Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 June 9

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 8 June	10 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coventry Flames B.C.[edit]

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

I can't find any coverage better than a mere mention [1], doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 21:15, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Divisional amateur basketball team. A search brings up Wikipedia, mirror sites, and a blank roster. -- Otr500 (talk) 11:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonnotable amateur team. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 17:08, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the team does not seem to have anything like the notability that would be needed for it to have its own article. Dunarc (talk) 19:46, 15 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 Saving Jane. (non-admin closure) BEAMALEXANDER!, talk 04:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Something to Hold Onto[edit]

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

This album doesn't seem to have any claim to notability in my opinion, and doesn't come near passing the notability guidelines. There are brief mentions in some later interviews with the band, when they found some success, but nothing that warrants this album having its own article. JohnmgKing (talk) 23:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 23:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 23:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 23:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. There is so little info in this article that it seems pretty useless and there are no sources cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janitor Joseph (talk • contribs) 15:59, 10 June 2020 (UTC) struck confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Saving Jane: Barely found anything about the album. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above, no sign of independent notability, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:04, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redrect: Does not qualify for a stand alone article. -- Otr500 (talk) 11:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: @Fram: Re the above... I think it does not stand for a mention at all. This article was prodded thirteen years ago and it hasn't improved with age. The self-referencing and uncited "talks about this album, which appears to be an independent release, on their current MySpace bio": like Facebook, no guarantee that the impoverished MySpace page is actually the band, and it's an unreliable source anyway. I can't find this 'bio'... does it exist at all, anywhere ? In fact all other articles for this entity, and the Saving Jane blatant promo-padded-out article itself, must be under question, with its sources list full of magician-style misdirection. The whole caboodle of Saving Jane articles look like duck test spam to me. Certainly at least this one should go. Acabashi (talk) 09:40, 15 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) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 00:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thalias Kompagnons[edit]

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

De-PROD'd. Original rationale was: Doesn't appear notable. On a search (including German-language sources), only trivial mentions or non-independent sources located. No in-depth critical commentary found. No sources on the de.wiki version of this article.

Phil Bridger has added two sources, which I do not think are sufficient to justify a keep. Both are available only in snippet form on GBooks, but the first appears to be a brief 2-3 sentence mention, and the second is a brief mention of the company in the context of discussing Shakespeare translated to the puppet stage. There's still no in-depth discussion of the company that I can see, and two brief mentions aren't enough to retain a standalone article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, GNG, and WP:AUD. The sources listed just don't meet GNG and there aren't any non-trivial, non-local, reliable sources to add to get it there. Samsmachado (talk) 19:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added several more sources and the topic clearly passes GNG. In addition there are review pieces in Die Zeit and other German newspapers but as they are behind a paywall I haven’t included them. Mccapra (talk) 05:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mccapra's added sources. — Toughpigs (talk) 05:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There seem to be a number of books in various languages that mentioned the company and their productions, e.g. [2][3][4]. May pass GNG. Hzh (talk) 11:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yip and theatres tend to be notable. scope_creep^Talk 15:02, 16 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 Gamble Rogers. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 23:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Signs of a Misspent Youth[edit]

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

A notability tag has been on this article for a couple of years without any further changes, and on doing my own research I can find no evidence that this album is notable enough for its own article. JohnmgKing (talk) 23:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 23:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 23:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 23:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gamble Rogers: Barely found anything about the album, aside from a book mentioning it. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 05:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete or redirect. With nothing cited and only one line in the article, I think redirecting it would be the best option so people can read about it in an article with enough content to be an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janitor Joseph (talk • contribs) 16:01, 10 June 2020 (UTC) struck confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gamble Rogers as there are no signs of independent notability, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gamble Rogers as is standard for an album without independent notability. Hzh (talk) 11:40, 16 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. Canley (talk) 03:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Storer[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG, coverage in reliable sources appears to be limited to mere mentions. The most significant coverage I could find was this interview on a blog, which is likely not reliable. The subject's filmography is large enough that a case could be made for WP:NCREATIVE, but the absence of coverage that discusses Storer's creative influences on works that he's involved with makes me think that this argument is not particularly strong._signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NCREATIVE including NACTOR. Two out of 4 references are IMDb (also an "External links" listing) that is user generated so is not a reliable source. -- Otr500 (talk) 08:38, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:36, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Producing a Peabody-award program is a solid claim to notability, and there has been no argument refuting the claim. There is no requirement that an article subject with a sufficiently noteworthy body of work must also have a remarkable personal life in order to merit coverage. That is a damnably stupid standard for an encyclopedia to apply. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 00:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification. Storer was the director of the Peabody award-winning program, which is an even stronger claim of notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 23:39, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marginal keep. His previous works have been the subject of some attention - [5][6][7], and his latest project also seems to be attracting much attention - [8][9][10]. Borderline case, but I'd vote keep. Hzh (talk) 12:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep His work seems to be a lots of shorts and TV specials and I don't recognise any of it, but the new Last Drop is getting a bit of notice. I think it is somebody very early in their career,possibly WP:TOOSOON and there isn't sufficient source available to hold onto the article, i.e. there is no solid secondary sources, even to get to WP:THREE. scope_creep^Talk 15:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Limbeck. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 23:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tour EP (Limbeck EP)[edit]

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

A EP made on tour by the band Limbeck. And I don't think much has been said at all about it. As far as I can tell it fails GNG and the album notability guidelines rather decisively. JohnmgKing (talk) 23:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 23:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 23:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 23:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Limbeck: Barely found anything about the EP. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 05:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect. This doesn't appear notable enough but redirecting to its artist seems like a better option when that is an option. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janitor Joseph (talk • contribs) 16:04, 10 June 2020 (UTC) struck confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:10, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Limbeck as no signs of independent notability, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:11, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Limbeck as is usual for a non-notable album, but it's so un-noteworthy that a deletion is also possible given that the title is so generic that it will just clutter up search. Hzh (talk) 12:09, 16 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 Hope & Social. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 23:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fight Death[edit]

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

This article is about a mini album by a band who were at the time of its release called Four Day Hombre, and are apparently now called Hope&Social. Apart from an old BBC north Yorkshire feature about this band which briefly mentions this mini album [11] , I can't find anything else about it, and definitely not significant coverage. I don't think it warrants its own article. JohnmgKing (talk) 22:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 22:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 22:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 22:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no real RS to be found. Caro7200 (talk) 23:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hope & Social: Barely found anything about the album. My vote stands. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:21, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect. There is not enough info for its own article and the article about the band seems more notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janitor Joseph (talk • contribs) 16:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC) struck confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hope & Social as there are no signs of independent notability, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Peter James (talk) 23:20, 12 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. Stifle (talk) 13:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Butterworth (journalist)[edit]

