Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 June 18

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 17 June	19 June >

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. And salt. Sandstein 08:32, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leonid Afremov[edit]

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

Failing WP:GNG, WP:NARTIST. Possible WP:PROMO. None of the sources are truly reliable or independent. They appear to be blogs or - given how they are written - may be advertorial pieces closely linked to the subject. They are not suitable as independent verification of claims or alleged facts in this article. One would have thought there'd be an obituary at least in mainstream media in either Spanish, Russian or Hebrew. Other points have been made by other editors on the talk page of this article. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 23:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 23:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 23:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 23:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 23:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note I should have checked the logs before: the article has been A7'd twice and G12'd three times over the last 7 years. The G12's were for copyvios from the subject's web shop. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 00:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are a bunch of trivial mentions, some of which are self-published. He (weirdly) appears multiple times in fiction with phrases like "on the walls were paintings in the unmistabable style of Leonid Afremov." Let's face it, this guy is basically unheard of and has none of the typical markers of artistic success. Given the multiple A7 and G12 violations, my guess is that many mentions (like this self-published book mention) were paid or arranged placements. (I actually tried to insert another example from amarketnews.com but it triggered the spam blacklist!)ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hello, I’m from Buenos Aires, Argentina. I created the article last year. As for me, you can do whatever you think is correct with the page. I will just give my opinion in my best possible English. I’m an Afremov collector and I know very well his work. For every original artwork you probably have 600 reproductions or more. Afremov is a very well known palette knife artist. Just google “palette knife paintings” or “palette knife artists” and you’ll see many of his artworks on first pages. If he wasn't known enough, he wouldn't have wikipedia articles in 7 different languages. The artist was an extremely shy person, business was and is handled by his two sons (a very ‘particular’ business, I prefer not to give opinion on how sales are handled). Afremov never gave interviews, he was like an ogre, bad temper, but was extremely passionate with his work. You can see lot’s of videos of him working on his Facebook page. He has 312K followers. Lot’s of Hotels have his prints in rooms including Hilton. Lot’s of people have screensaver with his peaceful and colorful paintings. Once again, do whatever you think is correct with the article but I think he is enough known in the art market to keep him. Carsamar (talk) 05:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Carsamar: it's enlightening what you said about his work being in hotels. HIs website (I guess is is the studio that sells copies of hiss work) has an FAQ on what can be done with his paintings, for example: The bright and yet modest colors are perfect to set an atmosphere of contemplation in your study; It will serve as a good complement to the strict office style by contrasting the usual serious atmosphere. If you’re a hotel manager or a restaurant owner, you can decorate one of your halls with this painting. There is lots of text out there similar to this, but there is very little critical coverage of his work by reviewers or writers of books, magazines and newspapers. If no one has written at length about his art, he fails our notability tests, even if copies of his paintings might be in thousands of hotels and offices. Lastly, Facebook followers are of no value in determining notability, and the art market is extremely rarely used here in determining notability. When it is, it usually is because publications have written about the art market value. We don't care about the value, but we do care that people are writing about the artist in reliable sources. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:17, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Promotional article on a commercial production artist. Does not meet GNG or NARTIST guidelines due to lack of SIGCOV in reliable, independent sources. Netherzone (talk) 13:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone: Don't be unfair. You're stigmatizing the artist. What would be the problem if he has a commercial business? There are plenty of artists that make business with their artworks, indeed almost all artists. On the other hand, where do you you see a promotional article? And... Do you think an unknown artist would have Wikipedia articles in 7 different languages?

@Carsamar: Having Wikipedia articles in other languages is not a threshold criteria for English Wikipedia. Each language project has their own rules and guidelines for establishing notability. They are not necessarily compatible. Wikipedia itself is not sufficient to establish notability. The essence remains: there is nothing (that I have seen yet) that is independent, significant coverage in a reliable source - the base criteria for an article on English Wikipedia. I totally understand that you feel passionate about the artist since you are a collector as you say. I can see your dedication about the article given this is the very first articles you drafted in your sandbox shortly after you joined and waited patiently for over half a year until you made over 500 other edits on your other topic, Motorbikes, before publishing this protected article. Wikipedia has many people who are passionate about their work here - that's why rules are in place about thresholds for notability, conflicts of interest, etc. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 23:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jake Brockman: @Netherzone mentioned "Promotional article", now you say "conflicts of interest". I'm just a collector from Buenos Aires and yes you're right, I signed up more than a year ago, I wanted to create the article. I realized it was semi-protected so I started cooperating with Motorbike articles to reach 500 edits. Please tell me which part of the article has an advertisement or promotional message. I have nothing to do with Afremov business, indeed I disagree the way they do business (I personally had too many problems with the family while gathering my collection). I just admire the artist, that's all. Once again sorry for my English, article was written with the help of a native english friend. Please try to be constructive, not destructive. I invite you all to research more about Leonid Afremov and improve the article. Carsamar (talk) 02:48, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Carsamar: We've all researched him before !voting. And we have also seen hundreds of other artist articles. The fact is that he is a type of artist (largely commercial) who does not get much in-depth coverage. We don't count the things you have mentioned (Facebook, articles on other wikis, market success). We just count significant coverage in good publications. Conflict of interest was mentioned because if you have bought Leonid paintings and are collecting them, as you say, you are less neutral than those who have no relation to his work. All of these things are just facts and are not meant to be personal.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:37, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Carsamar: If you are as you say, "I’m an Afremov collector" then you have a conflict of interest WP:COI. If his work is in your collection, then you have a financial stake in it. Additionally, none of the article sourcing can be considered significant coverage in reliable sources WP:RS, they are blog portfolio sites, not serious critical/analytical art historical articles or reviews in major newspapers, books or art magazines. He does not pass criteria WP:NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone: I'm a private collector, not an art gallery. Why do you assume the purpose of a collector is to make money? That is quite offensive. If I had a collection of Honda motorbikes and I created an article of a new model it would be conflict of interest too? That's the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard. Do whatever you wish to do with the article. I've given my point of view. I don't agree with many things I've read but I understand you're following rules here.

AN IP pretends impersonates u:Carsamar

*~~Keep~~ Leonid Afremov is a well known and prolific artist. It's a shame the pedants here are so eager to dump him for such and such silly reasons.Carsamar (talk) 20:05, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Striking second !vote. @Carsamar:, you can only !vote once.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:52, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies, the above was an IP pretending to be Carsamar.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per Jake Brockman‘s rationale & per Netherzone. Celestina007 (talk) 20:49, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One of the sources, famouspainters.net claims that "The Museum of Modern Art (MOMA) calls Leonid Afremov as one of the greatest and well-known modern impressionists of our time." There must be some other museum of modern art that I'm not aware of than MoMA or SFMOMA then. wallsauce.com sells wallpaper. wooarts is a blog. Vexations (talk) 13:21, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all these reasons, and because totally creeped out by the fact that after I did a search for this artist, I'm getting targeted Facebook ads saying "Leonid Afremov passed away. Now his family sale the collection, prices start at $149" Fishy fishy fishy. Theredproject (talk) 17:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And Salt given the persistent recreation noted in the first comment (by the nom)Theredproject (talk) 17:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note Can someone please explain me what is going on? I didn't vote a second time. How can that happen? Someone should check that. I'm just a collector, gave my point of view and that's all. My life won't change if the article exists or not. Please someone explain me how someone can write something signing with my username. Thank you Carsamar (talk) 18:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HI. It is good you noticed that. An IP editor was pretending to be you! Perhaps an admin can block that IP for impersonation at AfD. I'll collapse the entire comment.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ThatMontrealIP: Thank you Carsamar (talk) 19:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I was the first to tag the article and it bugs me how I'm now followed on Facebook and Amazon by what appears to be an advertising campaign that looks to use wikipedia to bolster it. InvictaHOG (talk) 18:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think Salt may be appropriate here, given a) the comments about about marketing campaigns, b) the recent additions of promotional material (now reverted) and c) the general contentious nature of this artist's business, fans and detractors, as can be found by searching "Leonid Alfremov scam" (his work was banned from Reddit, which is quite a feat... they are pretty open minded), and d) the two A7 and three G12 deletions in the past seven years of the article. It is not going to hurt to force someone to go through AFC or draft if this article is indeed ever recreated with valid sources.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 08:33, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ZF Sachs. Sandstein 08:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nivomat[edit]

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

This article appears to be sourced from promotional sources. A search turns up little that would suggest sufficient notability (WP:N) for a stand-alone article, though perhaps the material could be incorporated into the ZF Sachs page. Ganesha811 (talk) 12:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ganesha811 (talk) 12:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ganesha811 (talk) 12:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything that suggests that this particular tradename is notable enough for inclusion. --Sable232 (talk) 23:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to ZF_Sachs#Today's_product_range: The system is described in "Hydropneumatic Suspension Systems" which could provide a reference, but a merge into the company article may the best consolidation option. AllyD (talk) 07:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is accurately using a term that many in the public domain will likely equate with a class of products, typified by this particular product. For example, a facial tissue, whether made by Kleenex or not, is referred to by the public as 'kleenex'. The use of 'nivomat' in a similar context for the type of product which merges the several components of the automobile suspension into one component is indicated. This does not mean that the Nivomat is the exclusive product under this general heading, but it does appear to be warranted - I offer as exhibit A the fact that I only became aware of the product when they were mentioned generically in a discussion of load-leveling on a mini van web site. This particular product appears to be a good candidate for identification as the representative of the general class of load-leveling struts/shocks. To merge this as is suggested, would dismiss that categorization and probably hide it from the users. Jaydubyah43 (talk) 10:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jaydubyah43, I believe that may be the case, but if so, it should be attributed in reliable secondary sources. I didn't see any when I searched, but perhaps I wasn't looking in the right places as I'm not very familiar with automotive issues. If you can find some, do go ahead and add them to the article. Ganesha811 (talk) 12:40, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I agree with AllyD that the best course of action is to merge with ZF_Sachs#Today's_product_range, there aren't enough references to merit a stand-alone article. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 23:40, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Skelters[edit]

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

No international coverage, no reliable sources - seems like another advertisement article on Wikipedia. I think deletion is the only way. Glucken123 (talk) 15:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:59, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:59, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - No evidence that WP:BEFORE was followed and good evidence that it probably wasn't as this was part of a mass-nomination of dozens of articles about Greek culture over the course of a hour. Plus "international coverage" is not a requirement. FOARP (talk) 16:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

6 Spotify listeners, zero reliable sources, no internet presence. Glucken123 (talk) 16:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 one "keep" does not address the reasons for deletion given by the nominator. Sandstein 08:53, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Place Within[edit]

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

Looks like an advertisement - no notability, no sources. Glucken123 (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Glucken123 (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - No evidence that WP:BEFORE was followed and good evidence that it probably wasn't as this was part of a mass-nomination of dozens of articles about Greek culture over the course of a hour. FOARP (talk) 16:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Google them and let me know if you find anything about this band. Glucken123 (talk) 17:03, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Little participation (same 2 as the many others nominations by Glucken)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not even the slightest hint of notability. No coverage from sources of any kind, besides a couple of self-made presentations/registrations at forum- or blog-like sites like this one [1]. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 06:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TheImaCow (talk) 04:44, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Earthbound[edit]

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

Zero sources, no notability, exaggerated claims. Glucken123 (talk) 15:31, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Glucken123 (talk) 15:31, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Glucken123 (talk) 15:31, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - No evidence that WP:BEFORE was followed and good evidence that it probably wasn't as this was part of a mass-nomination of dozens of articles about Greek culture over the course of a hour. FOARP (talk) 16:02, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Zero notability here as well - do not confuse them with the American Band Earthbound. Glucken123 (talk) 16:44, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep Some clues of notability exist per their connection to The Last Drive. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 08:32, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Troubles (band). Sandstein 08:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sen'taur[edit]

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

There is very little information about this EP that I can find. There is no significant coverage or RS, and I don't think it's notable- it's even tough to find anything on the band itself. JohnmgKing (talk) 11:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 11:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 11:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 11:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I also doubt the notability of the band too. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the band itself may well have some coverage in print media of the time like NME, given that the core of the group was essentially the same as Hope of the States, who received a lot of "next big thing" UK media coverage in the early 2000s that sadly never translated into sales, but it's likely there would have been interest in the new incarnation of the band. I'm inclined to redirect this EP as an easy solution (it's certainly not notable by itself for an individual article), but I wouldn't object to a "delete", seeing as it was only ever available from the band's concerts and website, and never available in record stores. Richard3120 (talk) 17:41, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Troubles (band): Barely found anything about the EP. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:54, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not sure I see a clear consensus between the alternative option of redirecting (since such a redirect could be valid) or the proposed deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:56, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Color The Era[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 22:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 22:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 22:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly speedily. Autobiography with no indication that he meets WP:NMUSIC. --Finngall ^talk 22:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:30, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Pangyarihan[edit]

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

Non-notable musician - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 22:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 22:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly speedily. Autobiography with no indication that he meets WP:NMUSIC. --Finngall ^talk 22:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about him. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:17, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G6. The correct forum for deletion of pages in the Wikipedia namespace would be WP:MFD, but the content of the page can already be found at Color The Era which is itself the subject of a separate AfD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Color The Era. Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:42, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Color The Era[edit]

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

Shouldn't be in the WP namespace, but is also fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 22:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 22:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Richmond Printmaking Workshop[edit]

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

WP:NORG/WP:NONPROFIT. Local group/Mitzi.humphery article. Graywalls (talk) 21:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 21:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 21:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 21:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NCORP fail. A COI promotion of a community organization. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is to keep such a list in principle, and that sourcing and context issues can and should be addressed through editing. Sandstein 06:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of entertainers who performed in blackface[edit]

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

Long-standing high-impact WP:BLP issues for c150 people with no WP:RS. I have temporarily canned all unsourced individuals to mitigate. Unlikely to be able to obtain sources, and high-traffic article given current global dialogue around racism. Further if such a list is needed, it feels like we would be better citing on individual articles and using a category. Darren-M talk 20:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Darren-M talk 20:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we certainly don't want Fatty Arbuckle suing us for libel. Your blanking was indiscriminate and not targeted to BLP issues as you removed numerous long dead entries. Many of the entries you removed also cited the work in which they performed in blackface, so I'd recommend just undoing that edit completely for more careful pruning. On the merits of the nomination, I see no basis for the claim that sources will be unlikely, given that only notable entertainers would be included. And (as noted in what you blanked) many of the performances are themselves in notable works. So keep. postdlf (talk) 21:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Postdlf: Thanks for your thoughts. Everything that was stripped was unsourced, of which many are likely to have had BLP issues - there were several high-profile living individuals in the list. Other entries even if not BLP are still clearly long-standing RS issues - many of the entries on that page have sat there without a source for years (and indeed, an article-level CN tag had been on the page since November 2008). I don't agree the blanking was indiscriminate on that basis, as I don't think it helps us to have unverified content sat there - especially when long-dead figures (e.g. Robert Paden-Powell) are currently receiving significant public and media attention for their historic views towards race. Best, Darren-M talk 21:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a post hoc rationale to me. You invoked BLP, which only justifies urgent removal of unsourced, contentious material about the living and recently dead. Otherwise, if it is fixable, we fix it; if we believe it is not, then we remove it. You made no such determination for the dozens of entries you removed within the 14 minutes between this edit and your previous one. postdlf (talk) 23:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if there are RIS to support a statement that a performer used blackface, what is the BLP issue please? Mccapra (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The BLP issue is because blackface has long been considered insulting. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mccapra: The BLP issue is that the overwhelming majority of names on the list (prior to my pruning) are unsourced, as illustrated in [this diff]. I sought revdel to remove the BLP issues and was instead directed to AfD. Best, Darren-M talk 21:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I’m fine with removal of entries lacking RIS but that’s not an argument for deletion of the whole article. Mccapra (talk) 22:01, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the parallel argument is whether there's a reason for this to be a list at all. A category seems to be a cleaner way of maintaining it going forward. I don't disagree with your logic though - it's at AfD because I was suggested to do so. Darren-M talk 22:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We don't categorize performers by performance. And it's moot given that, but categories would be harder to maintain because there's no way to directly source the assertion a category tag makes, either with a ref tag or an annotation explaining or describing the performance (see WP:DOAC). postdlf (talk) 23:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep, cleanup for verifiable. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a sourcing nightmare, and in the case of living/recently deceased, it's a BLP nightmare too. There's unlikely to be any independent, third party, reliable sources to confirm a number of performers actually performed in blackface. The list (prior to being pruned substantially) relied mainly on original research undertaken on a primary source, that is to say, an editor saw someone in a television program or film and then decided to add them to the list. That's in breach of several of our core policies, such as original research and verifiability, and invites significant risk of the incorrect actors being identified. The next issue is related to BLP but also of relevance to a number of the deceased performers, and would probably be best considered as undue weight and neutrality. It's highly likely that we will be able to source allegations of blackface use for a number of entertainers, but the majority of the recent coverage will be criticism for blackface performance, which risks turning the list into a list of people who have been criticised for blackface usage, rather than a neutral article on entertainers who have performed in blackface. I'd also question the utility (and in many ways, the fairness) of only listing entertainers who we can reliably confirm have performed in blackface, it's an incomplete list we may never be able to complete in the absence of reliable third party source material. Nick (talk) 22:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no need for lists to be complete, that's the whole reason we have Template:Dynamic list. It also isn't OR to give a straightforward description of a primary source, such as "Al Jolson performs in blackface in The Jazz Singer". That it is something that is now criticized is also not a reason for removing that information; that it was so common among mainstream performers at one time is also justification for documenting its breadth. postdlf (talk) 23:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would say that {[tl|Dynamic list}} was introduced in early days when there was no clear understanding what wikipedia is. Today it is pretty much clear that the overwhelming majority of lists will never be complete. Staszek Lem (talk) 05:20, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because deletion discussions usually turn on the question of notability, and this subject is clearly notable. The arguments for deletion are pretty easily satisfied by careful editing.
- #1: There are unsourced entries on the list. Answer: Remove the unsourced entries, as the nominator has already done.
- #2: Unlikely to be able to obtain sources. Answer: There are definitely sources about people who have performed in blackface. We will include the entries that we have reliable sources for.
- #3: There are high-profile living entertainers on the list. Answer: If there are reliable sources that say that those high-profile living entertainers have performed in blackface, then they should be on the list. It's not our fault they performed in blackface.

