enough to establish notability. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 19:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David H. Holtzman[edit]

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

It is difficult to determine whether the subject satisfies academic notability or general notability, because this article needs to be blown up and started over, consisting as it does largely of marketing buzzspeak. Almost unreferenced, with no references in the lede and no footnotes until three-fourths of the way through the article. Google search verifies that he exists and has the career described. We knew that; but it doesn't find significant secondary coverage.

The first sentence of the lede is syntactically valid and has no semantic meaning. The second sentence of the lede says "Initiatives he spearheaded have radically changed the way people interact with technology." That means that he had a major part in the implementation of the Domain Naming System, which is more relevant to the DNS than to him.

This article was written fourteen years ago, and in fourteen years has not been adequately sourced. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an overly promotional article. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotionalism and we need to rid it of promotional articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NOTRESUME. Barely found anything about him. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NOTRESUME. I can find almost nothing about him published in reliable, independent sources. It's all either self-published or WP:ROUTINE coverage. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 19:00, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 22:13, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Silent Screams. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 19:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When It Rains (album)[edit]

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

This is a questionably notable album. It only cites one review and the only other one I could find is from a WordPress blog. So it doesn't work. AllMusic doesn't have a review of it either. So, this appears to lack the in-depth reviews in multiple reliable sources that it would need to pass WP:NMUSIC Adamant1 (talk) 00:33, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:21, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Silent Screams: Barely found anything about the album. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 06:30, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as it lacks sourcing and doesn't appear to meet any WP:NALBUM criteria. Citrivescence (talk) 00:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Veronica Guardado[edit]

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

NN local city councilman, fails the GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. A handful of sources found, but all either namedrops or routine local coverage that does not provide significant coverage to the subject. Notability tagged for over a decade. Deprodded with the rationale "Local and "routine" coverage can be used; WP:AUD only applies to organizations," although AUD was not an element of the prod. Ravenswing 00:15, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 00:15, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 00:15, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination.--Mpen320 (talk) 04:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to low of a political position for WP:POLITICIAN and doesn't meet WP:GNG from what I can tell anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable --Devokewater @ 10:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Maywood CA is nowhere close to large enough to confer an automatic presumption of notability on its municipal councillors: at this level of significance, the bar she would have to clear to qualify for a Wikipedia article is not just the ability to verify that she exists, but the ability to demonstrate and source that she has a strong claim to being much more nationally significant than the norm for smalltown municipal councillors. But five of the six sources here are primary sources that are not support for notability at all, which is not how you get city councillor over the bar. Bearcat (talk) 11:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: What's the policy that says national significance is required for a WP:BIO? ~Kvng (talk) 15:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say national significance is always a base requirement for all biographies of humans — however, because city councillors are not accepted as all being "inherently" notable enough for inclusion, the test that a city councillor has to pass to get in the door is that he or she is significantly more notable than the norm for their role, by virtue of having attained some kind of prominence beyond just their own city alone. Bearcat (talk) 11:57, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a place with under 2 square miles, that has less than 30,000 inhabitants, and is in a county with over 9 million people where the largest city has well over 1 million inhabitants. People who are on city councils in a place this small are never notable unless it is for something totally unrelated to their position. To take any other positions would lead to doubling our currently almost uncontroable 1 million biographies of living people to 2 million with 1 million biogrphies of hyper local politicians alone.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:47, 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.

^ https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/english/movie-details/candyflip/movieshow/62017076.cms
^ https://www.cinestaan.com/reviews/candyflip-39723

[1] ttps://www.thehindu.com/entertainment/movies/the-film-candyflip-is-now-avilable-on-netflix/article26278303.ece

[2] ttps://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/english/movie-details/candyflip/movieshow/62017076.cms

[3] ttps://www.cinestaan.com/reviews/candyflip-39723

[1]

[1]

[2]