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

Article about a UK journalist and minor politician who does not pass WP:GNG due to a lack of significant coverage about him in reliable sources. He has written a lot of articles but not been the subject of many. The only reference in the article with significant coverage of him is written by himself, and the only piece with significant coverage of him that I fould on the internet is this piece in a blog written by an ex-colleague of his. There may well be a conflict of interest going by the username of the one edit account that created it. Atlantic306 (talk) 21:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Atlantic306 (talk) 21:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notable neither as a journalist nor as a politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:02, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:JOURNALIST. No significant coverage found and 3 of 7 references on the article are written by the subject. -- Otr500 (talk) 12:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article does not do anything to suggest its subjects notability either as a journalist or as a politician. Dunarc (talk) 22:46, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - fails WP:GNG --DannyS712 (talk) 06:18, 17 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. Stifle (talk) 13:23, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shreyan Nayak[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG, the sole provided example of coverage that might be significant and independent is [12], which I am unable to evaluate. The rest of the coverage is a mixture of mere-mentions, database entries, and PR. I wasn't able to find anything better online. As Shreyan has only had one major role in a film of unclear notability (Selfish Dil), this seems like a case of WP:TOOSOON. Previously nominated for PROD by AaqibAnjum, dePROD by the initial editor. The listed awards won are largely debutant awards, which rarely meet WP:ANYBIO on their own, and are of unclear notability to boot. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the nom. as he is not a notable person. Pahiy (talk) 23:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per my PROD argument. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 07:07, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable yet. No significant coverage to be found in Indian media.Vipulsshah (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not Deleted - He Is a Notable Person in Odia Film Industry (Ollywood) And significant coverage in Indian and Odia News Papper.Amritmalhotra999 (talk) 04:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Amritmalhotra999, could you provide examples of such coverage? _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:04, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill, Here are some of the examples^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8] some articles are there with the india govt Prasarbharati^[9]. too you can check it out and it has enough citations to justify notability of the subject _signed,Amrit Malhotra999 ^talk 05:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Of those sources, the only one I hadn't seen already was #8. These are all examples of routine coverage. In order to demonstrate notability, I would like to see stuff like critics' reviews in reliable sources. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:44, 13 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) 22:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Ungrateful[edit]

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

Non notable musical band in which no individual member has in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources neither do the band as a whole. A before search barely shows me any google hits pertaining to the band. Ultimately the band doesn’t satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. Celestina007 (talk) 20:23, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:23, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:23, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:23, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:23, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable band. No credible coverage found. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. No reliable coverage found, either searching by band name or by the names of band members. Richard3120 (talk) 21:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The band only has very basic entries at list sites like Metal Archives and Discogs, and an empty entry at AllMusic. Can find nothing else beyond scattered social media sites and occasional record company listings. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 02:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Doomsdayer520. Metal Archives, Discogs and empty Allmusic entries does not make a band notable. But I did not found anything else either. The band also does not have a page on the Swedish Wikipedia either. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 08:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. I clearly don't think there is enough enfo or reliable sources to make this article worth keeping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janitor Joseph (talk • contribs) 16:18, 10 June 2020 (UTC) striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:20, 12 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) 18:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bayfair Center[edit]

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

Completely non-notable shopping center; nothing in Google Books and News proves notability, and obviously the article itself, which is really poor, doesn't. PROD removed without any explanation by Koridas. Drmies (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:45, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. There doesn't seem to be enough notable sources other than from the mall's own site which doesn't seem like enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janitor Joseph (talk • contribs) 16:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC) struck confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Primary sources do not advance notable. Alternate: Redirect to List of shopping malls in California#Regional Enclosed Malls. -- Otr500 (talk) 12:51, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. --Lockley (talk) 05:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another non-notable structure. scope_creep^Talk 16:40, 17 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)} 14:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talking shop[edit]

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

Political term. WP:DICDEF. Also essentially unsourced, notability not established. Sandstein 19:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 19:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Besides the fact that as a figure of speech this is already heavily used to mean something entirely different, it frankly sounds like a made-up slang pejorative. It's too much to ask everyone else to try and search this one out: the onus has to be on the writers to cough up some significant and extensive use of the phrase. Right now, it sounds like a hoax. Mangoe (talk) 15:04, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Wiktionary already has an entry for this DICDEF. Mccapra (talk) 05:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as is. Term is definitely not a hoax and is commonly used, in UK/Ireland at least, but this article is a dictionary definition. I am recommending deletion only for that reason. A non-dicdef article which hits expected levels of sourcing would be liable to be kept. Stifle (talk) 13:25, 17 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 List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters (H–L)#Heavy Metal. per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) b uidhe 10:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy Metal (G.I. Joe)[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character. The sources in the article are the comics themselves, yojoe.com (appears to be unreliable), and two books. Of the two books, one is published by the publisher of some of the comics, and appears to be an official publication, which would make it a primary source. The other book claims to be "official", and if it is truly officially licensed, the independent nature of the source is doubtful. FWIW, the list of characters is also up for deletion. Hog Farm (talk) 19:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 19:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 19:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 19:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters (H–L) per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 19:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters (H–L)#Heavy Metal. I have already added info from here to that article, there is no longer a reason to merge. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree to Redirect: Per reasons stated. -- Otr500 (talk) 12:55, 13 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Praful Mathur[edit]

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

Non notable entrepreneur who doesn’t satisfy our general notability criteria & a before search show no indication of notability as he is mentioned in unreliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 19:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. I can't see behind this WSJ paywall, but this may have some encyclopedic content. We have several reliable sources about his founder roles that have led to significant funding, but they are mostly tangential references. ([13], [14], [15], [16]). I expect him to be notable in the future, but he is not yet so, IMO.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Nom and TonyTheTiger. Fails WP:notability standards. BLP sourced only by "External links". Wikipedia is not a crystal ball so "not yet notable" translates to "not notable". -- Otr500 (talk) 13:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Hatchens (talk) 12:42, 15 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 Operation Albumen#Heraklion operation. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 10:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kostis Petrakis[edit]

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

Fail of WP:SOLDIER and WP:NPERSON. Was not a general-equivalent, did not recieve a major award. There has not been significant coverage of them, all availible sources are just passing mentions. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:58, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 06:28, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Operation Albumen, or Operation_Albumen#Heraklion_operation. There is some local (Cretan) media coverage on Petrakis (like this article in 2 parts published in the Heraklion daily Patris, June 19-20 2006 [17], [18]]), but mainly all revolves around (or is based on) his patricipation in the Heraklion "section" of Operation Albumen, because he was the only Greek participating in the raid to the Heraklion airfield. So his notability (if any) falls in the grey zone where it is "unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both" (WP:SINGLEEVENT). ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 07:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per Nom. WP:SINGLEEVENT so alternate Redirect to Operation Albumen#Heraklion operation per Chalk19. No real "Grey zone" though, fails criteria for a stand alone article. Might make a good movie one day. -- Otr500 (talk) 13:22, 13 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Sphere (social network)[edit]