It seems to me like the people urging deletion are overly concerned with protecting entertainers who have performed in blackface and would prefer it if people forgot about it now. If an entertainer performed in blackface and there are reliable secondary sources to confirm that, then they're added to the list. If they haven't, or if they have and there aren't any reliable secondary sources, then they're not added to the list. I agree that there is a potential for malicious vandalism on this page, but vandalism can be reverted quickly, as on any other page. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree exactly with Toughpigs. Mccapra (talk) 04:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Toughpigs. The unref'd entries have been removed. Here's the diff prior to that, if you wish to pick an unsourced name and try to find a cite for the individual. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Absolutely this page must be kept. If we try to pretend that blackface did not exist, then we have followed Orwell down the memory hole. Do we really want to risk sliding down the slippery slope that leads to Holocaust deniers and people who claim the Civil War was started by the North and was NOT about slavery? Cadavra8Cadavra8 (talk) 22:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Toughpigs. - DoubleCross (‡) 00:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep regardless of sourcing problems, which can be addressed, especially if editors will actually view the works in question, no legitimate argument has been made for deletion. This is no case of TNT. --Bejnar (talk) 19:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a violation of the general performance by performer criteria and ideas. The reason for performing in black face are very divergent. They very a huge amount and end up being very culturally specific. This comes off as an attempt to attack people without considering a lot of very specific cultural issues, and even the nuances of a list will not work when the mere accusaiton is wrongly taken as default proof of evil intent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that the page makes that claim at all. In fact, the text at the top acknowledges that there are several reasons that someone might be on the page, including "satire or historical depiction of such roles". Right now, the text with each list item only describes where and when the performance took place. I think it could also be expanded with further context on each item. — Toughpigs (talk) 14:52, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't categorize performers by performance. There's no such restriction or guideline for lists. postdlf (talk) 14:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Passes WP:AUTHOR after reviews of another one of her works were found. (non-admin closure) Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 00:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mardy S. Ireland[edit]

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

Cannot find sources, fails WP:GNG. Her Reconceiving women book seems to be cited quite a bit. I'm unsure that it's enough to satisfy WP:NACADEMIC requirements though. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 20:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 20:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 20:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 20:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough coverage of her works to make her notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I expect WP:NAUTHOR might apply. I've found 3 reviews of her "Reconceiving Women" book.[2][3][4] I didn't yet find any of her other book, however. Citations on "Reconceiving Women" are also respectable. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With some searching I got it up to four published reviews for one book and three for the other. I think that's enough for WP:AUTHOR. Some cleanup may be necessary. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NAUTHOR given the reviews uncovered by David Eppstein. The solid citations of one book help support, and overall the case is reasonably strong. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 22:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Academy of Learning College[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Previous AFD resulted in a keep because degree-granting institutions were deemed notable as long as existence could be proven, however, criteria is now different. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 20:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 20:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 20:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia:College and university article guideline#Notability makes clear, an institution of higher learning must still pass the general notability guideline. It is also appropriate to consider the guidelines at WP:ORG. "Academy of Learning College" has since been renamed "Academy of Learning Career College" and known as AOLCC. The first source is a press release from AOLCC, and thus is neither independent nor reliable. The second is a reworking of a press release from Launchlife, the parent company for AOLCC, and thus is neither independent nor reliable. The second source also only mentions AOLCC in passing as an asset of Launchlife. LaunchLife International Inc. is the franchisor for Academy of Learning Career College, Pitman Training, and School Is Easy Tutoring. So AOLCC is not so much a set of campuses, as a set of franchisee locations. For what it is worth AOLCC is not Better Business Bureau accredited. As ZoomInfo (a blacklisted site) indicates at "LaunchLife International Inc. - Overview, News & Competitors" there is nothing there. An extensive Google search found nothing but related websites, directory information, and blog and facebook entries. The one exception was the mention in South Africa Law Reports where a franchisee was estimating how much it would cost to set up an Academy of Learning college. There is no basis for notability. --Bejnar (talk) 20:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:58, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Friends Forever (upcoming film)[edit]

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

Completely fails WP:GNG, WP:NFILM ‍and notability tag since November 2017. ~ Nahid ^Talk 19:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ~ Nahid ^Talk 19:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom. Donaldd23 (talk) 19:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although the film was released in 2018, I have yet to find a review in English. Unfortunately although I tried searching in Bengali, I did not find a review there either. Dhakatimes24.com did mention in 2016 when the song from the film was released. Neither the director nor the main stars appear to be notable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Not to be confused with the Hindi film Dosti: Friends Forever. --Bejnar (talk) 21:47, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 21:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:22, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dna (Greek musical collective)[edit]

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

Another orphan with no sources, zero notability and a long list of exaggerated claims. Deletion is the only solution. Glucken123 (talk) 15:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Glucken123 (talk) 15:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - No evidence that WP:BEFORE was followed and good evidence that it probably wasn't as this was part of a mass-nomination of dozens of articles about Greek culture over the course of a hour. FOARP (talk) 15:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:57, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is not an orphan, it has links from at least three film articles, but there does not immediately appear to be much coverage of the DNA group. For example it is not mentioned at all in the seminal work Paradosiaká: Music, Meaning and Identity in Modern Greece by Eleni Kallimopoulou, although many groups of this period are, but that may not be DNA's style of music. They have not won any major awards, and in fact their nominations have only been in quasi-notable at best competitions. I find passing listing of them in film descriptions, like here. I find mention of them in related websites, blogs, imdb, youtube, music vendors and other such non-RS sites. For those searching in Greek, the two gentlemen are Μιχάλης Νιβολιανίτης and Αλέξανδρος Χρηστάρας. There is no article on this group in the Greek Wikipedia. So in conclusion they lack coverage and hence fail WP:GNG. --Bejnar (talk) 23:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete From their own label website it seems to be a small record label related to this "collective" (if there is an actual collective); so, the article looks to me an indirect promo piece, since there is lack of sources on them. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 08:24, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Note that the article appears to be the product of users with COI: account Bestiale24, account Musicdrama, and JohannesAugustin (= Vassilis Mazomenos). ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 08:24, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Owusu A. Kizito[edit]

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

Seems to be native advertising for a businessman/entrepreneur sourced to very promotional sources that read like undisguised press releases. Atlantic306 (talk) 19:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Atlantic306 (talk) 19:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Mccapra (talk) 21:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, this is a promo piece. Most references are to related sites/documents. Some are obviously published PRs. No claim to notability and insufficient coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 01:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:20, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:18, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Dabilz[edit]

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

This article lacks reliable sources, with a majority of its citations coming from Steve Dabilz's personal website. ZLEA _T\^C 19:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ZLEA _T\^C 19:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ZLEA _T\^C 19:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ZLEA _T\^C 19:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. Mccapra (talk) 19:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This person is famous and notable enough.

Arnobrac (talk) 16:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThis person's name has been mentioned in different newspaper articles and this person looks notable.

Zahir1959(talk) 17:12,19 June 2020 (UTC)

Note: Struck comments from suspected sockpuppets. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ishita1119. Mz7 (talk) 23:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. One reference is a primary source and the others have only passing mentions on the subject. – ².O.^Boxing 19:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does appear to fail GNG, no other useful sourcing found in my Google searches. Waggie (talk) 19:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:GNG. It is unclear whether his last name is "Dabliz" or "Dabilz", both are used in the article. The title uses "Dabilz", but the award was given to "Dabliz". I have corrected some obvious grammatical, semantic and spelling errors. But as to notability, I found no claim other than the AMUST award, which by itself does not provide GNG notability. The "Virgin Mary" tempest-in-a-teapot does not either. There is a lack of adequate significant coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 01:58, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:58, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Keating[edit]

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

Lack of coverage in independent, reliable sources. Current references are mostly interviews/blog posts. MapleSoy (talk) 19:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable writer. The sourcing is not of the quality to demonstrate actual notability by passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All the sources appear to be related, or otherwise unreliable. There does not appear to be much independent coverage of Andrew Keating at all. The relationship between Keating and former Thumbnail Press (now Cobalt Press) is unclear, but the photo prominent on the Thumbnail Press facebook page is by Andrew Keating. Regardless, the article fails to make a claim of notability for Keating, and the lack of significant independent coverage means Keating fails WP:GNG. --Bejnar (talk) 02:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, per WP:SNOW, WP:HOAX, WP:TE and WP:DE (including provocations by author). El_C 07:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Brazil Judiciary scandal[edit]

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

This article, created by a blocked user on pt.wiki due to obvious use of Wikipedia for political purpose, is a hoax. There is no such "scandal of the Brazilian judiciary", but decisions that displeased the Brazilian government and its supporters. All sources included in the article are statements by lawyers or supporters of President Bolsonaro and his family. For example: the phrase Due to these attitudes and other scandals, such as releasing criminals unjustly, most of Brazil currently consider the judiciary to be an enemy of democracy and a threat to the freedom of speech is totally false, since 84% of the population supports the passing of a law against fake news and the popular approval of the Supreme Court reached a historic high. Furthermore, the "activist" Sara Winter was not arrested as a way of "limiting her freedom of expression", but because she and her group tried to set fire on the Supreme Court's building. I strongly suggest deleting this article. Érico (talk) 19:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the "...but because she and her group tried to set fire..." the source of this is "Dário do Vale", a very tendencious and partial website, in "...but decisions that displeased the Brazilian government and its supporters..." displeased is the large part of the population for obvious reasons that involves the past previously the current government and not exclusively supporters of the current government. In the "...since 84% of the population..." is a possibly biased research by the opposition there are more important things in Brazil than worrying about satirical fake news, a clear political persecution.. Robben (talk) 01:17, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"I strongly suggest deleting this article." it sounded like a fear on your part and censorship.Robben (talk) 02:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's great that don't debate and censor without reaching a consensus, it's a beautiful example of false democracy. "Remember, address the arguments, not the person making them." WP:Consensus Robben (talk) 00:36, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely biased article. DanGFSouza (talk) 19:14, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally agree after checking the sources. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The judiciary trying to actually do their jobs against someone not willing to respect their rulings or ability to be in office is not a scandal. Nate • (chatter) 21:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a delusional hit job against the judiciary that is nothing more than an extreme POVFORK. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:HOAX Zoozaz1 (talk) 02:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pihu (short film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM. All the refs are video viewing of the short, perhaps indicating its an advert. scope_creep^Talk 19:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant coverage, just pre-release promos and the film itself. --Bejnar (talk) 02:24, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Cools[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 18:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to be native advertising with most of the references based on the commentary of the company's chief executive so does not pass WP:CORPDEPTH imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:22, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a less than stellar performer. The cited articles are all from 2012, 2013, with the initial launch of the project. The sources fail to provide the corporate depth required for notability. --Bejnar (talk) 02:53, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

APPolonovGang[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Failure to launch. Possibly too-soon. scope_creep^Talk 18:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails notability requirements for a band. It would be nice if they had a hit. --Bejnar (talk) 03:07, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LC Singh[edit]

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

non-notable business person, chock full of PR puffery and no coverage. Claim to fame is being CEO/founder of a non-notable company. See also Nihilent Praxidicae (talk) 18:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This Ecomonics Times article is the only one in the article that appears to meet WP:RS guidelines, though it looks a bit churnalish. Given the other contributions of the creator of this article, I strongly suspect this was undisclosed WP:PAID.OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I understand the temptation to make money in some way from Wikipedia, making money off of creating article subverts our process and we need to stand against it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — No sufficient coverage in reliable sources to substantiate/prove notability. Celestina007 (talk) 19:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Mccapra (talk) 21:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTLINKEDIN. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:11, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Verzeo[edit]

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

Non-notable PR puffery. Startups are rarely notable and this one is no exception. All the sources are passing mentions, press releases or puffy interviews and funding announcements. Praxidicae (talk) 18:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. D4iNa4 (talk) 08:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:fails WP:NCORP. Several of the sources cited are press releases except Indian Express [[5]] that gives what can be considered as independent significant coverage but part of this article appears to be lacking in editorial independent due to the choice of some of its words. Another source that gives significant coverage is Inc42.com [[6]] that tags its headline 'exclusive' but some part of its article about Verzeo read like a press release. Ugbedeg (talk 11:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inteliment[edit]

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

Fails NCORP. Sources in the article are mostly primary or unreliable. I was unable to find any better source to establish notability. M4DU7 (talk) 18:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 18:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 18:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 18:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've noticed the advertising language and dead links throughout most of the sources (1, 2, and 3), which may possibly mean that the statements are false. I've also looked at some potential advertisement sources such as this one. I do not think any of the sources in the article are reliable, and the article should be deleted. Koridas ^talk? 21:58, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) IceWelder [✉] 09:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saffire Corporation[edit]

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

A non-notable video game company from the olden days. There are some sources on the studio, such as:

Some news bits, partially rumours, about Saffire or what it develops: [7][8][9][10][11][12]. All of these are from Nintendo World Report but none of them goes into detail for the topic.
There is this interview from IGN, but it, too, only discusses a game, rather than the company.
Lastly, there are also two sources with passing mentions: [13][14]

Overall, these sources do not satisfy "significant coverage" as required by WP:GNG, and since the company is defunct, it is unlikely that there are more sources to come. IceWelder [✉] 18:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 18:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 18:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Pusey, Roger (1997-12-24). "UTFC helps Saffire Corp. grow like a house a-fire". Deseret News. Archived from the original on 2020-06-20. Retrieved 2020-06-20.
Christiansen, Barbara (1999-01-20). "Saffire Corp. brings video game development to P.G." American Fork Citizen. Archived from the original on 2020-06-20. Retrieved 2020-06-20 – via Newspapers.com.
Strickland, Tosha (1999-12-12). "Gamemaker produces innovative fun" (pages 1 and 2). Daily Herald. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2020-06-20. Retrieved 2020-06-20. – via Newspapers.com.
Romboy, Dennis (1995-02-22). "Cygnus Takes Place Among 'The Stars'". Deseret News. Archived from the original on 2020-06-20. Retrieved 2020-06-20.
"Cygnus Multimedia Gets Recognition - and a New Name". Deseret News. 1995-10-25. Archived from the original on 2020-06-20. Retrieved 2020-06-20.
Fattah, Geoffrey (2001-06-04). "Utah firm to make game for Lego toy". Deseret News. Archived from the original on 2020-06-20. Retrieved 2020-06-20.
Haddock, Sharon (1999-02-03). "Saffire Corp. puts realistic moves in lot of video games". Deseret News. Archived from the original on 2020-06-20. Retrieved 2020-06-20.
Horiuchi, Vince (2004-05-07). "Utah firm has a big stake in 'Van Helsing' game". The Salt Lake Tribune. Archived from the original on 2020-06-20. Retrieved 2020-06-20.

Sources with quotes

Pusey, Roger (1997-12-24). "UTFC helps Saffire Corp. grow like a house a-fire". Deseret News. Archived from the original on 2020-06-20. Retrieved 2020-06-20.
The article notes:
When Saffire Corp. was in its infancy in 1993, the office in Pleasant Grove got flooded every time it rained. Today the only flooding at the company is the rush of telephone calls requesting the production of more home video games.
Leslie W. Pardew incorporated his company five years ago and started doing artwork for video games produced by other companies. When the flood-prone office in Pleasant Grove became too small, he moved the operation to 776 E. 930 South in the Utah Valley Business Park in 1995.Now with a complete studio for the production of video games, chief executive officer Pardew's goal is to increase the size of the company so it can own the videos it produces and also distribute them.
Charles Moore helped Pardew start the company, but in 1994 Pardew bought him out and Hal Rushton, former vice president of product development for Sculptured Software (which has been acquired by Acclaim) in Salt Lake City, became Pardew's partner. Rushton is the company president.
Over the years the two men have tried to form a group of talented musicians, artists, designers, writers, programmers and testers so they can produce the best home video games possible. The company now has 45 employees who produce videos for large distributors like Nintendo, Time Warner, Accolade, Activision and Midway.
Christiansen, Barbara (1999-01-20). "Saffire Corp. brings video game development to P.G." American Fork Citizen. Archived from the original on 2020-06-20. Retrieved 2020-06-20 – via Newspapers.com.
The article notes:
From a field in west Pleasant Grove arise some of the world's scariest and best known monsters.
They are the creations of Saffire Corp., one of the world's premier video game development firms. ...
Growth is still quite evident as there are about 50 highly talented employees, from a beginning of six employees working out of the Orem basement of founder Lew Pardew.
...
In 1998 alone, Saffire released "James Bond" and "Odd World Adventure" for Gameboy, "Animaniacs of Ten Pin Alley" for PlayStation, "Bio F.R.E.A.K.S." for PlayStation and Nintendo 64, "Rampage" for Nintendo 64, and "Starcraft: Brood Wars Expansion" for PC.
...
They are seeing progress from their early days, when they had to bid on development of a particular game. As an unknown company, that was how they got their start. Since that time, they have evolved to the situation where companies such as Nintendo, Blizzard Entertainment, GT Interactive and Midway have sought their expertise in game development.
Strickland, Tosha (1999-12-12). "Gamemaker produces innovative fun" (pages 1 and 2). Daily Herald. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2020-06-20. Retrieved 2020-06-20. – via Newspapers.com.
The article notes:
If you are an avid video game player and find yourself constantly being asked by your children to let them take a turn, then you might know that Utah is home to some of the largest game creators in the United States. One in particular, Saffire residents in Pleasant Grove.
At any given time Saffire may receive a call from Nintendo, Sony, or Hasbro to create a new video game. We're not just talking about Pac-Man or Frogger-type games, we are talking about depth, such as military groups, anti-terrorists, hostages, negotiations, and rescues.
Romboy, Dennis (1995-02-22). "Cygnus Takes Place Among 'The Stars'". Deseret News. Archived from the original on 2020-06-20. Retrieved 2020-06-20.
The article notes:
A burgeoning video game graphics and design firm called Cygnus Multimedia Productions Inc. finds itself in the same place as the fictitious character for which it's named.
Cygnus was a mythical king of the Ligurians who was changed into a swan and placed among the stars.The 2-year-old company just signed a deal to develop a game based on the motion picture "Casper" being produced by Steven Spielberg and Amblin Entertainment. The game will be for the new high-end Sega 32X game system, said Les Pardew, Cygnus president.
...
Pardew started the business in his Orem home recognizing the need for quality artwork in the computer graphics industry. Studios that specialized in graphics for video games didn't exist at the time. The demand for games was increasing, but the pool of qualified computer artists was shallow.
Pardew and a partner assembled a group of talented artists and began to train them in video game art. Cygnus was incorporated November 1993 with 14 artists.
"Cygnus Multimedia Gets Recognition - and a New Name". Deseret News. 1995-10-25. Archived from the original on 2020-06-20. Retrieved 2020-06-20.
The article notes:
Cygnus Multimedia Productions has been named one of "America's 50 Hottest New Small Businesses" in the October issue of Entrepreneur Magazine.
Selection was made on sales growth figures supplied by Dun & Bradstreet. Cygnus ranked 20th and was the only company from Utah listed.Ironically, Cygnus has just changed its name. Its new name is Saffire Corp. Due to the company's explosive growth over the past year, Saffire will be moving next month to 772 E. Utah Valley Drive in American Fork.
Fattah, Geoffrey (2001-06-04). "Utah firm to make game for Lego toy". Deseret News. Archived from the original on 2020-06-20. Retrieved 2020-06-20.
The article notes:
An American Fork company — called Saffire — has been making video games for the likes of Nintendo and Playstation since 1993. Over the years, the company's 120 programmers have introduced such things as "The Animaniacs" and Tom Clancy novels to the video-game world.
Haddock, Sharon (1999-02-03). "Saffire Corp. puts realistic moves in lot of video games". Deseret News. Archived from the original on 2020-06-20. Retrieved 2020-06-20.
The article notes:
The company is also working on a personal computer expansion version of "Starcraft: Brood Wars" and "Xena: Warrior Princess" for Titus games.
...
After five years of sort of a quiet existence in American Fork after its founding by Orem resident Les Pardew, Saffire is now promoting itself to the public. Longtime game developer Hal Rushton is company president.
Horiuchi, Vince (2004-05-07). "Utah firm has a big stake in 'Van Helsing' game". The Salt Lake Tribune. Archived from the original on 2020-06-20. Retrieved 2020-06-20.
The article notes:
It wasn't long before the makers of the new "Van Helsing" video game were turning into the very night creatures the vampire killer battles in the movie.
For the past couple of months in the game's 15-month development cycle, there were more than a few programmers at American Fork video game company Saffire who were working into the night, glassy-eyed and in a dazed stupor, to get it done in time to coincide with the movie's release today.
...
But they did it, and the result is a video game for the Sony PlayStation 2 and Microsoft Xbox that is remarkably similar to the look and feel of the summer action movie. They also created a version for the Nintendo Gameboy Advance. All three land on store shelves today.
...
To successfully capture the spirit and design of the movie, Saffire's developers early on spent weeks working with part of the film crew. They also hung around the Los Angeles set and even employed Jackman for a day to record voice work.

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

Cunard (talk) 11:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard, thank you for your input. Interesting enough, most of these never showed up in my search (might be a geolocation thing). I took a look at all sources you listed and, indeed, at least #1 and #4 would seem to be significant coverage. Notably, all of these sources are local newspapers (which is often discounted when considering notability), and a large portion is again routine coverage, which applies to at least #3 and #5-8. Regardless, using what details there are on the company itself in the sources you provided (as well as two further I found underway), I rewrote the article. Granted, it is no longer a stub, but you find this to be a satisfactory article? IceWelder [✉] 14:40, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IceWelder (talk · contribs). Thank you for your substantial improvements to the article. I think the "History" section does an excellent job explaining the company's history. The article can be further expanded by incorporating more information from the sources such as:
1. "The company now has 45 employees who produce videos for large distributors like Nintendo, Time Warner, Accolade, Activision and Midway."
2. "They are seeing progress from their early days, when they had to bid on development of a particular game. As an unknown company, that was how they got their start. Since that time, they have evolved to the situation where companies such as Nintendo, Blizzard Entertainment, GT Interactive and Midway have sought their expertise in game development."
3. "In 1998 alone, Saffire released "James Bond" and "Odd World Adventure" for Gameboy, "Animaniacs of Ten Pin Alley" for PlayStation, "Bio F.R.E.A.K.S." for PlayStation and Nintendo 64, "Rampage" for Nintendo 64, and "Starcraft: Brood Wars Expansion" for PC."
4. "The 2-year-old company just signed a deal to develop a game based on the motion picture "Casper" being produced by Steven Spielberg and Amblin Entertainment."
5. About the Van Helsing video game: "But they did it, and the result is a video game for the Sony PlayStation 2 and Microsoft Xbox that is remarkably similar to the look and feel of the summer action movie. They also created a version for the Nintendo Gameboy Advance. All three land on store shelves today. ... To successfully capture the spirit and design of the movie, Saffire's developers early on spent weeks working with part of the film crew. They also hung around the Los Angeles set and even employed Jackman for a day to record voice work."
Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience says:
The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary.
Deseret News says, "It is Utah's oldest continuously published daily newspaper and has the largest Sunday circulation in the state and the second largest daily circulation behind The Salt Lake Tribune." I consider the Deseret News to be a regional or statewide newspaper. The Deseret News meets the requirement that "at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary".
Cunard (talk) 04:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for contributions. I will look into expanding the article further as I can, but for now, I guess notability is given. I'm closing this. IceWelder [✉] 09:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cunard has proven without a doubt this passes the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 14:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marti Wright[edit]

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

Likely doesn't meet WP:JOURNALIST 17jiangz1 (talk) 16:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. 17jiangz1 (talk) 16:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. 17jiangz1 (talk) 16:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:44, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 17:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I did a fairly thorough search of both the web and some newspaper databases, and I found no relevant sources (except for one very trivial mention of this person being a witness to a crime). This person fails both WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST. Ealuscerwen (talk) 18:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete local broadcast journalist are not inherently notable. We lack the coverage of the level that would establish notability here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks significant coverage, fails WP:GNG. --Bejnar (talk) 23:22, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:46, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James, California[edit]

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

This appears to be another point on the railroad, but with a number of wrinkles. First, it appears that the line itself was built in the last 1950s to early 1960s, as no topo map before the late 1960s shows anything here; this is confirmed by an aerial photo from 1951 which also shows no rail line. There is, according to GMaps, a "James W P Road" which meanders about and eventually winds up at a trackside building with the foundations of several other structure around it; I thought it was some sort of manufacturing concern, but Whitepages.com thinks it's a residence. There is definitely a passing siding here, though. Anyway, searching is unsurprisingly hopeless for the most part. It's pretty clear, though, that this isn't a town. Mangoe (talk) 17:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Mangoe's exhaustive search. The rail line was indeed built midcentury, as the Oroville Dam forced abandonment of the old line. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems even more obscure than the usual rail siding or station. I don't see any hope of notability. Glendoremus (talk) 00:01, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 one "keep" does not address the reasons given for deletion. Sandstein 09:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Night On Earth (band)[edit]

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

Unknown band and no reliable sources. I think deletion would be justified here. Glucken123 (talk) 15:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Glucken123 (talk) 15:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Glucken123 - the mass nomination of dozens of articles over the last hour does not inspire confidence that the process in WP:BEFORE is being followed. From what I can see you've spent maybe a minute or two on each page. You're supposed to check whether there are references out there which might save the page before doing this and I do not believe you can have done that this quickly. FOARP (talk) 15:51, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Twenty articles from 15:19 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonis Fostieris) to this one at 15:45, so 1 minute 18 seconds per article.--Eostrix (talk) 15:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep - No evidence that WP:BEFORE was followed and good evidence that it probably wasn't as this was part of a mass-nomination of dozens of articles over the course of a hour. FOARP (talk) 15:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: With just 31 followers on Spotify and zero articles about the band is certainly not a reason to have encyclopaedic presence. It's up to you to decide. You might have confused them with Jarmusch's film. Glucken123 (talk) 16:02, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spotify stats are *NOT* the relevant measure. Follow WP:BEFORE before you nominate for deletion. FOARP (talk) 16:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:31, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since you added your procedural keep, I am telling you that there are no available sources on this band. A single Google will convince you. If you are wrong about this, can you remove your vote and let others decide the fate of this article? Glucken123 (talk) 12:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing notable here. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 23:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more evaluation of actual notablity/sourcing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 17:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not the slightest sign of adequate sources available to support this band meeting the notability guidelines. --Jack Frost (talk) 07:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:45, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Susmita Biswas Sathi[edit]

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

Trivial mention of the subject and sources fail WP:RS. Topic doesn’t comply with GNG, ANYBIO and lacks CCS. Looks like a CV and authors have WP:COI. ~ Nahid ^Talk 17:28, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ~ Nahid ^Talk 17:28, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Refbombed with junk. Mccapra (talk) 20:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A very obvious and shameless violation of WP:NOTRESUME, built upon unreliable sources at other sites where the same has been attempted. It's unclear what this article is even trying to promote, unless she is currently looking for a new job. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 00:52, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a rather promotional article about a non-notable person. Java Hurricane 08:01, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable person. Her involvement with the Mrittupuri: Kill Zone film appears to be a one-off venture on her way to becoming a run-of-the-mill architect. A promotional article becoming more promotional as editors try to keep it from being deleted. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:09, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Estrada[edit]

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

Appears to not meet WP:NHOCKEY. Raymie (t • c) 17:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 17:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 17:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY criteria. Flibirigit (talk) 08:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mithila Farzana[edit]

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

Doesn’t comply with GNG, ANYBIO and lacks CCS. ~ Nahid ^Talk 16:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~ Nahid ^Talk 16:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ~ Nahid ^Talk 16:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-noatable broadcast journalist with insuficient coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Iron Cross (disambiguation). -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Cross (comics)[edit]

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

SIA with only one working link. Neither of the two redlinks look notable. As I understand the comics MOS, "foo (comics)" falls against the article naming MOS for articles about specific characters, so this base title would not be helpful for the one remaining entry. Hog Farm (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Iron Cross (disambiguation) as {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hecate (disambiguation). -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hecate (comics)[edit]

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

SIA with only one working link. According to the Comics WikiProject MOS (I forget the exact shortcut), (comics) at the end of an article falls against the comics naming conventions MOS. Delete as a broken SIA. Hog Farm (talk) 16:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 16:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 16:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 16:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hecate (disambiguation) as {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:55, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Spalding (football coach)[edit]

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

Football coach who spent his entire career on non-notable coaching positions. Written pretty much like a resume. Fails NFOOTY and GNG. --BlameRuiner (talk) 16:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 18:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 18:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 18:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable football coach.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article reads OK but when you'd rill in to it he is simply not notable. Giant Snowman 12:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - never played or managed in a fully pro league, so would need to pass WP:GNG in his own right, and he doesn't seem to.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:01, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not seem to have held a role which would meet notability requirements. Dunarc (talk) 20:53, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Paul Smith[edit]

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

The only office he has ever held is a Central Committeeman position with the Democratic Party of Illinois. This position is one of two people elected from each congressional district. The other is a committeewoman. I believe as a state party board member who was not the Chair, he failed notability as a politician. I also do not believe any of his campaigns for other public office meet the GNG criteria nor does anything from his activist or legal career. This will be posted to the Illinois and politician deletion streams. Mpen320 (talk) 16:36, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete seems to be a minor local politician, fails WP:NPOL and there isn't in-depth coverage of him, fails WP:GNG as well. It looks like most of his coverage is in local publications, and that isn't even signifigant. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete party delegates from a specific congressional district, especially since there are multiple do not meet default notability guidelines, and nothing else suggests notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. SportingFlyer T·C 16:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Literally nothing stated in the article is an article clinching notability claim — people do not get Wikipedia articles for being candidates in political party primaries, for being the president of local community organizations, or for being a member of a political party's organizing committee, and neither the depth nor the geographic range of the sources are impressive enough to make him enduringly or significantly more special than everybody else who's done the same things without getting Wikipedia articles for it. Bearcat (talk) 22:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because he is only mentioned in ancillary ways in articles about other subjects, he has no claim to notability.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Local politician. Serving as a committee member of the Illinois state Democratic Party is not enough to confer notability. Sources in the articles are all from local publications and no in-depth sources are present. LefcentrerightDiscuss 21:11, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 NGC objects. Sandstein 09:06, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of NGC stars[edit]

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

Fails WP:LISTN. No sources appear to specifically document objects in the New General Catalogue that were later shown to be ordinary stars. The specific grouping of NGC stars is not described anywhere; the only sources are all-inclusive lists of all NGC objects that label these misidentified objects. (I should also add that List of NGC galaxies does not exist, probably for the same reason, but that is not an argument in itself.) In that sense, this list's entries duplicate those in List of NGC objects with no indication of separate notability for this classification; sources would only support noting these errors in the already-existing lists. ComplexRational (talk) 16:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. ComplexRational (talk) 16:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ComplexRational (talk) 16:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @ComplexRational: this was discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomy#NGC_stars where the agreement was to create the list (although I really need to fill in the values. I've just been lazy lately). Sam-2727 (talk) 17:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My personal reasoning goes: Many NGC objects aren't notable/have enough information to merit a stand alone articles, but given the extreme interest of the objects to the astronomy community, lists are notable. This article mainly exists as a compliment of the main list: i.e. a subset of it (since the main list is split over eight pages with over 7,000 entries so the "erratum" in it are hard to find). LISTN aside, it's merely a subset of a larger list for readability purposes. I would support a change to "erratum" since not all are stars though. Sam-2727 (talk) 17:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sam-2727: Thank you for the link. The question here is then, does LISTN supersede that discussion, your line of reasoning, and/or readability? The details mentioned in this list would be equally useful in the main lists of NGC objects (in which case, I'd be fine with a merge if this information is not already there), and I still don't see a strong enough reason as backed by reliable sources for a separate classification. Let's get a few more opinions. ComplexRational (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Passing LISTN can be sufficient but is not necessary. Why do you think it's a helpful approach here? postdlf (talk) 19:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Postdlf, (if I'm understanding you correctly) I'm citing LISTN because "List of NGC stars" is one of many plausible subcategorizations of "List of NGC objects" (already covers much of the same content), and it states that the specific categorization should be unique or notable. If the reason were to describe multiple NGC objects that are not independently notable, we already have that done (even if split across eight pages, but that's out of real necessity rather than alternative categorization), so something should be notable or particular to this categorization, as demonstrated by reliable sources, to justify keeping a separate list like this with the same content. The entire NGC is notable as a set, but that doesn't appear to be the case for this particular subset. What would you propose instead?