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

This is not a notable website. Wikieditor600 (talk) 19:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:31, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems notable enough to retain as part of this topical area. we already have entries for every sitcom that ever aired on commerical television, even for some that are less notable. this falls within the same criteria; i.e. an actual media product in the public sphere, for the viewing of the general public. --Sm8900 (talk) 17:27, 15 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) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters (A–C)[edit]

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

Also nominated:

Wikipedia is not a toy catalogue. Sources are generally primary or not independent from the toys (WP:N). Content is all in-universe plot summary (WP:NOTPLOT). Sandstein 19:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 19:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NEXIST. I dislike the practice of deleting individual character pages for fictional characters, merging them to a list, and then trying to delete the list. It is common practice for Wikipedia to have list pages for characters of a TV show or franchise, and these are often heavily plot-based. I agree that this page needs more references and generally cutting out irrelevant details, but WP:ARTN says that the current state of the article doesn't determine the topic's notability. The question is, is "List of G.I. Joe characters/playsets" a notable topic that is represented in reliable independent sources? Well, there are independent published books about the franchise as a whole:
- The Ultimate Guide to G.I. Joe 1982-1994: Identification and Price Guide by Mark Bellorno, F&W Media/Penguin Books (2009).
- Warman's G.I. Joe Field Guide by Karen O'Brien, Krause Publications (2005)

And looking at Newspapers.com...

"G.I. Joe collector talks about appeal of original man of action" by Preston Jones, Fort Worth Star-Telegram (Aug 6, 2009)
"Plastic warriors of childhood lure nostalgic baby boomers" by Glenn Garvin, Miami Herald (July 6, 2008)
"G.I. Joe: Action figure has worn many faces in his 35 years of living — just don't call him a doll" by Amy Wilson, The Orange Country Register (Jan 2, 2000)
"G.I. Joe soldiers on at 40: G.I. Action Girl Nurse is 'holy grail' to collectors" by Richard Chin, Knight Ridder Newspaper Service (Jan 22, 2004)

I think that these sources demonstrate that each individual character or playset may not be notable on its own, but as a collection, it certainly is. (By the way, I think that this list may be more about the TV show characters while my sources are about the action figures, but the nominator mentioned a "toy catalogue" so I'm responding to that.) — Toughpigs (talk) 21:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and develop further, not a "toy catalogue" but rather character lists for a decades-long multimedia franchise. That many of the sources are primary is not a concern for such lists, given that a work is the most reliable source for its own content, though the nominator admits indirectly that there are secondary sources as well, and many of the series' characters have/merit standalone articles. Whether these should be trimmed down (maybe to omit those characters not mentioned in any secondary source, or those never depicted in TV, comics, or film), or whether these lists have value in being comprehensive, is a matter for ordinary discussion and editing to address by those familiar with the subject matter. In any event using an indiscriminate wrecking ball to the whole series of lists is not a valid option. postdlf (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments by Toughpigs and postdlf, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. The lists may need a trim so that they can be consolidated into a single list, but that is not a matter for AFD. BOZ (talk) 22:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Character lists for a very notable franchise, and a lot of those listed have a link to their own articles even. Dream Focus 22:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It needs a lot more sources outside what it has; its item-to-source ratio is horrid. I wanted to nominate this article myself but knew it would be WP:ITSNOTABLE'ed to death. Add sources, please. Nate • (chatter) 23:18, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources found by Toughpigs indicate a WP:LISTN pass it looks like. Needs a solid trimming though. The over-detailed fancruft can be trimmed down, and a stricter inclusion criteria can be made. Probably a higher bar of significance should be needed for inclusion, there's no reason why this needs to be split into five separate lists. Hog Farm (talk) 00:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - For context, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbecue (G.I. Joe) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mainframe (G.I. Joe). Those discussions led to the creation of the character lists. See also the Yojoe Collector Books list, some of those are RS. --Cerebellum (talk) 01:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Individual characters may not be notable, but taken together either as a tv show or a toy line, they are. Needs more sources, but they do exist, as evidenced by above. Rhino131 (talk) 03:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per LISTN, although I wouldn't oppose a trim and merging to one list. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:TNT, which this is a textbook example of. I wouldn't be opposed to a single list showing the most absolutely notable GI Joe characters, but this is more like a fan wiki in its breadth and lack of notability. Blow it up and start over._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:20, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It seems obvious Wikipedia might be a little bit of a G.I. Joe toy catalog. There are these several lists and List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero action figures that states "covers every known character in the G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero toy line to have received his/her own action figure". I am not against a list of the toys, hell, I played with them many years ago, but how much coverage do we need? There are some comments above I don't totally agree with. I agree with Toughpigs on all except WP:NEXIST. That is used a lot but also contains: However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface. I also agree with postdlf, BOZ, and Toughpigs, along with several others, that there needs to be a lot of trimming, possibly consolidating, and proper sourcing. I totally disagree with "That many of the sources are primary is not a concern for such lists, given that a work is the most reliable source for its own content". The policy on verifiability states: All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. WP:PRIMARY covers this. WP:LISTN discusses "independent reliable sources". WP:SIGCOV goes into pretty good detail concerning "Availability of secondary sources" and "Independent of the subject", and Wikipedia:Independent sources gives good coverage, that do not seem to be in agreement with the above statement. A statement was made I totally agree with: "I dislike the practice of deleting individual character pages for fictional characters, merging them to a list, and then trying to delete the list.", if that has happened. Articles dating back to 2005 that are bloated, lacking sources, and possibly too spread out, needs attention, but that is not within the scope of AFD. With clear consensus above "maybe" some knowledgeable editors will help out. -- Otr500 (talk) 15:03, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Demonstrating notability of a pop culture topic requires secondary sources. But verifiability for particular statements can be established by primary sources, such as when we are giving basic, noninterpretive descriptions of the content of those primary sources. Hope this helps, postdlf (talk) 16:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "GI Joe" is the pop/toy culture equivalent of Olympus Mons. scope_creep^Talk 15:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seems like another case if a character list from a major franchise being in terrible shape. But thats not a reason for deletion.★Trekker (talk) 17:29, 16 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 Georg Donatus, Hereditary Grand Duke of Hesse. czar 06:24, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Johanna of Hesse and by Rhine[edit]