Re one other point above, I should note that the existing lists are sortable, so one searching for NGC stars would not be hard-pressed to find them in there. ComplexRational (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LISTN proves more useful if the list's classification is unusual or unexpected, such that we'd go out of our way to confirm that sources are using it. If it's an obvious or typical way of organizing information, then LISTN doesn't really contribute anything because we don't need a special argument to justify it (see instead WP:LISTPURP). Here the argument for it seems to be that it groups one of the major types of objects together (and not a novel or overly specific type) that would otherwise be spread across eight separate lists. Would readers interested in this topic find a benefit in that? "They can search through the eight separate lists" is not a very good counterargument. postdlf (talk) 21:19, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair point—this grouping is not unreasonable, though I still am not sure if having both parallel groupings is a good idea. We'd then have to decide where to redirect all the entries not notable for standalone articles, and draw a line somewhere so that we do not categorize NGC items under every conceivable scheme. And LISTN exists, in principle, to decide which standalone lists should exist. ComplexRational (talk) 21:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some sources to demonstrate general discussion of the list: [15] (not a reliable source, but goes in depth to talk about errors in the catalogue). [16] in the paragraph "The NGC is not perfect — far from it. It is awash with mistakes," and then mentions NGC classification errors. here is a specific list referring to errata (you have to download the file to view the errata, but it mentions them on the webpage). Sam-2727 (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the links, but these still are not sufficient to demonstrate notability of this collection. None of them focus specifically on stars; a one-sentence mention of errors or all-inclusive list identifying stars alongside galaxies, clusters, and nebulae are not significant coverage of this subset. And you mention that one of the sources is not reliable, so it should definitely not be used as the basis of an argument for discussion of this list and its notability (regardless of the fact that it is also all-inclusive). The fact that there are only passing mentions in exhaustive lists is part of what I am referring to in my original rationale. ComplexRational (talk) 18:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ComplexRational, I see your point. I would support a merge now. Sam-2727 (talk) 00:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article reads like a directory. Lorstaking 04:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of NGC objects. Praemonitus (talk) 23:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per above discussion. Sam-2727 (talk) 00:06, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Nom comment) Discussion leading me to lean more in favor of a merge with List of NGC objects (to consolidate everything in one place and because the subset isn't independently notable); the only question then is what to do with the redirect. ComplexRational (talk) 01:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bonnie Tyler discography. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 16:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sayonara Tokyo[edit]

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

The article does not meet the notability requirements as per WP:MUS. The song did not chart worldwide, and there is no literature about the song online. I think the article should redirect to Bonnie Tyler discography Skyrack95 (talk) 15:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bonnie Tyler discography - I agree with the nominator's proposal here, which by the way probably could have been done already without too much controversy. Since this was a non-album single, there is no album article to redirect to, so the Discography article is the way to go (and it is already listed there anyway). As for the song itself, it is not notable just because it was released as a single, and notability comes with chart placement and significant media coverage, none of which happened for this song. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 00:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bonnie Tyler discography: Barely found anything about the song. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted under G4 (recreation) and A7 (no assertion of notability). -- Luk ^talk 16:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Modos[edit]

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

Note: this was CSD-tagged by Amkgp as a recreation of a previously deleted article (see previous AFD). The CSD tag was removed by the author after a little expansion. I don't remember the old version well enough to know if that really applies here, but I think the original reason for deletion still holds: this hasn't become any more notable in the time since the last deletion discussion. I suggest salting after deletion as well. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt as per above ~ Amkgp 💬 15:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 15:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alliance of British Drivers[edit]

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

I don't think this satisfies WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Most of what I found were just trivial mentions. Adam9007 (talk) 14:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse: GNG and ORG so WP:FAILN ... richi (hello) 14:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:14, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Def not notable either by Wikipedia rules. Personally never heard of them. BBC, Sky and ITN always speak to the aa or RAC.User:Davidstewartharvey

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SKCIRT#4; nomination by a banned user (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 17:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sab Kichu Bhene Pare[edit]

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

The book is not notable at all to be kept as an Wikipedia article, the book's author is not so notable also; the given references of this book are not strong enough to prove that the book is notable, please read Wikipedia:Notability (books), and see if this book meets up the criteria(s) of having an Wikipedia article or not. UdiJay (talk) 14:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Because:

The book has not won a major literary award.
The book has not been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable or significant motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement.
The book is not, or never has been, the subject of instruction at two or more schools, colleges, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country.
The book's author is not so historically significant that all of the author's written works can be considered notable.
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 June 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, appears notable. Note that the nominator is a very new account repeating an arguement made by a sock in the last AfD, I have filed a report in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/জঙ্গলবাসী.--Eostrix (talk) 15:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Braund[edit]

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

A creation by sockpuppet of User:Novonium, with no substantial edits by other editors. Proposed for CSD A7, but this was removed with edit summary "deprodding: his "Ruling Roman Britain" was widely reviewed, and he seems to be an acknowledged expert on both Roman imperialism and Greek colonisation". The subject may be notable but the article should not be allowed to stay as it was created by a block-evading sockpuppet. I seem to have missed this in checking the user's contributions and nominating for CSD G-5. It is also quite possible that the article is wildly inaccurate: see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Awkward for another Oskosst contribution. PamD 14:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. PamD 14:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination corrected in a couple of points. PamD 14:14, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete his notability as an academic is less than clear. We put in blocks for reasons, people should not be able to create new articles to evade these blocks. We should not leave in articles that were created against our administrative controls. That undermines any effectiveness of these controls.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I deprodded because I thought a fair case could be made for notability, but block-evasion puts a different complexion on things. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 18:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no prejudice against recreation, per WP:DENY. I note however that Braund appears to pass WP:AUTHOR with multiple published reviews of his books on JSTOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice against recreation, per WP:DENY; it wouldn't be hard to start over from scratch here and make a better page than what currently exists. XOR'easter (talk) 05:53, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prateek Parmar[edit]

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

Lacks WP:GNG, only social networks links, no reliable sources CommanderWaterford (talk) 13:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 13:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think you can dismiss the sources as "only social networks" though I agree that it could and should be better sourced. I accepted the draft aware that it is a WP:COI created article, conscious that it would need to fight its corner in a deletion process. I have decided to stay neutral in the discussion. Fiddle Faddle 14:01, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- GNG notwithstanding, this should have been declined as failing WP:BLP sourcing. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps you are correct. If so then AfD will remove the issue of multiple future re-creations, likely with autobiographies. Fiddle Faddle 15:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG and WP:NBIO/WP:NCREATIVE with no reliable independent in-depth sources, in this case in-depth in particular. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NACTOR. Consists of un-reliable, sponsored gossip web sources and YouTube ref that is generally not considered as reliable as per WP:YTREF ~ Amkgp 💬 15:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 15:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. non-notable, failing WP:GNG, WP:ENT. --Gpkp [u • t • c] 07:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bitterblue. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 14:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where Were You[edit]

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

The article does not meet the notability requirements as per WP:MUS. The song did not chart worldwide, there is no literature about the song, and the entire contents of the article could be summarised in the article Bitterblue - the song's parent album. Skyrack95 (talk) 13:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:37, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:37, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bitterblue: Barely found anything about the song. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bitterblue - Just a song that is not notable outside of its parent album, so the title can be redirected to there. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 02:11, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Alexander Douglas-Hamilton, 16th Duke of Hamilton#Marriage and children. There is consensus that this article does not pass notability requirements. Redirect to the article on her husband ({{R from spouse}}) per WP:ATD-R. (non-admin closure) Dps04 (talk) 15:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Douglas-Hamilton, Duchess of Hamilton[edit]

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

I am having trouble finding reliable sources that discuss her beyond her relationship to her husband. Am I wrong in assuming that this article exists only because she is the wife of someone famous? Surtsicna (talk) 12:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 12:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 12:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to her husband. Doesn't meet the requirements of independent Wikipedia:Notability. DrKay (talk) 18:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alexander_Douglas-Hamilton,_16th_Duke_of_Hamilton#Marriage_and_children, along with as many other redirects as are needed ... actually as a redirect geek I've just created the ones she needs as they weren't already there, but will still be valid as redirecting to her mention in husband's article. PamD 08:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being the wife of a notable at this level does not grant default notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Alexander_Douglas-Hamilton,_16th_Duke_of_Hamilton#Marriage_and_children: there is not enough information for independent notability. Globbett (Spl4t Sh3rm4n) 19:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:16, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Veda Kumar[edit]

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

Although the article has several reliable sources, they fail to talk about the subject in detail. Mostly it's direct speech. The subject fails WP:GNG Less Unless (talk) 11:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 11:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable activist lacking significant coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TheSaugatDevkota has been blocked as a sock, and their input has been disregarded. Sandstein 09:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Better Chitwan[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG. No independent reliable sources. Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hy usedtobecool, I am new at wikipedia. Can you explain me why the artcile is being listed for deletion. my intension isnot promote any brand. I just read some non profit organization wikipedia artciles they are also same as mine, can you elaborate why it's being listed for deletion. regards Saugat — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSaugatDevkota (talk • contribs) 05:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TheSaugatDevkota, I have answered at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Central College of Vocational Training Pvt. Ltd. WP:Otherstuffexists is not a valid argument, we need to remove other bad articles, not add more to the pile. Please review WP:NORG and read WP:AFD for details on why your article may qualify for deletion, and how to participate in the deletion discussion, respectively. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be lots of coverage in multiple sources, though I cant read them. Our coverage of Nepal is very weak. I think we should keep this.Rathfelder (talk) 09:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rathfelder "...though I cant read them."—I would bet that is by design. A decent chunk of the booming internet "news" business is in English, even in Nepal. This article has ~~not one~~ (;tldr read this which is in English, and is used in the article), even though among the Nepali sources it's got refspam fitting every description.

Looking at the current revision (permalink), [11] is the homepage of a local FM station, [8] and [24] are allevents.in, I don't know what that is, everyone can see for themselves. [4] and [19] are from Better Chitwan itself, even those don't have much in the way of content. [7] is routine coverage from a reliable source about the organisation's annual meeting. [6] is its clone in non-RS, [5] is its clone in a local paper's online portal (lists 3 editors and 4 reporters), [21], [22] and [23] are the same story about flower-farming done by Saagar Karki (RS, spam, local-RS). Only [20] a "news website" with one editor connects the flower-farming with the organisation. [18] is from the same source as [5] and all it says is "Better Chitwan organised a program on World Wetlands Day". It goes on about the value of wetlands, but that's all it has to say about the organisation. [9] is in English, [15] is the same kind of story in an worse source but with 91 students, [14] is the same in a worse source but with school bags instead of winter caps. [16] is again one of those internet "news website"s with a registration number and nothing else, the content is an ad about upcoming event (it's presented as news, but it's advert). [12] and [13] are literally the same kind of sources, same kind of coverage, also the same story. [17] goes nowhere for me (stops at the site's homepage; site is for a local FM station), [2] is a photo feature from what looks like a legit local paper; the content is "Better Chitwan [did the gardening stuff]" and nothing else. [10] looks like a legit local paper too, the content is "Better Chitwan organised a program called "Wow woman and her story"." The coverage about the organisation is literally just that. [3] is in English, and a highly recommended representative reading. It gives the exact taste of what I meant when I said the coverage of Better Chitwan stops at a sentence, while the story goes on about something else. It is also a representative of the mushrooming adsense and news business in Nepal. It also gives a taste of advert-like content in these "news" sites which one can tell just by reading them, that there is no way that literally anyone couldn't get published in them anything that they wanted. [1] is the only source that is anywhere near acceptable. It's from an RS and is about half a SIGCOV. Though it is from an email address with a name and picture, the fact that it's in a national paper and has content that could be added to Wikipedia does mean something. If there were one additional decent SIGCOV, an unambiguously independent one, that might even be enough for a stub, considering it is Nepal.

There are two issues here. One is the booming internet spam/news-site market in Nepal. There are literally dozens of so called "news portals" where one could get anything published. If we started allowing them for notability considerations, we'd really go to shit as a credible source of knowledge worth knowing, real soon (We already allow a lot of them for WP:V even in GAs). Second is the fact that, in Nepal, NGOs are more likely to be businesses than philanthropy. Being on Wikipedia still means something. We should not be legitimising NGOs that have not been legitimised by RSes in the country, or we'll only contribute to the corruption in the "philanthropy in the third world" business.

These are the facts on what the sources are and what the sources have. The rest is up to the community. It is taxing to fight this fight when there isn't even one other person to verify the claims I make to back me up on my analysis, and after all this work, the community still has only my word for it. So, this will probably be my last comment on this AFD. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 19:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now I had added many citations from reliable sources like Ekantipur, OSNepal, and many more. And there is no intension to advertise any brand, is it still subject of deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSaugatDevkota (talk • contribs) 08:57, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SpinningSpark 16:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Surya Group[edit]

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

No indication that this conglomerate is notable. M4DU7 (talk) 14:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 14:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 14:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - Nomination shows no indication of WP:BEFORE, checks for WP:NEXIST sources. The nomination appears to be based only on the present status of the page - this is not sufficient for a decision to delete, the nomination must also show that they have looked but found no other potential sources to make a good argument for deletion. I see coverage in Business Standard and The Hindu of the establishment of a large factory, and coverage on Prime.RU of their operations in Russia. FOARP (talk) 08:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:FOARP. Nope, I have done a thorough BEFORE. The first two news articles are about Surya Roshni Limited a notable conglomerate that has absolutely nothing to do with Surya Group. I don't know how reliable that Russian source is. On a related note, the CEO of Surya Group, Ravi Navlani was arrested last year in Mumbai for fraudulently claiming to be the CEO of India's largest company Reliance Industries [17], so I hope you understand my skepticism about the existence of this conglomerate and the possibility that these Wikipedia articles are being used to con people. M4DU7 (talk) 12:46, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, but since there was no statement about your WP:BEFORE in the nomination, nor about the other existing Surya company, this was an obvious point to raise. Flipping to Redirect toSurya Roshni Limited - there is a real, existing Surya Group that is called this in reliable sources, and this article should redirect to that. FOARP (talk) 13:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As some sources refer to Surya Roshni Limited as "Surya Group", a "Delete and redirect" close seems reasonable as per FOARP's comment. M4DU7 (talk) 18:30, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, I've AfDed Surya Roshni Limited. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 14:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Habib Ahmad[edit]

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

Fails to pass WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. No credible citations are available. ScottHastie (talk) 10:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ScottHastie (talk) 10:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ScottHastie (talk) 10:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the article is a biography, it has nothing to do with WP:NCORP. Being a professor and VC at a national university, he likely passes WP:NACADEMIC, which supercedes GNG. Also, someone should look into nominater's contributions, specially the reckless AfD participation. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 10:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is a person, so NCORP is not relevant. From his google scholar profile with an h-index of 32 he easily meets WP:NACADEMIC criteria 1 (and possibly other criteria as well).--Eostrix (talk) 11:01, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The case for WP:PROF#C1 is borderline, but as head (vice-chancellor) of an over-100-year-old major institute of higher education (apparently a significant public university in Pakistan despite the "college" name), he appears to pass WP:PROF#C6. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 14:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ohud Hospital[edit]

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

Fails to pass WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. No credible citations are available. ScottHastie (talk) 09:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ScottHastie (talk) 09:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. ScottHastie (talk) 09:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a major hospital in Saudi Arabia and is cited in many studies, including Habib, Fawzia A. "Evaluation of Periodontal Status Among Saudi Females with Gestational Diabetes and its Relation to Glucose and Lipid Homeostasis in Ohud Hospital, Al Madina Al-Munwarrah". ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. National Institute of Health., "Patterns of ophthalmic emergencies presenting to a referral hospital in Medina City, Saudi Arabia". sciencedirect.com., and Alemam, Aisha Mohammed. "Prevalence of Myopia among Children Attending Pediatrics Ophthalmology Clinic at Ohud Hospital, Medina, Saudi Arabia". hindawi.com. Journal of Ophthalmology.. The hospital is also mentioned on the official website of the Saudi Arabian health ministry: "247,000+ Emergencies Served by Ohud Hospital- Madinah". moh.gov.sa. Ministry of Health (Saudi Arabia). 22 November 2018.. Yes, the article needs to be improved with added citations, but deletion is not a substitute for cleanup. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 18:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidently, this hospital dates from 1405, so it is historically notable. I added a ref for this. -- Talk to G Moore 13:35, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aerial Phenomena Enquiry Network[edit]

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

"The Aerial Phenomena Enquiry Network (usually shortened to APEN) is an unknown group of investigators". Couldn't agree more, but the article does go on to reinforce this by having no inline sources and a couple of fringe books that no library I can find, has copies of. As far as I can tell the only person who ever talks about this group is Nick Redfern. Guy (help!) 09:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Obvious hoax. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 11:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Waskey, Andrew J. (2014). Levine, Timothy R. (ed.). UFOs. p. 908. {{cite encyclopedia}}: |work= ignored (help) Mention, but not significant coverage. fiveby(zero) 11:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~, yes, this is a fringe topic, and probably an invention of ufologists, but that doesn't mean it is not notable. I can't understand the noms claim that the sources are "fringe books that no library I can find, has copies of". According to Worldcat, Redfern's book is held in numerous libraries including,
- Devon Library Services, UK
- Jacobs University Bremen, Germany
- Universitätsbibliothek Marburg, Germany
- Friedensau Adventist University, Germany
- Universität St. Gallen, Switzerland
- American University of Malta
- Portland Public Library, US
- American University of Nigeria
- Norwich University, Kreitzberg Library, US
- Vanier College Library, Canada

There are many more, that is just a selection. Jenny Randles book does not seem to be so widely held, but nevertheless Worldcat is showing it held in many UK libraries including Plumstead, Wandsworth, Hillingdon, Aylesbury, University of Winchester, Birmingham, Worcester, Winchester, and the Channel Islands.