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

This article purports to be on a princess, but that's clearly inaccurate as she was born in 1936, after the title was abolished. I tried to find sources for the correct name but failed. The two sources we cite are only passing mentions, and that's representative - which is to be expected as she died aged two. This is another example of articles on former noble families that are written and titled as if we lived in an alternate timeline where the Duchies, Archduchies and other fiefdoms still existed. Guy (help!) 15:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.Smeat75 (talk) 15:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The title is not the problem. The lack of significant coverage is. The same applies to the articles about her brothers. They are merely genealogical entries with over half the text copy-pasted from one to another. Surtsicna (talk) 16:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment': Sorry @Surtsicna:, The title IS a problem as there was no Grand Duchy for her to be Princess of. PAustin4thApril1980 (talk) 16:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- PAustin4thApril1980, there did not have to be a grand duchy for her to be known as a princess. People name themselves and others whatever they like. If it sticks, Wikipedia goes with it. Surtsicna (talk) 16:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable person. Schazjmd (talk) 16:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable child.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to her father, Georg Donatus, Hereditary Grand Duke of Hesse. The problem is not that the grand duchy was no longer a reigning monarchy during her time (1936 to 1939); the problem is that the subject died when she was 2 years old and thus there is little to say about her. Almost every fact in this article is already in the article about her father. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Metropolitan90, OK, but redirect form what? This article title is fake. Guy (help!) 09:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to father. Non-notable but worth a mention there. PamD 09:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PamD, sure, but the title is also made up. Guy (help!) 09:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it's commonly used out there - google "Johanna Marina Eleonore" and a lot turns up. I've made a redirect from another version of her name, which can follow this one when this is made into a redirect. PamD 10:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to father's page. Non-notable on their own, but appropriately covered in her father's article. I assume that the "Princess" title would be some sort of "official" pretender style. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:20, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I voted delete but do not object to redirect. Schazjmd (talk) 19:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Georg Donatus, Hereditary Grand Duke of Hesse. Who cares if the monarchy was abolished, people can still call themselves whatever they please, and if that’s what they’re known by than WP:COMMONNAME says we follow. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Pi (Talk to me!) 22:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Pi (Talk to me!) 22:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - perfectly legitimate to call her Princess as that’s what reliable sources but she is not notable enough for a standalone article. Worth mentioning in her fathers article what happened to her when the rest of her family were killed. - dwc lr (talk) 12:25, 11 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gori (actress)[edit]

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

non notable actress. Fails WP:GNG, Fails WP:NACTOR Numan765 (talk) 10:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the nominator has been blocked as a sock. See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikibaji/Archive#26 May 2020 -- Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 15:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable.— Hammad (Talk!) 10:49, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:18, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:18, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A notable actress of Pakistani Punjabi films of the 1980s and 1990s. Found and added 2 more reliable references and 1 external link to the article in addition to its 6 existing references. Ngrewal1 (talk) 02:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per arguments of Ngrewal1. — Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 03:43, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Small role in non notable movies. Fails WP:GNG. KST981 (talk) 09:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough roles that were significant in notble productions to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACTOR. Can't create article about every trivial contributor. Editorkamran (talk) 15:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First reference is a mention. scope_creep^Talk 09:39, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And the other 7 references show her as being a lead actress in many films of the 1980s? Ngrewal1 (talk) 15:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:ENTERTAINER requires that she "has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." This is the case. Note that there is no requirement for them to be English-language productions. Wikipedia needs to avoid a bias against recentism: we live in an era when loads of recent stuff is easily accessible on the internet. But people whose careers were pre-internet are just as notable as more recent people - it is just that newspapers, and periodicals from their era is less accessible, which is why there is more stuff on the internet about current actors and actresses than ones from earlier.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:19, 17 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. Should be a delete by policy but the level of support for a poorly sourced blp by users relying on an SNG mean that a delete close won't stick. Maybe the football project should start creating lists for the players who have barely played until either there are sources or their game time picks up Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yassine Tekfaoui[edit]

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

Maybe a case of WP:TOOSOON as the only references are his transfer to Jong Utrecht. HawkAussie (talk) 05:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 05:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 05:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 05:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Tekfaoui has played in the Eerste Divisie! Source. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 08:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - a nominal amount of play (coming on as a 90+1 substitute) is not sufficient when GNG is failed. Giant Snowman 20:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: That's rubbish. He passes WP:NFOOTY. Doesn't matter how many minutes he's played, he has featured in a professional game of football. Say he comes on as a 90th minute sub in Jong Ultrecht's next game, is he then eligible for a page? Because he's played in two games? What is the cutoff point? Are we going to start counting minutes for players?

You have created numerous pages for players with a very very small amount of appearances, and those players are either retired or dead. Tekfaoui is eighteen and playing for Ultrecht. There is a high chance he will make another appearance in professional football, unlike Terry Regan (footballer), who, at 93, most likely will not. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 20:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After a quick search, here is a list of players I found that you created, who only have one appearance to their name:

The interesting thing about Jason Jarvis is that he only has two minutes of professional football to his name, which came while he was playing for Falkirk. Care to explain how Jarvis is any different to Tekfaoui? Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 21:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline is always GNG - NFOOTBALL is just a presumption. There is plenty of AFD consensus which shows that technically meeting NFOOTBALL is insufficient if GNG is failed. PS please stop stalking me, it's weird. Giant Snowman 12:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having reviewed some of the AFDs in question, it seems like I had forgotten that young players at the start of their career are given more leeway. As this applies here, I change my !vote to keep. Giant Snowman 12:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I resent that remark, I just had a quick look through the archive of new articles. I'm always interested in the new articles created, and I knew I'd seen some players with only a handful of pro appearances. Glad you changed your vote. :) Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 12:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete This "young players at the start of their career are given more leeway" rubbish needs to stop. Wikipedia is not supposed to jump the gun and create articles on people who may one day be notable. We need articles on people who are already notable and early career figures who have not received signficant coverage are inherently non-notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: by this logic, most of the articles ever created for football players would be deleted. Most players who played before the late 90s would have hardly any coverage, as would most international players at lower-ranked FIFA teams. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 14:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which would be a good thing. We need to end having articles on subjects that are not sourced to the level of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but that would be hundreds of thousands of pages deleted. I think the majority of Wikipedia would disagree with you. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article about footballer who made a single substitute's appearance in the Dutch second-level football league (after the 90th minute) and which comprehensively fails the GNG. There is longstanding consensus that the presumption of notability in NFOOTBALL is invalid when the GNG cannot be met (there is simply no online coverage of this footballer that could be used to write an article except a match report, transfer announcement and database entry - all of which are the most superficial of coverage). His appearance came in early December 2019, and one would expect some coverage if this person was notable (I don't believe the rather dubious "early in his or her career" reasoning applies here). Jogurney (talk) 15:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON but passes WP:NFOOTY and plenty of other similar articles exist. I don't see how the fact that his appearance came after the 90th minute makes any difference. SFletcher06 (talk) 21:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTY and subject is 18 years old with an ongoing career see little point deleting it.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets NFOOTY - and a young player with long career ahead. Nfitz (talk) 23:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Do any of the !keep voters mind addressing the GNG? It's absolutely clear that the presumption of notability in NFOOTBALL isn't valid when the GNG cannot be met. Jogurney (talk) 18:21, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where you are getting that interpretation, Jogurney - let alone it ever being absolutely clear. That's not stated at WP:NFOOTBALL. And at WP:N it says "meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline". So either GNG or SNG is good. This is confirmed under WP:SNG where it clearly says that "A topic is not required to meet both the general notability guideline and a subject-specific notability guideline to qualify for a standalone article". I don't think it gets clearer than that. So what are you seeing that clearly says the opposite. Nfitz (talk) 23:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The lead of NSPORTS says "This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." Is that not clear? Jogurney (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it's clear that reliable sources are needed. And reliable sources are in this article - so what User:Jogurney is the issue? It doesn't say that GNG must be met. I agree though - no reliable sources, no article Nfitz (talk) 05:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brett Mellor is one fairly recent example of consensus on how NFOOTBALL is applied to a footballer when GNG is comprehensively failed (there are hundreds of similar AfDs that have reached the same conclusion over the past 2 years). Please let me know and I can point you to them (there are a bunch listed at User:Levivich/NFooty AfDs). Jogurney (talk) 22:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GNG isn't comprehensively failed here. There are links to reliable, secondary sources. SFletcher06 (talk) 23:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jogurney, you yourself commented in that AFD that " we have only been able to produce two sentences about his career (all of which is sourced to a single online database)", and we were clearly failing the requirement to have reliable sources. How does that compare to this situation, where we do have multiple reliable sources? Nfitz (talk) 02:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:FOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not sure GNG is really being addressed here. There's certainly not a clear consensus to keep. Yes he passes NFOOTY by virtue of a very brief appearance, but statements in keep votes such as "he has a long career ahead of him" are purely speculative and not grounded in any policy.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 18:45, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure why User:Fenix down has kept open, when there's a clear consensus to keep, other than the invalid comments that it should be deleted, because GNG is not met. There is no need for GNG to be even checked if SNG is met, as per discussion above. This is very clearly stated in WP:SNG where it says that "A topic is not required to meet both the general notability guideline and a subject-specific notability guideline to qualify for a standalone article". In WP:NSPORTS it clearly says that "The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below". As reliable sources have been provided that NFOOTY has been met, then GNG is not relevant, and it's not worth anyone's time researching further. Please close asap. Nfitz (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's 5 keeps, 3 deletes including the nom. Please:

review your understanding of the notion of consensus, preferably with reference to your recent comments on my talk page when AfD didn't go your way
stop making subjective comments such as "he has a long career ahead of him" as if it means something, start talking sources
never, ever use the phrase "GNG is not relevant" in any discussion about anything to do with notability, for reasons too obvious to need stating. Fenix down (talk) 21:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are highly biased in the area of Football, and quite frankly, you need to stop closing AFDs for football players - they are only a small fraction of AFDs, and perhaps you should avoid areas where you have bias. One doesn't count votes. One ways arguments - and GNG argument is not relevant, given that SNG is met. Please close this now. Nfitz (talk) 22:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also I don't know the relevance of other AFDs. In the one, you've completely ignored my comments for days. In the other, the issue wasn't "consensus", it was that the three deletes, didn't address the article changes, and addition/reference of GNG sources. One said that the GNG was only local - not explaining what that even means with national coverage. The other two simply said "per nom", apparently ignoring the significant changes since the nomination. Nfitz (talk) 22:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please restrict your comments to sources that indicate how GNG is established given that NFOOTY is a presumption of GNG. Fenix down (talk) 22:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've already pointed out User:Fenix down, linked and quoted guidelines showing that GNG is not necessary, if SNG is met. Please show guidelines or policy where it says otherwise. There's no need to spend so much time chasing GNG on people meeting SNG. Everyone's time would be better served by following the clear black line that invalidates any delete votes. Nfitz (talk) 23:20, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The SNG provides a presumption (meaning it is rebuttable) and there is longstanding consensus that this article represents a common situation where the presumption can be rebutted and is invalid. I've added a table below to discuss whether the presumption of notability is indeed invalid. Jogurney (talk) 19:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The long-standing consensus is generally for retired players, who played a few minutes, with little coverage other than stats. On those 3 criteria, we are 0 for 3 in this case. I thought we also had a long-standing consensus that we don't create articles for players on fully-professional teams until they get their first appearance. More to the point. Nfitz (talk) 01:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you looked at the AfDs I linked to, but they don't support the "retired" criteria you listed at all. The two things they all have in common: (1) minimal play in a fully-pro league (this article meets that); and (2) comprehensive failure of the GNG (this article also meets that - see below if you disagree). Jogurney (talk) 14:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The only one I saw that you'd linked was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brett Mellor where some delete votes said that it didn't meet NFOOTY, and some questioned if Division 4 was even fully-profesional in 1980. Furthermore the player has (presumably!) retired, and the closing statement didn't opine. I don't see how it's comparable to this situation. Nfitz (talk) 17:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you'd find Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sawyer Gaffney or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glauver Aranha Pinheiro more palatable. Any article here can be deleted for failing GNG even if it passes any one of our many SNGs, I don't know how this has just come up now. SportingFlyer T·C 05:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Since SFletcher06 has asserted that the article may satisfy the GNG (thank you for doing so), I decided to create a table to help us discuss whether it does. Please see below. Jogurney (talk) 19:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.ijsselmeervogels.nl/nieuws/jeugd/yassine-tekfaoui-naar-fc-utrecht	IJsselmeervogels is an amateur football club which trained Tekfaoui as a youth	The football club has expertise on its own youth players	? The source discusses the subject directly but not in much detail (it is a fairly routine announcement that one of the club's players has signed with a professional club)	✘ No
https://www.elfvoetbal.nl/binnenland/277672/deel-5-deze-jeugdspelers-kloppen-op-de-deur-bij-fc-utrecht	ELF Voetbal is an independent magazine published in the Netherlands	ELF Voetbal is a monthly football magazine (it claims to be the largest in the Netherlands)	? The source does not discuss the subject directly (he is one of four of Utrecht's youth players covered) and not in great detail (a single paragraph of text)	? Unknown
https://utrecht.nieuws.nl/sport/73568/fc-utrecht-legt-amersfoorter-yassine-tekfaoui-vast/	utrecht.nieuws.nl appears to be an independent news website based in Utrecht	? I am unable to determine the website's publishing standards or expertise	The sources discusses the subject directly but not in great detail (a routine transfer announcement)	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Interesting - I haven't checked any sources ... because it's not necessary as WP:SNG has been met. Nfitz (talk) 01:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment SNGs including WP:FOOTY ,WP:NCRIC exist to provide for the inclusion of certain defined subjects that cannot immediately be shown to pass GNG." An SNG provides for a presumption of notability, not a presumption of non-notability An SNG cannot be used to exclude/delete an article when the subject passes GNG, but the reverse is patently absurd because that would negate the entire reason for the existence of SNGs " particularly for a player currently playing and only 17 years old and has made his debut this season on 7th December 2019 before Covid 19 issues.Note if he had been injured or retired it was different but not for one who is currently playing.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:22, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pharaoh of the Wizards Let me emphasise something there: that cannot immediately be shown to pass GNG. An SNG provides an indication that the subject probably passes the GNG - they are only placeholders for the GNG, and passing the GNG is what ultimately counts. PJvanMill (talk) 19:15, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or draftify Fails the GNG. The ELF Voetbal article is not quite what I would call significant coverage, just one paragraph (also does not look like a generally reliable source to me, but that is a superficial judgement), and we need significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. PJvanMill (talk) 19:06, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SNG is met. WP:BASIC is also met with "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". We have multiple independent sources that can be combined to demonstrate notability. What is the issue here? Nfitz (talk) 20:14, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. Upcoming young player with a single match meeting NFOOTY who might well meet GNG in the near future. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:33, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are the first person User:No Great Shaker to claim that NFOOTY hasn't been met. Can you expand on that, given even the previous delete votes acknowledge that NFOOTY and SNG is met. Also, how is BASIC not met? Nfitz (talk) 20:14, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, Nfitz. I forgot that the Netherlands has two pro leagues, though I'm well aware of the fact. He does meet the minimum qualification for SNG but I am not convinced he meets GNG yet, regardless of any arguments about BASIC. GNG overrides all other considerations and I still think draftifying is the best option for the present; I do not agree with deletion. I've amended my previous entry. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 04:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SNG literally says that GNG doesn't have to be met. There are multiple reliable sources. Nfitz (talk) 04:19, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It does not literally say that at all. What is does say is:

"These subject-specific notability guidelines are generally derived based on verifiable criteria due to accomplishment or recognition in that field that either in-depth, independent sourcing likely exists for that topic but may take time and effort to locate. Thus, we allow for the standalone article on the presumption that meeting the SNG criteria will guarantee the existence or creation of enough coverage to meet GNG. (But)... in cases where GNG has not been met and a subject's claim to meeting an SNG is weak or subjective, the article may still be deleted or merged: a presumption is neither a guarantee that sources can be found nor a mandate for a separate page".

As far as Tekfaoui is concerned, his SNG qualification is weak (one second tier match only) and there is no sign as yet of the significant coverage demanded by the GNG. As such, the article is by no means a definite keep but I personally think it may become one very soon after football returns to normal and so I believe draftify to be the best option. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 05:20, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why User:No Great Shaker did you go out of your way to redact the most relevant piece of what you quoted? I've highlighted he sentence you redacted: "A topic is not required to meet both the general notability guideline and a subject-specific notability guideline to qualify for a standalone article. Note, however, that in cases where GNG has not been met and a subject's claim to meeting an SNG is weak or subjective, the article may still be deleted. SNG is met - there's no doubt that he has played, and no shortage of reliable sources that both confirm that, and give enough information about the player to write a (short) article. Even those supporting deletion indicate that one of the references is borderline on GNG itself! (personally, I haven't checked any references, as there's no need to, meeting SNG). Nfitz (talk) 22:19, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have missed the point I was making. No Great Shaker (talk) 02:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not sure what to do with this one - he technically passes the SNG albeit barely, he probably passes GNG albeit barely, he's an active player, he's probably still TOOSOON. I don't mind either keeping or drafting this, and if it's kept we should be allowed to review this one again if he never plays another minute of pro football or receives any further coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 04:53, 16 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 as per WP:CSK #4. Delete votes were discounted as per zzuuzz’s comment. (non-admin closure) Juliette Han (talk) 17:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lehman Alternative Community School[edit]

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

I nominated this article for deletion because it has no sources cited which means it can't be as reliable as we want. 50.93.104.254 (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination on behalf of IP. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No comment on this school's notability, however sources do exist, though mostly local news.^[10] ^[11]

References

^ "Selfish Dil Movie: Showtimes, Review, Trailer, Posters, News & Videos | eTimes".
^ "Local lad Shreyan promotes his debut movie in Muniguda - OrissaPOST". Odisha News, Odisha Latest news, Odisha Daily - OrissaPOST. 18 July 2019.
^ "Songs of 'Selfish Dil' get thumbs up from audiences". Odisha Television Ltd. 4 July 2019.
^ "Selfish Dil Movie (2019) | Reviews, Cast & Release Date in". BookMyShow.
^ "Selfish Dil on Moviebuff.com". Moviebuff.com.
^ "Ollywood Directory". ollywooddiary.com.
^ "Four Love Stories To Enthrall Odia Movie Buffs During 'Raja'". ODISHA BYTES. 10 June 2019.
^ "Basant Sahu's Selfish Dil features newcomers - Times of India". The Times of India.
^ "Prasarbharti.gov.in".
^ https://amp.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/03/31/annual-middle-east-debates-institution-lacs/99564634/
^ https://www.ithacajournal.com/story/news/local/2018/05/19/icsd-appoints-new-principal-lacs/622832002/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sro23 (talk • contribs) 23:14, June 9, 2020 (UTC)

Delete. Those local news stories clearly don't look like enough to be notable to me and nothing in the article is sourced. There are schools everywhere so it seems to me like every school having its own article is too much even if there are some news stories about most of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.36.110 (talk) 23:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. WP:CSK#4. The nominator is an IP sock of a banned vandal, and the IP above is another sockpuppet of the same banned vandal (specifically this one and this one to pick a couple of examples). Enough sources exist for the article to exist. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't know how the commenter above me came to that conclusion, but as I've just started helping clean up Wikipedia there's a lot I don't know about what goes on behind the scenes. However, this school doesn't appear to meet the general notability guidelines to me even with a few local news stories about it. Even if it was a banned vandal who said it first, I agree that it's too much to have a page about every school that has ever been mentioned in the news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janitor Joseph (talk • contribs) 16:38, 10 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. (non-admin closure) JohnmgKing (talk) 18:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Planet Smashers (album)[edit]

Withdrawn by nominator- made a mistake on this one, as there is also some French language coverage.