These are fringe authors and need to be used with caution, but the books come from reputable publishers. Redfern's book is published by Invisible Ink Press. Randles book is published under an imprint of Hachette. SpinningSpark 11:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck my keep. On reflection, I did not pay enough attention to the quality of the sources and got sidetracked into the irrelevant issue raised by the nom of whether or not they were held in libraries. SpinningSpark 14:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In order for a fringe theory to be notable it needs to receive significant coverage from reliable independent sources, not just proponents of the theory. I'm just not seeing that level of coverage from sources outside of ufology circles. –dlthewave ☎ 12:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a mention by Jacques Vallée, but agree with Dlthewave, not enough significant coverage for an article. Have tried to find enough for some content in the Berwyn article, but Lynn Picknett is the best source found, so probably a no. fiveby(zero) 14:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also looked in vain for some WP:FRIND source that could justify a sentence or two at Berwyn Mountain UFO incident or UFO conspiracy theory or some similar article. Aside from the too-brief/zero-context mention in Timothy R. Levine's book, there is nothing available. APEN has simply failed to gain notice outside the bubble of ufology. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:37, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence whatsoever of notability, no inline sources (the best possible sources I could find were unreliable, being two pseudoscience woo books written by established fringe-pushers), and even the article itself mentions that the "organization" might be a hoax. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The last citable media mention dates to 14 years ago when the article was created, proving it has not had a lasting or notable impact on Ufology. Interesting coincidence: Saucer Smear publisher and prankster James W. Moseley also self-identified as "Supreme Commander." 5Q5|^✉ 13:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- With that information, I'm tempted to suggest a very limited merge to Mosley's article. Is that reliably sourced? SpinningSpark 15:13, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's just an ironic coincidence that Moseley used that title on the masthead of his newsletter Saucer Smear since the 1970s. There's nothing, even in fringe sources, that ~~IDs~~ suggests Moseley as the Supreme Commander of APEN. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to Spinningspark, there appear to be numerous experts on Moseley online that can be contacted, including jimmosely.com, to inquire if he ever admitted involvement in APEN or ever used the alias "J.T. Anderson" (Supreme Commander) in any of his writings or interviews. If that can be established, I agree that a merge to the Moseley article would be appropriate. So to anyone interested, I would save the article content and leave it an open investigation. 5Q5|^✉ 12:40, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per dlthewave Sgerbic (talk) 05:49, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:G12. Primefac (talk) 15:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Luca Cazal[edit]

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

Lacks in current state WP:MUSICBIO, has not been the subject of *multiple*, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the subjkect itself. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - G12. Clear copyvio [18][19]. --Jack Frost (talk) 09:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per User:Jack Frost. --Xannir (talk) 13:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note - The article has been speedy deleted by Primefac. --Jack Frost (talk) 14:19, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: If you wouldn't mind wrapping this up? Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 14:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't notice it was AFD'd. Thought there was a bot for this, but since I'm here... Primefac (talk) 15:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is a weak feeling around this article that I interpret ultimately as a lack of consensus. Recommend waiting a minimum of 3 months, though 6 or more might be better, given the recent debut of this program before any potential renomination. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:18, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At Home with GMA Regional TV[edit]

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

routine news program DGG ( talk ) 05:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I did a Google search for this programme, and a few reputable articles turned up, including its relation with similar programme GMA Regional TV Live!. If someone can expand the article and provide references that satisfy WP:TVSHOW, then I say Keep, but if not (because since the broadcast started on 1 June 2020), I say go ahead and delete it. --Bernejay (talk) 06:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draftspace I suggested to move it to draftspace, citing the fact that the article had insufficient cited references. Movies Time (talk) 13:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep per reasons by Bernejay and Superastig. Movies Time (talk) 11:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft space. The article is poorly sourced.TheHotwiki (talk) 14:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: The only source I found is about the show's launch. Since it's been on air for a week, more sources are expected in the near future. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: In a race towards the weaks, and some feeling we should be getting new sources, a relist seems legitimate. Please remember to note any new sources that come out
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 09:37, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lubelska coal mine[edit]

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

The only source cited makes it clear that this was only a planned project rather than an operating mine. I couldn't find much more information, but this is more recent and on p22 still makes it seem as if it is looking for investment, rather than in operation. SmartSE (talk) 09:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Simply being a planned mine wouldn't be fatal to this article if it had received significant coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject, but there is no evidence of such coverage - www.lubelcoal.com is clearly not independent of the subject. Fails WP:NCORP, WP:GNG. FOARP (talk) 11:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Nuke. Article 95% wrong, even with numbers (outdated and misapplied). The article creator was clueless: It is Ukrainian project and has no relation to Lublin, but to Ukrainian village Lyubelya within the Lviv-Volyn coal basin. And it is not a single mine, but 2 operating and 2 planned. The source cited mentions Poland because, among others, Poland provided help. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, particularly Staszek Lem.--Darwinek (talk) 00:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 03:22, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thumbay clinic[edit]

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

Fails to pass WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. No credible citations are available. ScottHastie (talk) 08:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ScottHastie (talk) 08:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. ScottHastie (talk) 08:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant coverage in independent, reliable sources is demonstrated by the Khalej Times and Gulf News sources already linked in the article. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:08, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. As a side note, nominator is kindly pointed to WP:BIAS for why it might be harder to find GNG for topics in far off non-English speaking lands... (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Farwaniya Hospital[edit]

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

Fails to pass WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. No credible citations are available. ScottHastie (talk) 08:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ScottHastie (talk) 08:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. ScottHastie (talk) 08:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sourcing in the article is absent, but this is a major Kuwati hospital and searching shows that sources are readily available for this hospital of over 1,000 beds (they recently underwent a 1 billion dollar expansion to add 938 beds: [20]). --Eostrix (talk) 09:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A government owned hospital. Passes WP:GNG and within this scope of WP:HOS. Though an expansion is required. Nathan811 (talk) 16:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 03:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jahra Hospital[edit]

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

Fails to pass WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. No credible citations are available. ScottHastie (talk) 08:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ScottHastie (talk) 08:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. ScottHastie (talk) 08:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sourcing here for the stub is not great, but searching for Jahra hospital Kuwait one sees plenty of sources. The hospital itself is several decades old and has over 1,000 beds: [21].--Eostrix (talk) 08:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A government owned hospital. Passes WP:GNG and within this scope of WP:HOS. First and foremost, the nom must get enlightened with regards to Kuwait's healthcare system before applying an AfD.Nathan811 (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: An expansion is required for this page.Nathan811 (talk) 17:02, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)} 15:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dar Al Shifaa Hospital[edit]

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

Fails to pass WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. No credible citations are available. ScottHastie (talk) 08:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ScottHastie (talk) 08:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. ScottHastie (talk) 08:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Essentially unsourced since creation 11.5 years ago. The "external links" only demonstrate that WP:ITEXISTS. No evidence of significant coverage. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clinsis[edit]

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

WP:PROMO: Content made for Advertising, marketing, or public relations purposes. ScottHastie (talk) 08:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ScottHastie (talk) 08:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nicaragua-related deletion discussions. ScottHastie (talk) 08:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced since creation over 3 years ago. No sign of significant coverage in searches. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unni Koroth[edit]

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

Fails GNG and is promotional. I found a couple of brief mentions and routine announcements in context of the company founded by him, but no SIGCOV. Seems to be User:Koroth's autobiography. M4DU7 (talk) 08:37, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 08:37, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 08:37, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scherezade Shroff Talwar[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT. ScottHastie (talk) 08:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ScottHastie (talk) 08:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree, now looking back retrospectively, that this person does not seem to have the notability required in having their name put on Wikipedia's main space. Poor judgment on my part, when I started this article.Davidbena (talk) 14:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable as a model of a vlogger.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: She's mentioned in a number of articles. She's among the people discussed in this list, but I don't think that's good enough for the article to pass WP:ENT. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 06:06, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Washkansky[edit]

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

Dale Washkansky does not seem to meet WP:GNG what-so-ever. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 08:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 08:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 08:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable artist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fully agree that this needs to be deleted. Washkansky is a non-notable photographer. Subject does not WP:GNG by a wide margin. LefcentrerightDiscuss 09:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clearly non-notable. --Lockley (talk) 09:25, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)} 15:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

School debating in Australia[edit]

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

GNG fail. Article consists almost entirely of primary sources and unsourced material. This is also an article about organizations but masked as being about schools debating in general. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 07:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 19:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment: It's hard to know whether we apply the organization policy to this article or not. But if we do, then it clearly fails WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:ORGCRITE and probably some other things. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 20:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chief Pat[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Out of the 10 sources ,three (1, 6, 10) are social media, two (4, 8) are passing mentions, three (2, 7, 9) are eSports specialising sites, which I think are non-RS. Out of the other two, one (5) is a Forbes "contributers" blog (see the listing one below WP:FORBES) and another (3) is a university specific news website. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 07:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG.ScottHastie (talk) 08:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 08:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 08:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 08:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 08:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nominator's showing of how none of the sources are the indepdent, 3rd party reliable sources we need to pass GNG, let alone multiple such sources as we would need to show that the article subject is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Barely found anything about him when I did a research. Out of the 10 references in the article, I believe reference #2, #3 and #9 are reliable. The article is good enough to pass WP:SNG with those sources. But, I'll give it a very, very weak keep. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:35, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which SNG exactly? There is no eSports SNG currently (there is a thread about this at here). WP:ENT has three criteria which I don't think this YouTuber meets and this SNG also doesn't override GNG. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 07:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete any Supercell game youtube watcher knows about him, and the youtube sources and the Forbes news justify that. But he's not notable for anything else, and BTW I've removed the non-RS and we can see how bad it makes the article in sourcing, certainly fails the GNG. Given the amount of coverage (low) and the assortment of non-notable events, it's a delete. Eumat114 (Message) 12:38, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Known quantity as a YouTuber with enough sources & numbers to justify. Esports-related articles are consistently sparse on RS as well (Andy Dinh, Nadeshot etc.). Added a new source for $1M financing round he raised for his company in March 2020 inc. traditional sports stars, IMO this is where this page will grow and where he will be broadly become even more notable - keep. (Message) 6:21, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
eSports and RS is being discussed at here). The new source you added is just a press release. Also, Wikipedia only requires sources, not "numbers" and if there really are RS sources on the subject, please add them. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 07:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Chief Pat has 2.5M subs, which places him on the 5880th in subscriber count. If he had 250mil subs then he would likely receive the coverage needed for Wikipedia; right now, he's not notable enough for his YT-related activities. Eumat114 (Message) 13:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I've looked at the nominator's summary of the flawed sources, and they're right. First, sources need to be independent, but they also need to be reliable. That eliminates nearly all the sources except two, which are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs that don't allow us to create a substantial article based on reliable and independent information. This is what the WP:GNG is for. The fact that this is a problem with lots of esports articles is a strike against it, not for it. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and others. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 00:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and others. I ran "Patrick Carney", his legal name, +gaming through a search and only got one independent hit in a sports media industry site. It was a one-on-one interview which pretty much repeated what he told their reporter. The subject lacks in-depth independent coverage. Furthermore, the page creating editor (who did disclose WP:COI) appears to be a WP:SPA whose contributions solely relate to this subject.Blue Riband► 15:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mostly because of the long and nearly incomprehensible rants by the nominator, Bookku, this discussion wasn't able to focus on what, if any, actual problems this article has. If this is renominated for deletion, I strongly recommend that it is done by somebody else. Sandstein 21:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aurat (word)[edit]

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

Self nomination for AFD since article copy pasted to Draft:Aurat for incubation because current article title Aurat (word) is misleading and confusing leading to western systemic bias and stifling the article growth. Detail reason follows in following section:

Detail Reason for self nomination of AFD[edit]

What article originally intended it include[edit]

The terms "Aurat", "Arvad", "Avret", and "Awrath" may refer to: Women of Asian religious or cultural descent Women of Asian religious or cultural descent and identity.

Though grammar and various facets of identity of Aurat are to be covered in this article, but purpose of article Aurat (English Wikipedia article) is just not limited to any single facet but whole gamut of association, experiences, perceptions, social and cultural construct of Asian women and people who identify and/or associate themselves with 'Aurat'. Including taking note of cultural, popular culture & literary references, contemporary and also accumulated over the centuries.

Literary reviews of those women autobiographies who are identified or identify themselves as Aurat example

Coverage of 'Aurat' through Essays, research, stories, novels, poetry other related literature.

Coverage of 'Aurat' through fine arts like paintings to performing arts like dramas and movies

Activism, Conservative and modernist feminist views.

When articles related to different facets are their then why do we have an article ? Only looking at separated body parts does not give idea of Human being, only presenting human being is not enough but total associated experience need to be presented. And that what we are supposed to do in encyclopedic writings.

Reason for self nomination for AFD[edit]

As predicted @ Talk:Aurat#Requested move 11 May 2020 edits like this one are but natural. I can't blame user like Staszek Lem because we selected a title so. Question is not which content he deleted. First Non-word related content will go, then Wikipedia is not dictionary so rest of the content will go.

That what I did not intend when I started article and made content support requests on so many Asian language Wikipedias too. When article for Woman exists simultaneously article for Lady too exists but some how western systemic bias of English Wikipedia community wants to stifle existence of "Aurat" on English Wikipedia. I find myself helpless so as now decided to incubate article at Draft:Aurat and put for AFD here.

Questions answered[edit]

On one of talk pages question was asked "...could you explain what part of it is misleading and causing systemic bias?.."

As explained above article was never intended for limited dictionary purpose but entire gamut of human experience. So word in bracket "(word)" is specially misleading. The article deserves original title Aurat or may be some thing like Aurat (Women of Asian descent) something like so editors don't end up removing non grammatical content from article. Why I used word western systemic bias of Wikipedians because title Aurat got denied at Talk:Aurat through a process where people of Asian descent didn't represent proportionately enough.

I have updated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aurat (word) for your question. Article can't be reorganized (attempts to reorganizing unlikely to succeed) because other editors will keep deleting any non grammar content and that is already happening at the article.

Rather than after putting all effort some one comes and deletes content saying it's beyond a scope of word is an harassment of those people who take all the effort to make article for group of women 'Aurat' and content keep getting deleted.

Rather let me put it my self for deletion so my own efforts and of other editors won't go wasted.

Posting this reply on deletion request page too. Thanks for your concerns

Thanks anyways Bookku (talk) 01:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Deletion is absolutely out of question. The nominator does not gave clear idea how wikipedia works. They are very welcome to work in their draft space, and then to merge into the existing page. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 02:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 02:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~, but purge the South Asian systemic bias. For hundreds of millions of Southeast Asians, the word "Aurat" simply means Awrah. That's a topic that strongly and often negatively affects women's lives, but does not mean "woman" (of whatever descent); and to a lesser segree, it also affects men in those cultures. This is neither reflected in the dab Aurat nor in Aurat (word). The same South Asian systemic bias is visible in the proposed title Aurat (Women of Asian descent). –Austronesier (talk) 07:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, find a notable coherent and non-WP:COATRACK topic ("encyclopedic notability of any of the aspect" (per comment below) is not enough: WP:NOTESSAY), and remove the South Asian systemic bias. –Austronesier (talk) 08:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I answered both on Talk:Aurat (word) as bellow.

@Austronesier: Thanks for your frank expression. And you seem to know linguistics better.

1) Asians including South Asians did not turn up -even to make objections- in previous discussion @ Talk:Aurat#Requested move 11 May 2020 despite similar requests across pages. Due to AFD at least few seem to take notice. Asian's own disinterest too contributes in systemic bias.

2)Some one else's stifling edit removed disambiguating hatnote template making mention about 'Intimate parts in Islam' This is how systemic bias enters unknowingly.

3) When 'Intimate parts in Islam' article already exists for 'awrah does same meaning of 'Aurat' used in south east asia would need another article? Is it not wise to allocate title for rest of Asia associating with Aurat as cultural women.

4) And what happens in south east Asia when woman's entire whole body is considered 'Aurat' (Then in that case is not whole body of south east Asian woman means whole women?) Do you need refs for some conservatives consider whole body as Aurat in south east Asia too?

5) If we reserve article for south Asians only where we will fit in Azerbaijani using word arvad etymologically from same family. And then what to do with historic usage as woman by Persians and ottoman Turkish? And what do we do with, "As per Moshe Piamenta in his book "Islam in Everyday Arabic Speech", notes that in bedouin language, synecdochic usage of word 'awrat' denotes 'woman'.^[1]

6) @Staszek Lem: here it self another user asking to go some where else with gamut. He only relates with word and not the gamut. What do we do ? You also initially commented "...The article is about the word, not about (rest of XYZ).." The word "Word" in the title, automatically informs limited scope to the article every editor would not visit article talk page before deleting rest of gamut, isn't it? ( I don't know if at all you visited talk page before edits usually very few study talk page before any edit isn't it?)

Don't we need to find proper solution to article title that would allow the gamut part without putting editors in trouble.

What do you think, your inputs are welcome. Thanks

Bookku (talk) 08:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will only answer point 1) and 4) now. Ad 1: I have been aware of the RM-discussion, but didn't care about it, because I am more interested in discussions about the creation of content than about the creation of a mess. Ad 4: Despite the fact there are conservative Islamic schools of thought in SE Asia which consider the entire female body as awrah, the word aurat does not mean "woman" in SE Asian languages. –Austronesier (talk) 08:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have reason for very strong argument here because there no real intention existed to appropriate south east Asian Women's perspective, Whatever way article improves directly or indirectly south east Asian women too would be in benefit. Unfortunately not many women or Muslim women in discussions across Wikipedias to concur either way.

On side note in south east Asia, aurat does not mean "woman" but entire awrah of female too means "Aurat" (to draw a parallel, It's like saying, 'we don't eat but have food'). :) Okay but not insisting on the point :)

Any encyclopedic articles are mess at beginning level, instead of longer duration in draft I brought article to main name space with a hope that better attention from Asian wikipedians will help improve article faster, but that any way not happening then why insist on retaining a messy article in main namespace why not let it get draft and breathe easier until wikipedian community takes call for better title.

Thanks Bookku (talk) 09:19, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary: Delete the draft and move the article to draft space. The copy-paste of the article's content into a new draft page was a mistake. As for the article itself—if it is to be about the word—what makes the word suitable for a Wikipedia article doesn't begin until the Objections section. Everything up until that point is (a) dictionary-style coverage of the word, its various meanings and connotations, and its etymology (see WP:NOTDICTIONARY) and (b) material that, in English, could just as well have been composed without any use of the word "aurat" at all; its topic is really "social views of women in certain societies".

Certainly, some context needs to be given for the content in the Objections section to make sense, but the existing content goes into way more detail than necessary for that. Its bulk obscures that the Objections material is the core of what justifies having an article about the word 'aurat' at all.

The "in popular culture" section is a digression, free-associating trivia, shedding no light on the word, and doesn't belong here.

If the nominator's point is that the article should be about the concept rather than the word, that gets me back to the existing content being about social views on women in certain societies. That, in the language of those societies, the word aurat is used isn't really any more relevant than is the fact that in France the word used to refer to automobiles is voitures is relevant to Automotive industry in France. The controversy over aurat could appear as an example of reaction to those social views. But a note on that would be subordinate to the article's primary topic. Largoplazo (talk) 10:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but possibly then move to "Aurat (concept)" or some similar title which clarifies the topic of the article.
Draftify

Some background: I am not an expert in this subject area, but I do a lot of work with disambiguation pages etc.