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

The article is just a tracklist and an infobox, and I cannot find significant coverage for this album, or any indication it fulfils notability guidelines. I propose a re-direct to the band's articleThe Planet Smashers JohnmgKing (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 18:40, 9 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) 22:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adedapo Oluwaseyi Adelegan[edit]

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

Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence falls short of WP:GNG. A before search shows no evidence of notability. Celestina007 (talk) 18:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable PR person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:17, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N. {{31}}{{25A (talk)}} 19:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Passing mentions of the subject nothing more. A google search from GNEWS brings out not more than 7 results. In conclusion not notable enough for Wikipedia. Lapablo (talk) 17:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject lacks in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:27, 14 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 💬 17:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Madhampatty Rangaraj[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO, WP:GNG. Sources seem unreliable. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 17:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 17:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 17:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 17:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. These sources from The Hindu are reliable independent secondary sources:^[1]^[2] These sources cover his cooking career and film career, respectively. This article was deleted because the previous article didn't talk about his cooking career. He is also found in the Vikatan:^[3]^[4] There are several sources in both the English and Tamil-languages.-- TamilMirchi (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article has weight, the sources are reliable, and the subject has been active as early as 2002. --Kailash29792 (talk) 13:10, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Madhampatty virundhu - The Hindu". The Hindu.
^ Jeshi, K. (May 13, 2019). "Shweta Tripathi taught me method acting: Madhampatty Rangaraj on 'Mehandi Circus'". The Hindu.
^ Karthi, E. Sudharshan. ""கார்த்தி கல்யாணத்துக்கு கேட்டரிங், சூர்யா அண்ணனின் வாழ்த்து!" - 'மெஹந்தி சர்க்கஸ்' ரங்கராஜ் ["Catering to Karthi wedding, Surya's brother greeting!" - 'Mehandi Circus' Rangaraj]". Vikatan (in Tamil).
^ Karthi, E. Sudharshan. "``ஏழே கேரக்டர்ஸ்... கொடைக்கானலில் 32 நாள்... பென்ச்மார்க் கீர்த்தி! - `பெண்குயின்' அப்டேட்ஸ் [`` Seven Characters ... 32 Days in Kodaikanal ... Benchmark Keerthi! - `Penguin 'Updates]". Vikatan (in Tamil).

Keep as has two leading film roles as confirmed in multiple reliable sources where he also has significant coverage and passes WP:GNG so deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It was me who previously Afded this article on 30 March 2020 which was eventually created by another editor didn't cover much details like the current article. Now the article is really up to the standards and meets WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Abishe (talk) 07:16, 12 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:27, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chi City (artist)[edit]

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

Lacks WP:Musicbio, sort of WP:Toosoon CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:23, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:23, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:20, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:20, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks significant coverage. May be notable in the future, but so far his works has not elicited much attention to warrant an article. Hzh (talk) 12:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has been going now, slightly more than 4 years and no evidence he has made it. scope_creep^Talk 16:47, 17 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 18:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NGC 4[edit]

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

We have only the typical sources one might expect for any galaxy object. A google scholar search only shows appearance in large tables. No independent studies or discussion in reliable sources have been done on this object. Sam-2727 (talk) 17:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Sam-2727 (talk) 17:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I would also be open to redirecting the article. Sam-2727 (talk) 17:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- All there is about this galaxy is that it exists and is listed in big catalogues. There are billions of galaxies in the Universe. Most are not WP-notable, including this one. Reyk _YO! 07:19, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most NGC galaxies would have sufficient notability under WP:NASTRO, but this one is an exception. NED lists only 3 references with information on NGC 4, one of which is the NGC catalog and the other two are more recent large catalog papers. It's surprising to see such a low level of notability and so few literature references for a galaxy in the NGC catalog. Aldebarium (talk) 19:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aldebarium, I would encourage you to take a look at User:Sam-2727/Analysis of NGC Notability. According to my estimates, it would seem that the majority of NGC objects are in fact likely not notable. Sam-2727 (talk) 03:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My plan in the future is to go through all NGC objects and redirect the ones that I don't deem notable. Sam-2727 (talk) 03:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point, but it might be better to have a broader discussion about NGC notability criteria to build a consensus on this first, since the text in WP:NASTRO does leave some ambiguity about where to draw the line. Looking at your list of NGC objects that you deem non-notable, some of them have dozens of references in NED and might therefore have much better claim to notability than a galaxy like NGC 4 that has only 3 references ever. I would recommend using NED rather than Google Scholar for this, because NED will be much more complete in terms of listing which papers include data or analysis on a given galaxy. Aldebarium (talk) 03:48, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another useful resource for finding references is simbad. Reyk _YO! 06:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reyk and Aldebarium, check the talk page for NASTRO. As you can see, there has been an ongoing discussion that doesn't seem to ever reach consensus. Thus, I think this needs to be decided on an object by object basis. I'll take that into consideration (using NED and simbad) in the future. I re-analyzed the sources using NED and simbad, but I still believe my analysis is correct (i.e. in terms of separate articles or not). If merely listed in tables of thousands of galaxies, these are not notable. I think to include the robust information that every NGC object seems to have, it would be useful to expand the list of NGC objects to include information like redshift, etc. for the objects that have that. But if no study directly analyzes that object, I don't think it merits it's own article. But again, this is a case by case thing thus the AfD discussion here. Sam-2727 (talk) 03:02, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gaia stars have just as much information derived on them, and there are many studies that use them, but at the same time, there are greater than 1,000,000,000 of them. Sam-2727 (talk) 03:05, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Final comment: some of the references in the databases seem to be false positives. Scrutiny is necessary when analyzing those sources. Sam-2727 (talk) 03:15, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK- I hadn't seen that talk-page discussion on NASTRO before, thanks for pointing that out. Aldebarium (talk) 04:48, 12 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)} 14:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lamplighters Theatre[edit]

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

A non notable theatre company with no evidence of appropriate sources available Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:54, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no sources. I googled to see if there were any possible legit sources to add, but there aren't any. Samsmachado (talk) 01:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This organization is not notable and unfortunately their website no longer works. --Lockley (talk) 07:59, 17 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) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 16:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Loni, Ambegaon[edit]

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

User is creating multiple similar articles. See Lauki, Ambegaon (also nominated for deletion). Like that entry, this village has not only not received any significant coverage in reliable sources, it has not received any coverage. India has millions of villages and this one appears to be just one of those millions -- not notable in itself. Google News or Books show no results. As Wikipedia is not a directory and no coverage can be found (let alone significant coverage), the village does not meet Wikipedia’s notability requirements. IndianVillager (talk) 16:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While populated places are often kept regardless of size, single notability guidelines like that do not trump the GNG; furthermore, per my recollection there have been places in the United States whose existences have been verified only by an indiscriminate Census database that have been deleted, and this appears to be an analogous situation. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC) (Strike per Lauki discussion. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC))[reply]
Keep for reasons analogous to my rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lauki, Ambegaon. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 18:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:GEOLAND. GSS ^💬 18:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, another village article that meets WP:GEOLAND as a legally recognised place. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:11, 10 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) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 16:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lauki, Ambegaon[edit]