I was alerted to this topic when a long-standing disambiguation page Aurat was moved to Aurat (disambiguation) by User:Bookku on 11 May with no discussion, to make way for their new article: this move would only have been correct if "Aurat", as described in that new article, was the "Primary Topic", more often sought in the encyclopedia than all the other uses put together. This seemed unlikely as the subject had not had a Wikipedia article at all until that point, but I could not simply revert the move so made a formal Move Request to revert the disambiguation page to the base name and move the new article to Aurat (word) (which seemed an appropriate title as the article began "Aurat is word for women (also wife) specially in south Asia..."). After discussion at Talk:Aurat, the dab page was moved back to the basic title (ie consensus that there is currently no Primary Topic), and the new article was moved to Aurat (word). Mid-discussion the idea of moving to a different title was raised, but that would have confused the discussion.
I removed two inappropriate hatnotes: that's presumably what is listed above as "Some one else's stifling edit removed disambiguating hatnote template making mention about 'Intimate parts in Islam' This is how systemic bias enters unknowingly."

As "Awrah" does not redirect to this article, the hatnote "For other uses of "Awrah", see Intimate parts in Islam." is not apppropriate. As Awrah redirects to Intimate parts in Islam, it might, or might not, be appropriate to add a {{redirect}} hatnote to that article: "Awrah redirects here. For the related term see Aurat (word)", or some such wording.
The {{Disamb-terms}} hatnote ("The terms "Aurat", "Arvad", "Avrat", and "Awrath" may refer to: Women of Asian religious or cultural descent.") is for use at the head of a disambiguation page. It was not appropriate here.

Bookku does not appear to recognise, or be willing to go along with, Wikipedia's Manual of Style.

Only one editor seems to have made any substantial edits to this article. I notice that Bookku has now tried to alert many editors to this discussion, by posting on the talk pages of over 30 Wikiprojects and related articles. Moving the article to draft at this stage does not seem helpful: if there is a topic here to be written about then it should be being written about here in mainspace with contributions from other interested editors.

PamD 11:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, changed my !vote to "Draftify". There seems to be a probably notable word or concept - the fact that English language sources talk about "Aurat March", not just "Women's March" suggests this - but the current article rambles around and needs a lot more work and focus. Then it can be proposed at AfC when it is fit for mainspace. After/if it is in mainspace there could be a properly discussed Request to Move if anyone proposed it as the Primary Topic of the term "Aurat", rather than the previous unilateral decision to demote a long-standing disambiguation page. PamD 15:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"... if there is a topic here to be written about ...": well, precisely. This article doesn't know yet what its topic is. The content is about at least two topics. So how are we going to choose an appropriate title for it? I think your remark is a reason why it should be moved to draft space, so that interested editors can figure out what this article will be about, or split it into multiple articles about different topics, before putting into article space appropriately titled content. Largoplazo (talk) 15:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The page is a horrible mish-mash of dicdef, customs women are expected to follow in South Asia, and attitudes to female sexual body parts. There is no clear topic to this page, so there is no clear place it can be moved to that would make sense. SpinningSpark 00:44, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for Record: As one user said above, in spite of appeal on several talk pages to join discussion whether this time or previous time @ Talk:Aurat neither Asians in General or South Asians in particular did not turn up in these discussions. And absolutely not surprise, I have been scouting and looking for women Wikipedian IDs for translating Women rights article except south of South Asia in rest of Asian language Wikipedias women seem to be largely absent. Much of feminist narratives are not even updated on English Wikipedia -What do article USA France speak of women rights issues in their own countries ? situation for the rest is not good enough isn't a surprise.

It's not every thing is bad, rather most of my other articles got very good curation support, without over riding encyclopedic priorities. Unfortunately Aurat did not turn out to be lucky.

Various objections to the article are sign of unawareness ignorance and unwillingness to know more about a distinct women's culture which likely to loose it's own identity in times of Globalisation. Much sources are available in respective local vernacular languages (but if those are not participating then it's obvious they will lose some where by own disinterest or absence)

These objections are having one more characteristic of being logically fallacious. Various other multiple women related articles are existing on English Wikipedia they will be having etymologies discussed, culture and social evils discussed. Even articles on non English words do exist, and why those should not be there in encyclopedia?

Here we refuse disambiguation support in hat note on one hand overlooking need of reader support; same time hand over core article title space to disambiguation overlooking protest and artificially help generate issue how to name the article!

They claim main article title Aurat needs to be used as disambiguation page for benefit of people searching movie titles and those readers will have great inconvenience, instead of an encyclopedic article! What a great reason, why not apply same logic to articles Girl,Woman, Female, Lady and many many other articles too because they too would have many movies and other popular culture titles and hand over all those article titles for disambiguation.

And some one objected me proposing to include encyclopedic section on popular culture. List of popular culture links will do, but a section of encyclopedic writing about popular culture will not do and we will term it as mixing up many subjects! I feel concept of encyclopedia being turned upside down, but when rest of Wikipedian democracy would not feel so my minority opinion would not have much scope. Then is it not really better let the article get deleted.

I know, many times rants have no value (for various reasons), so this is just for record with least hope.

Thanks anyways to everybody for expressing own opinions Bookku (talk) 12:28, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Piamenta, Moshe (1979). Islam in Everyday Arabic Speech. BRILL. ISBN 978-90-04-05967-2.

You've written a lot (TLDR) but that gets me no closer to understanding what the topic of the article is actually supposed to be. What would you write in the short description field? Even accepting it isn't a dictionary article, we still need to know what it positively is. SpinningSpark 16:35, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but rename, perhaps to Aurat (South Asia), or indeed something else entirely. The article needs to define its subject more clearly. Johnbod (talk) 12:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a place, so that name is no more suitable than the current one. See my comment above. We can't rename the article until we establish what the topic actually is. And if you can't establish that, why on earth do you want to keep it? SpinningSpark 16:35, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Geographical disams are not restricted to articles on places. Johnbod (talk) 19:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All right, but that gets us no closer to knowing what the topic of the article is. Is there an encyclopaedic topic that called Aurat that is common to all of South Asia? If so, what is it? We can't even begin to address what the article should be called, let alone whether it is notable, until that is answered. Then there is the question of whether this effort is actually helpful in constructing that article or whether it is just easier to start again. If a page can't clearly get across what the subject is, it is a pretty hopeless case. SpinningSpark 19:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Spinningspark: I think the topic of this article is a commonly used word and it's meaning, origin and the social agendas associated with it. Many people speak it as a reference to women in parts of Asia (including India), without knowing much about it. On a personal basis, I used to think it was Hindi for "woman", and now I have found out it's origin and other meanings so for me it is a word that must have become popular in India during the Mughal overtaking. I think this article is encyclopedic, as many think it is just a word for any woman, but it has a history of its own. I think we should do some expansion and cleanup.--Navinsingh133 (talk) 22:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Draftify: this needs to be WP:TNTed; incomprehensible article, start over. To me "Aurat" is just the Hindi translation of "women" without any special meaning. But this article seems to be about some made up neo-feminist SJW concept. The article's author seems to be arguing about some "distinct women's culture" in South Asia that needs to be documented in "Aurat" article. But there's a distinct women's culture in every single culture? It can simply be documented articles titled "Women in [some culture]". From my understanding, some content can go to Women in Islam, Women in Hinduism, Women in South Asia or Women in India. after reading the author's "for the record" statement, I agree that perhaps the article just needs some more work. I'll recommend draftification and have this go through AfC. Regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 07:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the lines of what Johnbod said above. --Hindustanilanguage (talk) 17:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Aurat is a common word for women in parts of Asia, used by billions of people. I believe that the subject alone is encyclopedic enough. I am a little confused by all the discussions here and there so I'll just review the article on my own. It does need some rework but it should be kept. We can keep articles of less importance but delete this? It's my opinion that the article is kept and further improvements be made as needed. Any non-encyclopedic content should be removed. Thanks.--Navinsingh133 (talk) 22:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Navinsingh133: you are absolutely right that women in Asia is an important topic, but we already have that page. We also have women in South Asia. Do you think that Aurat is somehow a different topic from those? If so, in what way? SpinningSpark 22:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I believe it is a different topic, both on a personal basis and encyclopedic point of view. This word seems to have different meanings in different parts of Asia, In some places like India it is used for a normal respected women and in some places it is a word depicting women as objects. Its origin, its impact, its recognition etc. can't be under "Women in Asia". That is too broad for this subject. I just found an entire side of it while reviewing the article. Personally for me, how it became a Hindi word should also be explained in the article. I agree with Spinningspark that its misuse should be stopped and personal views removed immediately. We need to perform some cleanups. Admins better get their mop. Also, I think we should add a new section otherwise I will get lost in all these codes.--Navinsingh133 (talk) 22:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Navinsingh133: Article content cleanup is most definitely not the job of administrators. It's the job of ordinary editors, i.e. you. I asked above for the creator to say what they would write in the short description field, but they haven't answered yet. I'll ask you the same question. If the answer is "Aurat is a word meaning <foo>" (like the article currently opens with) then this is not a viable Wikipedia article. Meanings of words belong in Wiktionary:, not here. You say in your post that the word has a different meaning in India to what it has in, say, Malaysia. That shows that the word does not represent a single concept. Wikipedia articles should be about things (including people and concepts), not about words. An article on the denigration or subservience of women in Asia might be viable, an article on a word that is sometimes used in that sense, probably not. SpinningSpark 11:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, used by "billions of people" is not a good reason for creating an article on a word. Many English words are used by billions (frankly, heighten, spotted, striped, layabout) but don't have articles. And they don't have them for a good reason. SpinningSpark 13:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Spinningspark: Just for sake of it, I have already written, but to be honest I can't be comfortable with any restrictive definitions or short description cause those are our conveniences for improving our understanding-My/our understanding definitions and short descriptions don't stop how the earth moves. Suppose I am Alien-pedian of an distant alien planet starting article on 'Earth', I will define or short describe it but not use it for restrictive purposes what to include in article because it will create unnecessary hindrance in potential growth of the article. As some thing is discovered I will go on adding earth related encyclopedic notes and as any section increases more I will fork them out in different article.

Coming back to Wikipedia on earth, let me give you example, there is article Islamic feminism, information which was not relevant after a talk page notice I deleted, but there is one more section on dress codes where editors seems went on adding lot of content, length of section has gone out of proportion. Now I am thinking on forking it out for "Islamic feminist views on Dress code". Wikipedia is continuously developing encyclopedia why curation make encyclopedic writers spend disproportionate energy to convince first, otherwise you don't work, is the sky falling down? is this not irrational level of fear creating impediments in encyclopedic spirit? Proper encyclopedic writers are less in numbers than curators. But curator's phobias are over riding encyclopedic spirit in the whole process. What happens if the encyclopedic spirit goes ahead with proper referenced content? at the most after few weeks / months / years you will split or move the article but whatever you will be having is more not less.

Aurat is human socio-cultural entity has evolved and existed since around a thousand year by now. Here itself with an extra effort at least one Azerbaijani user came in support of the article, had I agreed to constraining definition and short description an opportunity of information would if not lost is certainly postponed. Why do I assume every information exists in English world. I have not contacted any central Asian using russian or an African using french and may be more languages using Aurat word tomorrow an editor comes searching and would add some info Who knows ? How do I know 'Women of Asian' is not a restrictive short description-I don't like presuming things world is too big for me and I like to keep opportunities open as long as possible un til I am fully sure no opportunities are lost. That is my way of thinking and working which others may not.

In the same amount of rant I wrote on this talk page I could have developed some different article by now. Any ways thanks and warm regardsBookku (talk) 13:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Millions of Wikipedia articles are cohesive treatments of one topic. You appear to be arguing that that's too severe a constraint, despite the ease with which so many editors have conformed to it. It's as though you were arguing that the article about the planet Earth should be named Earth (word), that it should include material about soil (for which "earth" is a synonym), earthquakes, fracking, and pollution—while saying no more about either the word "Earth" or the planet Earth itself than defining "Earth is the third planet from the sun", giving the etymology, and mentioning that the Latin equivalent is "terra". Largoplazo (talk) 14:39, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep but requires some work. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 04:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What work? What work would you recommend so that it's about the word (as the title states, and in a way that doesn't leave the entire article as a violation of WP:NOTDICDEF) without veering off into other topics such as commentary on the treatment of women? See WP:COATRACK. Largoplazo (talk) 10:45, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The originator may have been trying to create an article along the lines of Nigger, but the WP:NOTDICTIONARY opening paragraphs of the page have managed to completely obscure that. SpinningSpark 12:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding on your remark, the "N-word" itself, of course, is the subject of sociological focus: the taboos and controversies that have arisen surrounding its use. There's a great deal more to be said about the word than would be covered by a dictionary. The aurat article doesn't make it clear that this is true about "aurat". It's more dictionary coverage of the word followed by encyclopedic coverage of what it refers to rather than itself. Largoplazo (talk) 12:54, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was some of the sources in the article that led me to that comment rather than the article itself. Particularly Mona Hassan's piece and the Geografia article about 1930s Malaysia. SpinningSpark 13:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May be some of the discussions missing the some nuances but same may inspire some one to do more encyclopedic writing on the topic.

Any word special human physical attributes are and can be used in insulting manner, but some may be associating some of positive attributes in positive manner. If I start writing an article on word Paki from it's etymology side readers will start speculating if it is limited to dictionary purpose, when I cover usage of word as insult in some part of the world people will speculate to that limit, many Pakistanis suffering will put up those attributes, but some will be there who associate whole socio-cultural experience on more positive side. Any Indians can come and object on creation of cultural articles in the name of Pakistan claiming it to be just temporary political identity on unending time scale and geographically and culturally Pakistanis are Indians and they do not deserve separate article on culture. May be or may not temporary identity but it is there and separate articles on Pakistani culture do exist. Same way 'Aurat' is an identity used to be there in Turkey and Persia. Today may not be there but for encyclopedic purposes historical identity in Persia and Turkey remains notable.

Bookku (talk) 15:33, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Spinningspark:, Thanks for enlightening me that cleanup is definitely not for the admins. I still firmly believe that the article should be kept. "Meanings of word belong in wikitionary"- that's true, but what about other information such as history, stigma and impacts? I see you have given some words as examples of words spoken by billions , to justify your opinion. I don't think adjectives and adverbs are good for examples in general cases, but I'm not that "good" in grammar so I'll just stay on what you have said here. Plain and short, I think this should be kept, because this article does what Wikipedia does, it is encyclopedic, and the subject is not a direct violation of WP guidelines. Deleting articles like Miss, Esquire, Aurat is not a viable thing. So I still believe it should be kept. Although some rewriting from independent perspective maybe needed. Thanks--Navinsingh133 (talk) 17:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Largoplazo:, I was talking about how the article lacks some sources, and the fact that word "avret" (instead of avrat) doesn't exist in modern Turkish. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 06:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Solavirum: Thanks for your information. I updated one statement in article from 'Turkish language' to 'Ottoman turkish language'. Pronunciations and roman script transliterations (spellings) might be differing at places etc. Wikipedians from respective regions contribution will help article to improve in content. Bookku (talk) 03:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A nonsensical mess of gobbeldeygook. Jtrainor (talk) 09:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment just for record: Since it is almost 6 days for second round of discussion. Want to cover some of the points just record sake. As such I would prefer more peaceful freer environment for encyclopedic writing which needs lot of it's own effort, that's why I self nominated the article and would prefer to go to Draft mode and rework peacefully. Working more on multiple aspect may be confusing some of the readers, but article is just start class needs to be understood. How so ever claimed to be messy or gobbledygook, does not reduce encyclopedic notability of any of the aspect. Which individual aspects should be there in single article and which to be forked out only arises when growth is not stifled.

One likes it or not Asians notably Persians and Ottomans of medieval times shared and influenced some cultural aspects right from Azerbaijan to South Asia

Since concept of 'Aurat' is distinct cultural milieu is distinct. South India that is south of South Asia women too do not share all aspects with north Indian 'Aurat'. When south Asian words like 'Daaman', 'aanchal' 'chunari', 'Purdah' come those are not just pieces of cloth but colloquial and literary metaphors do come in, explaining those in separate individual articles do not create a complete image of a human cultural entity. When one google 'Aurat' word for metaphors and tasawwoor (descriptions) lot many references will start becoming available in South Asian local languages.

Some one criticized at beginning of this weeks saying this is some neo feminist project (- a kind victim blaming). A culture which is multiple centuries old can not be neo feminist construct in itself. For neo feminist criticism there are dozens of other articles to work on, If some one had read previous discussion would have realized to the contrary. When I listed for Afd and working on the article one thing is very clear in my mind is of it's notability and several references waiting to get explored.

Thanks to every one for participating in discussion and bringing out various facets. Regards Bookku (talk) 07:20, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DRAFTIFY to allow continued work, with the proviso that whatever comes out of it into article space later needs to be coverage of a cohesive topic (no WP:COATRACK), as I've discussed above, that conforms to requirements for main space articles (including no pure dictionary definitions) and with a title that matches the content. If the draft article is split into two or more articles while in Draft space or the content is, instead, merged appropriately into existing articles, so be it. Largoplazo (talk) 10:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Austronesier:

1) What it seems to me is your main concern is of disambiguation. If really disambiguation is your main concern, why don't you take a proactive initiative in putting in disambiguation templates.

It is not once but two times, Once I myself tried to put in disambig info on page Aurat second time I placed on Aurat (word) too both times some one deleted it. Probably because there is no mention of Indonesian /Malaysian sense of word Aurat in article awrah. You will be having better references to include Indonesian /Malaysian sense of word Aurat in article awrah so do request you to take initiative in this respect.

2) I have not understood your principle of purging properly enough. If there is proper disambiguation in respect to Malaysia and Indonesian concerns why South Asia or for that matter Azerbaijan and Kurdish for matter be purged. Do you want to punish Azerbaijan and Kurdish encyclopedic along with South Asia ? Why so ?

My point is if you purge South Asia plus Azerbaijan (probably and Kurdish) What remains is article of only 2 paragraphs about grammatical origin and that info can be included in article Awrah it self. Once South Asia plus Azerbaijan (probably and Kurdish) purged there is no case for the separate article. And I could foresee that will happen with word "word" in bracket hence I self initiated afd.

Article Aurat is primarily needed for taking socio-cultural distinct identity in South Asia in particular. If Azerbaijan (probably and Kurdish) would not have been there I would have happily agreed with title Aurat (South Asia) for my content. If don't Azerbaijan (probably and Kurdish) languages don't want to be on board with South Asians then article will remain for south Asians. I don't want to close opportunities of Azerbaijan (probably and Kurdish) languages. I hope you are getting my point. If you don't want to consider anything beyond your area then that is different issue.

So let me suggest you again probably your point is limited to disambiguation related to Malaysian and Indonesian language and you need to take proactive steps for disambiguation. Rest of the issues do not need to matter you much. IMHO.

Bookku (talk) 10:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: First of all, what kind of mess is the nominator trying to create here on an AfD; going on a rant and arguing with every voter. This is not the place to discuss your thesis. Closing admin needs to userfy the content and ask him to contribute to articles like Women in India or other like articles. I agree completely with Spinningspark's rationale here. The page creator had a particular set of idea on how to approach the subject, hence he creates a page, substantially keeps editing it, dislikes what other editors are contributing and decides to nominate the article he created so he can have a second round of this cycle. The quality and quantity of references in the article don't matter in a potpourri of a social topic like this. My vote is userfy the content, delete from mainspace, and ask the editor to contribute to other like articles. - Harsh 18:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone referred the creator to WP:CONTENTFORKING? Largoplazo (talk) 22:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for supporting deletion of the article, Wikipedia is collaborative project and creation and retention of the same can not be a responsibility of any single shoulder. By mistake if some read this discussion some day, may be there would be an odd person who will appreciate fact that the article creator could foresee what is going to happen and self initiated article for deletion, and may be he is good in fore seeing and may be what did he fore see space for distinct article may not be entirely wrong.

I will thank the user for at least admitting that there is quantity and quality references do exist so one logical inference is work done on the topic is well researched.

What do I request my critics is just not to stop at mansplaining, wikisplaining (I have useryfied content well in advance, I can fore see things better :) ) but to take an initiative and use this content in other articles wherever they find it that it suits better- since it is well researched it may benefit articles about women in South Asia which otherwise are not at their best, if they work harder and put information in their respective mother tongue wikis will be far better because condition of women related articles on those wikis they themselves would be knowing better. And they would also be knowing what is level of participation of women editors in north Asian Wikis in general and Hindi and Urdu in particular.

After this deletion closes I am going to conduct research on participation of women editors in deletion discussions. May be some one want to join me in the research.

True part: The page creator had a particular set of idea on how to approach the subject, hence he creates a page, substantially keeps editing it

Pointing out with due respect 'Absolute false accusation: dislikes what other editors are contributing Nobody else contributed is the problem. There are no reverts from my side on this article and not many in any other article. Far from stopping any one I have sent too many invitations for editing the articles including this one And I express my regrets to those who come for reading and editing this article if they get shocked to read this deletion discussion, but I am simply helpless.

Last but not least, far from arguing with any one I welcomed all opinions even contrary to me. I have not even requested any one to change their opinions. I have specifically mentioned all my rant is just for record purpose. That too most of it I wrote either at beginning or end of 7 days.

And if any one expects not to answer even for record purpose, then I have no words no arguments.

Thanks any way to every one.

I know inconvenience to closing fellow if he at all decides to read all boring discussion but there is nothing much even to call storm in tea cup, closing user can simply delete article and move on. Thanks to him / her too.

Thanks any way to every one. once again. Bookku (talk) 02:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copy paste is not the same thing as userfication. Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia explains why copy paste is a bad thing. It says If an article is being moved to userspace to avoid deletion (or to work on after deletion), the full history should be visible (restored if necessary) and then moved using the move button. You could have done that in the first place instead of opening this mess of an AfD. SpinningSpark 08:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for response, Mostly my own contribution which I my self requested to be deleted I will save some where is but natural. Tell me what are technicalities I am not against fulfilling any technicality. Since you told I will do it again to complete technicality no issues. The thing is where I am single main contributor technicality should not be major issue.

When I brought in article I had some different expectations, that article will have easier search easier connect and more edits from different people who know the subject well and interested. I didn't expect enforcing unexpected article title who do not know the subject well enough. If wrong title changed perception, and article can't be added with other relevant info just because of title then one can not make article move request also and article becomes practically redundant then it is all proper to file afd. Some body likes it or not people file afd here because that gives main idea which way consensus is going. So one can decide well how much to spend further time on which aspects. That is everybody's prerogative to put article for afd and we are almost done through process. I thanked every one for participation and awaiting closure of discussion.

Thanks and regards Bookku (talk) 08:43, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just for record, Now ref of the article has been mentioned in edit summary in user sandbox forked content to fulfill one technicality. Remaining technicalities also will do in separate sand box if needed after closure of this discussion Thanks Bookku (talk) 09:36, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:36, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Pratap Singh[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER. One second-level award is not enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clear fail of WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 10:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete second-level award doesn't meet WP:NSOLDIER, not enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Should this be closed as delete, somebody should probably bundle all the recipients of the Maha Vir Chakra who weren't OF-6 and didn't gain any other award and don't meet GNG into one nom, because there's quite a few of them that are almost all non-notable. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TheImaCow (talk) 12:51, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maddux (statistic)[edit]

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

Not a notable neologism. I've seen some baseball people talk about this made up statistic, and it just doesn't meet GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It might pass WP:GNG. It's on the official MLB glossary - maybe this pulls from somewhere else or is a wiki, but I doubt it - and there are articles like [22] and [23] (which links to [24] but I can't read it). SportingFlyer T·C 04:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - The Times devotes about 8 paragraphs to it. I think a lot of these sports neologisms are annoying, but for better or worse many catch on and are covered, and used, in RS. Caro7200 (talk) 12:56, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As the creator of the article I will admit I thought it was notable when I made it and notable now. I will concede it doesn't have the strongest case for notability but since notability is, for this purpose, binary I think it's enough to be kept. My thinking at the time reflected the kind of sources SportingFlyer found - that NBC Sports article led me back to the blog which is sourced as a reference. I will say that I looked into the MLB glossary prior to creation and as far as I can tell it is created by MLB writers and is not a wiki. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Shutouts in baseball. That page is plenty long right now, but there's enough room for another table. If this belongs anywhere, it belongs there. --Lockley (talk) 09:12, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Eaton Tourtellotte[edit]

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

Does not satisfy WP:SOLDIER or WP:NBIO. Just being a brevet brigadier general does not make notability inherent. See our article Brevet (military) which clearly states Brevet rank in the Union Army, whether in the Regular Army or the United States Volunteers, during and at the conclusion of the American Civil War, may be regarded as an honorary title which conferred none of the authority, precedence, nor pay of real or full rank. There's no indication of other significant coverage outside of a brief entry in the 1917 Encyclopedia of Connecticut Biography which seems to be a genealogical publication that discusses him in the context of being the descendent of a 'Jacob Francis Tourtellotte'. Notability is not WP:INHERITED. (confer prior discussions about similar individuals 1 and 2) Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

...

"aide-de-camp for (very famous general) William Tecumseh Sherman from January 1, 1871, until February 8, 1884" for one thing.

There is page listing about 40 aide-de-camps for General Washington: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington%27s_aides-de-camp

Many or most brevet Union generals have been considered significant. They may not seem important today, but many were very important about 150 years ago. Durindaljb (talk) 11:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SOLDIER, as noted by proposer Brevet (military) does not satisfy #2 of WP:SOLDIER and in any event those are just presumptions of notability and he lacks WP:SIGCOV in multiple WP:RS. Mztourist (talk) 06:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Also gets a short description at [25], but not much there. Fails NSOLDIER and the GNG. Hog Farm (talk) 21:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
possible keep -- A brevet rank is given to a soldier who has distinguished himself, enabling to hold a command above the level of his substantive rank. My question is whether a Brigadier-General is a high enough rank to confer WP notability, a matter of which I am not sure. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It certainly is high enough to meet WP:SOLDIER, but it depends whether he actually held the rank while commanding troops or only as a reward after leaving the army. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He was brevetted late, according to our list on March 13, 1865 and it was confirmed on March 12, 1866. This makes it highly unlikely that he ever commanded troops in the ACW. Given that this says he re-entered the army after the Civil War as a captain and rose to colonel, it's probable that he never held command as a brigadier general. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tourtellotte commanded the 4th Minnesota Infantry from at least as far back as the Battle of Champion's Hill after its original colonel moved up to brigade command. As a result, he has some degree of coverage in several Civil War battle histories, such as Timothy B. Smith's The Union Assaults on Vicksburg. He was the commander of the Union garrison in the Battle of Allatoona and as such was the initial commander before Union reinforcements arrived, giving him substantial coverage in an article from the collection The Tennessee Campaign of 1864.[26] I would qualify that this would constitute having a substantial impact on a major action (WP:SOLDIER#4). Per the regimental history and the Official Records, Tourtellotte was elevated to brigade command in April 1865 but it appears that his unit was in reserve at Bentonville, so no combat there, but Allatoona provides the same notability IMO. In addition, while a major postwar he was superintendent of Indian affairs for Utah and so also receives coverage from that aspect of his career. [27], [28]. Kges1901 (talk) 17:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His notability is obvious in Mankato, Minnesota, which the article should reflect. Tourtellotte Park , Tourtellotte Pool, local lore ... these were found with a five minute search.Comm260 ncu (talk) 17:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 04:10, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(changing !vote) Weak keep - Phil Gottschalk's In Deadly Earnest (I've got a print copy in front of me, please take this AGF) seems to indicate that Tourtellotte played a fairly big role at the Battle of Allatoona, which would maybe pass NSOLDIER #4. Allatoona wasn't Gettysburg, but it wasn't Dry Wood Creek either. Hog Farm (talk) 02:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stark's Test I.A Coaster[edit]

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

There are a few sources talking about this topic, but the coaster doesn't yet have a name and the amount of information is minuscule. Other than a passing mention that's very brief, we don't yet have enough to create an article. The WikiProject over this subject area typically waits until the name is announced and major, reputable sources (such as LAT or NYT) have picked up on it. Right now, we're limited to a handful of fansite blogs, and none of which report the official name. The reliable information we have so far is already being covered at the Rock 'n' Roller Coaster Starring Aerosmith article. GoneIn60 (talk) 04:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the editor who created the article was indefinitely blocked for adding unsourced information and sock puppetry. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disney-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 06:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Amusement Parks-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 06:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 06:28, 10 June 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) 00:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2019-12 ✍️ create

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Walt Disney Studios Park#Avengers Campus where the topic receives a mention as a WP:CHEAP WP:ATD. Not that it would be hard to rebuild from scratch... but if this does end up being the name, the article can retain this history when restored, though the article says one thing (Jukebox) and the title another--all the more reason to wait for more mature WP:RS coverage at a later date. -2pou (talk) 21:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: sorry I didn't do this before, but I checked the links, and none of the blog entries even mention any potential name. This is WP:OR, and I'll edit the mentions to make it more generically say "an Iron Man ride" -2pou (talk) 21:23, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. At best, right now we could merge it to the park, this does not seem to warrant a stand alone article yet. WP:TOOSOON, etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 07:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tion Wayne[edit]

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

Help complete AfD, as this is a non-notable person. 200.104.247.250 (talk) 02:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination on behalf of IP. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 07:03, 18 June 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) 07:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 07:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 07:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is he non-notable though? He's a pretty popular UK rapper. The page could use more sourcing but it's not due to them not existing.Madbrad200 (talk) 18:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passes criterion 2 of WP:NMUSIC with an album and a single charting on the UK national chart (only one criteria needed). He also has significant reliable sources coverage in Tne Guardian, Complex and AllMusic already referenced in the article so there is no valid reason for deletion, in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 23:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-sourced article about a successful artist. No legitimate reason for deletion at all. RobinCarmody (talk) 20:50, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:40, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Space Soldiers (eSports Organization)[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable esports organization. No significant showings in major events, only coverage I could find in esports coverage sites with editorial control (Dot, ESPN, etc.) was this article about their players leaving and this sponsored profile. The rest of the results were passing mentions, generally in the context of ex-players. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There have been more articles of Dot about Space Soldiers, 8 to be exact: https://dotesports.com/news/tag/space-soldiers

Including this one which is about their win in a DreamHack tournament: https://dotesports.com/counter-strike/news/space-soldiers-win-dreamhack-austin-2018-csgo-24323

The Wikipedia page has been updated many times by multiple people after the nomination and now features a lot more information than the original article and there are more things that I am planning to add further this month when I have the time. Styyx (talk) 11:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A win in a single tournament doesn't really make them any more notable than finishing third or something. Also, they only seem to be reported on by a single publication (Dot Esports), which is not a good look. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 09:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal Space Soldiers has won more tournaments.

ESEA MDL Season 25 Global Challenge: https://www.hltv.org/events/3046/esea-season-25-mdl-global-challenge

ELEAGUE Major 2018 European Minor: https://www.hltv.org/events/3251/europe-minor-eleague-major-2018

Runner-Up at WESG 2017, only losing to 4 time Major Champion on the final map: https://www.hltv.org/events/3112/wesg-2017-world-finals

About coverage from eSport sites, here are a few:

HLTV.org: https://www.hltv.org/news/21957/space-soldiers-win-eu-minor-final-after-defeating-envyus-2-0

dbltap.com: https://www.dbltap.com/posts/6162417-ngin-to-miss-faceit-london-major-after-failing-to-acquire-a-visa

Hürriyet: https://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkeys-growing-esports-community-crowned-by-new-venue-140609 Styyx (talk) 14:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be enough sources to pass WP:GNG. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 22:27, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think a lot more will be added to this discussion as nobody has edited for over a week. Styyx (talk) 13:32, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tupoutoʻa ʻUlukalala#Issue. By the way, what a ridiculous section title, even if I understand it's a term of art. Children are born, not issued. Sandstein 21:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Halaevalu Mataʻaho[edit]

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

The subject is a non-notable infant. The only thing there is about her in reliable sources is that she exists and that she is someone's daughter. Let her grow up. The article about her sister has also recently been redirected to their father's biography. Surtsicna (talk) 14:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 14:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:02, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:02, 12 June 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, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-02 ✍️ create

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tupoutoʻa ʻUlukalala#Issue, like her sister. As notability is not inherited, this child does not yet have coverage indicating independent notability. However, she is mentioned in her father's article, and would be useful to redirect there. Rorshacma (talk) 15:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable five-year-old. We lack sufficient sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for lack of independent coverage. Blue Riband► 15:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie on Parole[edit]

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

Non-notable film, does not have significant coverage beyond trivial mentions in interviews and trailer listings, does not meet WP:NFP BOVINEBOY2008 16:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:40, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. The only cited RS is to Vulture, which is all of one paragraph long. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:46, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lacking broad independent coverage. Reference 1 is a one-on-one interview in a student newspaper. Reference 2 is a mention in a major entertainment media site but it's passing mention. Reference 3 is a mention in a one-man blog. Although the blog operator has some past legitimate journalistic credentials there's no editorial oversight. Blue Riband► 15:28, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 William Staveley#Staveley Street. Selective Merge as per Cunard's rationale. (non-admin closure) - Harsh 17:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Staveley Street[edit]

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

Nothing but directories and restaurant reviews can be found on Google search (under both languages). Since there's nothing on the street itself, it fails WP:N. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 20:18, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:25, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion it's more than a one-block stretch of concrete on the map. Reywas92^Talk 04:16, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing about the street is notable. Lightburst (talk) 04:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to William Staveley#Staveley Street since Staveley Street is named after William Staveley. Here is a source I found about Staveley Street:
Yanne, Andrew; Heller, Gillis (2009). Signs of a Colonial Era. Aberdeen, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. p. 45. ISBN 978-962-209-944-9. Retrieved 2020-06-18.
The book notes:
William Staveley, administrator 1848

Staveley Street 士他花利街 sih tā fā leih gāai

Staveley Street in Central is named after William Stanley (士他花利 sih tā fā leih; 1784–1854), a Major General and Lieutenant Governor of Hong Kong between 1848 and 1851 and the administrator of Hong Kong in March 1848 before the arrival of the next Governor, Samuel Bonham. The street is a pedestrian-only path parallel to Peel Street. Starting from Queen's Road Central, the path rises past Wellington Street upwards to Gage Street. Notice that the Chinese characters on this sign are written right to left instead of the usual left to right. In writing Chinese, you move frorm right to left only when writing downwards. However, there are many instances in Hong Kong, for example on trucks, where the characters are written from right to left horizontally.
This is not enough to meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline but this is enough to verify the material for a merge. I completed a merge.
Cunard (talk) 04:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Victor Sassoon#Sassoon Road. Sandstein 06:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sassoon Road[edit]

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

Fails WP:N, only has real estate sites and websites for building on the road, nothing for the road itself on Google search (under both languages). Nova Crystallis (Talk) 20:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion it's more than a stretch of concrete on the map. Reywas92^Talk 04:14, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Victor Sassoon#Sassoon Road (with the history preserved under the redirect) per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion.
I added an {{anchor}} for Sassoon Road to the Victor Sassoon article. I also added a source I found that verifies that Sassoon Road was named after Victor Sassoon:
"香港故事 (VIII) 2009" [Hong Kong Story (VIII) 2009] (in Chinese). RTHK. 2009. Archived from the original on 2020-06-18. Retrieved 2020-06-18.
The article notes, "現在簿扶林的沙宣道取名也為紀念維克多· 沙宣（ Sir Victor Sassoon ）。" From Google Translate: "The name of Sassoon Road in Pok Fu Lam is also named in memory of Sir Victor Sassoon."
Cunard (talk) 04:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mong Kok#Fife Street. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 04:45, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fife Street[edit]

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

Only real estates and restaurants on Google search for both languages, does not show WP:N. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 20:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:28, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion it's more than a stretch of concrete from one place to another. Reywas92^Talk 04:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mong Kok#Fife Street (with the history preserved under the redirect) per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. I added an {{anchor}} for Fife Street in the Mong Kok#Streets and markets section after adding an entry for Fife Street in Mong Kok. Here are two sources I found about Fife Street:
Chan, Wing-yip Thomas (2001). "Redevelopment of Mong Kok Urban Complex: An Urban Valley Along Fife Street". University of Hong Kong. doi:10.5353/th_b3198564. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2020-06-18. Retrieved 2020-06-18. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
潘國靈 (2017). "快富街, 一個拾荒者" [Fife Street, Scavengers]. 消失物誌 [Lost Biography]. Hong Kong: Chung Hwa Book Company (Hong Kong) Limited. ISBN 978-988-8488-18-6. Retrieved 2020-06-18.
Cunard (talk) 05:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 07:06, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

American Samoa national handball team[edit]

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

No sources ever. No reliable sourcing since October 2016. I tried doing some WP:BEFORE, but only two results showed up. This team is absolutely not notable, and the article should be deleted. Koridas (...Puerto Rico for statehood!) 06:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Koridas (...Puerto Rico for statehood!) 06:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Koridas (...Puerto Rico for statehood!) 06:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - nominator's google search received only two results because it was an exact-string search, excluding Wikipedia, of the exact wooden and awkward phrasing that Wikipedia uses. Using broader search terms, many more results appear. The team is a member of the International Handball Federation, the international governing body for the sport of handball [29]. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 00:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:28, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the info/rationale found by Cactus Jack. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Cactus Jack Zoozaz1 talk21:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Captain Galaxy (talk) 10:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Puccini[edit]

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

Non-notable film-maker. ~SS49~ {talk} 04:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 04:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 04:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets GNG which even a quick Google search reveals. Gleeanon409 (talk) 10:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:20, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This filmmaker has been notable since 2017, as he has a track record with the festivals his films were accepted in and he is pushing the boundaries of the subject matter he is focused on his work, expressing his own voice through the art of film. He had a major distributor (Searchlight Pictures, now owned by Disney) acquire "Lavender" (2019) and he has received word-of-mouth recognition from those who have watched his work. So for all of those reasons, I say the article stays up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HM2021 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominated how many times at Sundance! Defo notable.Davidstewartharvey

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:06, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ‘keep’ !votes do not give any policy reasoning for keeping the article and consequently I place little weight on those. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Pharis[edit]

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

GNG fail. Inflated claims of importance (in particular the Sweetbriar closing) and weak sourcing. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:14, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:14, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails WP:NPROF and WP:ANYBIO. The article relies heavily on an article from The News & Advance, which is an interview and hence, not independent. The YouTube citation is self-published. Citations from the subject's employer are also not independent. The other citations are mere mentions so, without a claim of notability, the subject is just another of Mitzi's acquaintances where Mitzi failed to disclose her CoI. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please do not delete any articles by Mitzi Humphrey. I am a Wikipedia reader and value the excellence of all her informative, educational, excellent articles and admire her dedication to Wikipedia. EileenAbbott (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in no way passes any notability guideline for an academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:37, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject does not meet GNG, NARTIST or NPROF criteria. Netherzone (talk) 20:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Laura has been a force behind the Richmond Printmaking Workshop and as a member of One-off printmaking group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asavedge (talk • contribs) 07:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC) — Asavedge (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@Asavedge: You are a meat-puppet of Mitzi.humphrey and most of your edits to Wikipedia have been to edit the article about yourself. Please do not offer your unsolicited opinion about people you know and have worked with. Chris Troutman (talk) 12:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 04:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diary-X[edit]

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

Not notable. Wikieditor600 (talk) 01:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have no way of knowing if this is referenced since all of the sources have no links, but a quick google search returned just mentions, which don't pass GNG. Crazy Boy 826 01:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 June 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The listed sources are valid even if they're not online. It's the responsibility of the people voting for deletion to find ways to verify them - see WP:PAPERONLY: "the burden of proof is on the one seeking deletion". I just looked for additional sources, and Diary-x is discussed in several scholarly articles about the importance of online diaries, especially for young women. This includes:
- "Screening Moments, Scrolling Lives: Diary Writing on the Web" (2003) in Biography (journal)
- "‘Hit Sluts’ and ‘Page Pimps’: online diarists and their quest for cyber-union" (2007) in a journal called Life Writing
- "Saving Digital History" (2007) in Library Journal
- "Women's Diaries in an Online Era" (2003), a thesis by a student at Southern Illinois University Carbondale

There's sufficient sourcing for Diary-X having been important at its time, even if the sources are harder to find now than they were in 2003. It's worth doing that work to avoid WP:RECENTISM and systemic bias. Dreamyshade (talk) 14:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:24, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree, this was important at the time. --Sm8900 (talk) 21:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Frances Broaddus-Crutchfield[edit]

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

GNG fail. Another COI creation by blocked editor Mitzi.Humphrey. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please do not delete any articles by Mitzi Humphrey. I am a Wikipedia reader and value the excellence of all her informative, educational, excellent articles and admire her dedication to Wikipedia. EileenAbbott (talk) 15:37, 18 June 2020 (UTC):Note:This user has made no other edits on Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 11:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject of this article does not meet GNG or CREATIVE guidelines. Netherzone (talk) 20:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Only notable in her own circle and locality. Graywalls (talk) 05:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 04:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jangladesh[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Has 71 revisions since 2007 but no source at all. Needs to be challenged. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Did you check the history of this article before nominating? Specially this instance? Hitro talk 06:15, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've restored an original version suggested by HitroMilanese. 🌴Koridas🌴 (Negotiate) 19:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the restored version. Good catch, HitroMilanese. --Lockley (talk) 11:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cancelled UFC event on May 30, 2020[edit]

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

Along with the Cancelled UFC event on April 9, 2020 article, the same also applies to this page as well. The only different here is that an event was actually planned for May 30, 2020 and took place accordingly, therefore this page is simply misleading and serves no purpose. — 29cwcst (talk) 05:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per above. It's pretty obvious. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 18:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:16, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Donovan[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ENT. Of the references currently in the article:

1 is from XXX Showcase, a pornography magazine. I don't have access but would guess that it's an interview.
2 is a (somewhat fluffy) profile associated with Mr. Donovan's induction into the GayVN Hall of Fame. Please note that porn industry awards no longer count towards anything now that PORNBIO has been deprecated.
3 and 4 (AVN) are very obvious press releases; the former mentions him only in passing.
The external links are a deadlinked pornography website, an award roster for another porn industry award, and some user-generated database listings.

I looked for additional sources and found only trivial or promotional coverage: this in a Jeffrey Escoffier book, this in the Sun-Sentinel, a small handful of mentions in back issues of the Bay Area Reporter, this in the Advocate, etc. Cheers, gnu 57 05:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 05:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 05:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 05:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very clearly does not meet our notability guidelines for pornographic actors. The analysis above shows clearly why he is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Italian Shepherd[edit]

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

Fails GNG. No RS to support these dogs are a breed, google searches under both the English and Italian names mentioned in the article reveals mentions about the Maremmano-Abruzzese Sheepdog which is known by a number of different names. Cavalryman (talk) 04:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not voting on this. The breed exists on the Internet and it has a breed website, however the website claims it has breed standard with Ente Nazionale della Cinofilia Italiano, however the breed is not on their list. The Italian language version of Wikipedia page has no references at all!User:Davidstewartharvey

I agree, you can find mentions about these dogs on unreliable websites, but nothing attributable to establish notability, and yes the few pages that do exist on our sister projects are either attributed to the same website as this page or completely unsourced. Cavalryman (talk) 06:37, 18 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. The tale of yet another 20th century breeder who just happen to notice that there was a special dog that was unrecognised by everybody else. The one source is a website of dubious lineage and text without author nor references, therefore it fails WP:REPUTABLE as a source. Google Books and Google Scholar have nothing to say on this dog - it fails WP:NOTABILITY. William Harristalk 08:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sixteen Italian breeds recognised by the ENCI are listed here, and this is not one of them (nor do I see any claim that it is – the agraria source is clear that it is not, the breeder's website is silent). I don't know what the Associazione Nazionale Cinofilia Italiana is, but it is not the national dog breed association recognised by the ministry of agriculture (that's the Ente Nazionale della Cinofilia Italiana, see this downloadable document, page 7). Agraria.org is a website of variable reliability – some of the content is written by livestock experts, and is I believe reliable; this entry is unsigned, and mostly copied from here. No other reliable sources found; the various mentions in books from a century or more ago date from before the establishment of the Pastore Maremmano and Pastore Abruzzese breed societies in the early 1950s, and do not relate to this dog. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable per Justlettersandnumbers's points. --Lockley (talk) 19:52, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:01, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BitLife[edit]

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

This page is just WP:CRUFT. My BEFORE turned up no reliable sources except the Newsweek article that's already referenced, but I'm not even sure about its suitability because it does not seem independent of the subject. All the other references are from Twitter and Reddit. Fails WP:GNG. Even if GNG can somehow be established, which I doubt, I would still say to delete per WP:TNT. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 03:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 03:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom (WP:TNT). Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 21:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG. Even if sufficient sources are found, kill it with fire as the others have suggested. Woodroar (talk) 22:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even the better sources aren't offering any substantial coverage, verifying that this thing exists and not much else. The article is overwhelmingly sourced to self-published posts on reddit and twitter, and I'm concerned that this has become a WP:COATRACK for WP:SELFPROMOTION which is a real abuse of Wikipedia for non-encyclopedic purposes. (That's the kindest way of putting it.) Shooterwalker (talk) 13:52, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:45, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Casper Hosting[edit]

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

This article does not meet WP:ORG. Of the 6 sources cited 3 are primary to the subject while the other 3 are not verifiable independent sources. riffic (talk) 03:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:30, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:30, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Casper Hosting has over 350k users and is notable in the industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.77.71.222 (talk) 17:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline works. Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable by reliable, independent sources. riffic (talk) 19:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I could not find sources about Casper Hosting that would allow it to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
Cunard (talk) 10:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails notability with no coverage in independent reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 19:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:45, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lin Carter deities[edit]

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

What makes this topic notable? I don't see anything out there outside few mentions in passing. Also, this type of an article effectively a List of deities in Lin Carter's works, a topic which also fails WP:LISTN. This content belongs on fan wiki, not here. Not a valid redirect target, no non-PLOT content to merge to Cthulhu Mythos deities. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. So trivial it should be gnawed into non-existence in the night by a worm. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete From what I can tell, Lin Carter's deities have not been seriously studied. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 05:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. It's always seemed an odd title for an article, though Carter's additions to the Cthulhu Mythos are arguably important. Still, it seems like the material, if worth keeping, might find a better home elsewhere, as in a general article in CM deities. (Is there one?) BPK (talk) 14:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC) (Hmm, looks like there is, along with at least four other articles identifying such deities by originating authors. Some, like the one on Clark Ashton Smith deities, are undoubtedly more notable than the Carter article. Could probably all be folded into the main Cthulhu deities article, though. BPK (talk) 14:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC))[reply]
- I have no objections if someone wants to merge stuff, but I don't see anything worht merging. It's fun, but pretty much unreferenced plot that should be on wikia/fandom, not here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As stated by the nom, this is essentially a "List of deities in Lin Carter's works", which fails WP:LISTN. It also looks like these deities are already covered at the main Cthulhu Mythos deities article, making this a needless, and somewhat redundant, WP:FORK. As there is no reliably sourced information here, there is nothing to merge. Rorshacma (talk) 16:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:LISTN as stated above. References are to what appears to be a primary source and a RPG supplement. Nothing that's sourced well enough to merge. Hog Farm (talk) 16:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Hold This list ties into List of Great Old Ones, a higher-ranking topic which is also currently under discussion. I ask to hold off a decision here, until one is reached about the List of Great Old Ones, and treat it as a subtopic of List of Great Old Ones/Cthulhu Mythos deities. Daranios (talk) 10:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it fails LISTN, article is a redundant fork with nothing to merge. No suitable redirect target, I am not sure if it’s a useful redirect anyway. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:30, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Tolkien Ensemble. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 04:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Complete Songs & Poems[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NALBUM or WP:GNG. The listed source is for scifi.com, I am unfamiliar with this source and its reliability. However, a WP:BEFORE search brings up very little that would pass WP:MUSICRS. Last.fm is deprecated, I believe, the AllMusic entry is a track listing with no reviews (not even user reviews), there are a host of blogs, and various sites that look rather unreliable such as "Musicbrainz". Doesn't seem to have a whole lot of coverage in reliable sources. Hog Farm (talk) 03:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 03:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 03:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 03:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 03:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I can find coverage of the Tolkien Ensemble in the following sources:
- The J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia: Scholarship and Critical Assessment, Taylor & Francis (2006), pg 539
- Middle-earth Minstrel: Essays on Music in Tolkien, McFarland & Co (2010), pg 158-159
- The Lord of the Rings: Popular Culture in Global Context, Wallflower (2006), pg 305

You can also see other sources listed in the five other Wikipedia articles about the Tolkien Ensemble and their work: The Tolkien Ensemble, An Evening in Rivendell, A Night in Rivendell, At Dawn in Rivendell and Leaving Rivendell. I think a Merge proposal would be more appropriate than a nomination for deletion. — Toughpigs (talk) 03:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- @Toughpigs: - Yes, those sources support notability for the band. However, those sources have no mention of this particular album. The days of an album only needing to be by a notable band to be notable are gone. Albums actually have to be notable on their own to pass WP:NALBUM now. A merge would likely not be a great idea, since the only sourced content is the massive track listing, which would be WP:UNDUE at the band article. I'm even ambivalent on a redirect, as there seems to be other albums/books/children's works with similar titles to this. While the Tolkien Ensemble is notable, not all of their works are. Hog Farm (talk) 16:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Tolkien Ensemble. The group appears to be notable, however there is not a whole lot of coverage on this specific album itself. Largely, I'm guessing, because it was merely a compilation of their previously released albums rather than any new material. WP:NALBUM states that album articles that are "little more than a track listing" (which is certainly the case here) could be more appropriate merged into the group's main or discography article. However, as this album was just a compilation of their prior four albums, and each of those already has an independent article, I don't think that would be particularly useful in this case. Rorshacma (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Tolkien Ensemble - I agree that the "keep" voter above found sources that are about the band but not about this particular album. Some of their other albums, also listed by the "keep" voter above, have achieved various amounts of notability, but again that does nothing for this album. It is simply a collection of previous releases, probably intended for hardcore fans but unnoticed by the public or the music media. It is already mentioned briefly at the group's article and that is sufficient. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 00:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Not seeing what makes the album notable? See WP:NMUSIC. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:54, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Tolkien Ensemble: Per reasons above. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:16, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rani Laxmi Bai Public School[edit]

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

No independent reliable source that establishes notability can be found on the subject. As such, the article should be deleted. Gabriel3014 2 (talk) 02:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we need more than a school's own website to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Danfoss Power Solutions[edit]

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

Daughter company of Danfoss that has not received significant coverage in independent and reliable secondary sources. The current article cites just one source, which is a quarter review press release. A web search reveals only press releases, market reports, and other such sources that each fail at least one of those four criteria. The article has multiple issues, mostly because the article creator (who wrote the bulk of the prose in the current version of the article) seems to be an employee of this subsidiary. Earlier, I tried to copy-edit this mess of an article a little, but ultimately decided it was hopeless because I can't see how this company is notable in any way, shape or form. Ealuscerwen (talk) 02:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ealuscerwen (talk) 02:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ealuscerwen (talk) 02:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Ealuscerwen (talk) 02:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is basically unsourced WP:OR that almost amounts to a WP:CRUFTed example of WP:NOT.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James Cusack[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, coverage appears to be limited to mere-mentions, routine coverage and primary sources. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 00:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As much as I hate losing pages when the person actually exists and is well known, it seems strange that a major DJ who has worked on the two largest independent radio stations in the UK and is a regular on the DJ scene has nothing more than tiny mentions anywhere or primary sources. I did a Gsearch and found the name is very common.User:Davidstewartharvey
Delete: Barely found anything about him. Not to mention the name is very common, per Davidstewartharvey. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kamal Kartik[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, the extensive amount of unsourced early life information is suggestive of a COI on the part of the initial editor. Searching online, I was able to find mere-mentions, but not much else. Someone searching in Hindi or Malayalam may have more luck. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 00:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is the most substantial coverage I could find and is not much at all. -- Whpq (talk) 17:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Piamenta, Moshe (1979). Islam in Everyday Arabic Speech. BRILL. ISBN 978-90-04-05967-2.

[1]