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

The village has not only not received any significant coverage in reliable sources, it has not received any coverage. India has millions of villages and this one appears to be just one of those millions -- not notable in itself. Google News or Books show no results. As Wikipedia is not a directory and no coverage can be found (let alone significant coverage), the village does not meet Wikipedia’s notability requirements. IndianVillager (talk) 16:18, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:24, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:24, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While populated places are often kept regardless of size, single notability guidelines like that do not trump the GNG; furthermore, per my recollection there have been places in the United States whose existences have been verified only by an indiscriminate Census database that have been deleted, and this appears to be an analogous situation. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be thinking of GNIS. That's not a Census database. It's a database including every place name that has ever appeared on any US topo map. Its "populated place" category contains numerous individual farms, bridges, railroad sidings, etc, that are not communities and often have no permanent population at all, making them locales instead of communities. Many articles were created a while back that indiscriminately label GNIS listings as "communities", and some of us have been going through those articles and nominating the non-communities for deletion. This is a different case, in that it's actually a community. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 18:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am, thanks! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GEOLAND as a government-recognized populated place. Our inclusion criteria for populated places are deliberately very low. Wikipedia is a gazetteer, and as a populated place that verifiably exists [19] [20] it meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 18:22, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:GEOLAND. GSS ^💬 18:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:GEOLAND as a legally recognised place. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:04, 10 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 10:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jack E. Conger[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet any of the Wikipedia Notability guidelines for personnel. While this in and of itself is not disqualifying of an article, the subject appears to lack any significant coverage worthy of recognition. Firstclass306 (talk) 16:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant coverage in multiple independent RS: [21] and [22]. In addition, a search on newspapers.com shows he was the subject of frequent national news coverage during World War II, and notability is not temporary. This coverage establishes that Conger has the coverage required to meet WP:GNG regardless of WP:SOLDIER, and nominator likely failed to perform WP:BEFORE. Kges1901 (talk) 16:22, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Kges1901 on all of his points. Additionally, Jack Conger was a highly decorated Marine Corps double ace with 10 victories. Every single American ace from the First World War has his own wikipedia page, and there are plenty of fighter aces with less developed pages. NickRich21 (talk) 00:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG and we tend to have pages for aces. Mztourist (talk) 03:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Flying aces, especially double aces, almost always meet WP:GNG. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:27, 10 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gerard McCabe[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. In terms of:

WP:SIGCOV, I can find no evidence that the subject has received significant coverage in reliable/independent sources. A search, for example, in the newspapers of record in Ireland/Northern Ireland returns only trivial passing mentions. An Irish Times search for example only returns reviews and other passing mentions of works in which the actor appeared. Nothing about the subject independently. A similar Belfast Telegraph search returns more of the same. And an Irish Independent search returns nothing at all.
WP:NACTOR, I would note that singular short appearances in Touched by an Angel (US) and Give My Head Peace (UK) does not meet the expectations of "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows", etc.
WP:ANYBIO, I note that the article claims that the subject was nominated for a "Children's BAFTA" for his role in the CBBC channel's "UKOOL" program. However, I have looked on the Children's BAFTA webpages (for 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006, when this program seems to have been running), and I can find no mention of the program or the subject. So either this is mistaken or misrepresented. Similarly, the article incorrectly claimed that the subject won an award at the New York International Film Festival. Whether a mistake or otherwise, it seems that the subject did win something at the New York International Independent Film & Video Festival. Which is an entirely different festival. And while I eventually did find some evidence of this, there is no indication that this small independent festival meets the expectations of a "well-known and significant award" (as expected by the policy). Or of a "major award" (as claimed in the article).

I'm not going to dwell on the COI, PROMO, PUFFERY, VANITY, and related concerns. Other than to note that the claims that the subject was "still living the dream" are beyond the pale in terms of the relevant guidelines.Guliolopez (talk) 15:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 16:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete —non-notability and COI. Balle010 (talk) 18:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable actor. Spleodrach (talk) 08:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cant find a single thing about the subject. scope_creep^Talk 16:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I totally agree with nominators case and can find no sign that the subject has the sort of notability that would be required for them to have an article. Dunarc (talk) 19:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete merely making a paycheck at acting does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:59, 17 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 per WP:G7. (non-admin closure) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dajuicyace[edit]

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

Declined at AfC, then main spaced. 19 year old who is not notable. Eostrix (talk) 10:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nommed as Speedy Delete WP:G3 - content lifted wholesale from Yung6ix. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 11:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Hydronium Hydroxide – this is either a case of hoax or lack of competence. Note that there is also User:Millbyte/sandbox, which I just moved from mainspace to userspace) and which should probably also be deleted. Politrukki (talk) 13:26, 9 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 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:45, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Dajuicy, same creator, copy-pasted content.--Eostrix (talk) 16:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete this is a hoax just like this creation which is about the same person. Praxidicae (talk) 17:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete because i think this about lack of source I've searched this only shown one found that's likely false. Per WP:G3. ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 18:13, 9 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) 18:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Technori[edit]

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

Not seeing significant coverage in third-party reliable sources and current sources are either primary, press-release, passing mention or announcements. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH GSS ^💬 15:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 15:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 15:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - undisclosed, paid-for spam. MER-C 14:44, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article describes a start-up intermediary, with a mix of routine announcements and passing mentions (the Fortune and Entrepreneur references). Searches are not finding the coverage needed to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 10:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP. Classic startup. scope_creep^Talk 16:55, 17 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 18:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Archduchess Maria Theresa of Austria (1845–1927)[edit]

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

This article is almost entirely about someone else: King Louis I of Portugal. It fails to establish notability for this subject. Guy (help!) 15:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 15:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 15:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a coatrack for things that belong in another article. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a geneological database. This individual was not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:26, 9 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)} 14:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Sparks[edit]

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

Non-notable radio presenter and commentator. No supporting content. Doesn't meet WP:GNG requirements. - Funky Snack (Talk) 14:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 15:31, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 15:31, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no notability as per WP’s standards. Balle010 (talk) 18:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not pass WP:GNG, Alex-h (talk) 07:45, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:18, 16 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) 22:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Parr[edit]

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

Non-notable TV presenter with no strong refs. - Funky Snack (Talk) 14:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 15:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 15:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 15:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable broadcast journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:17, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable journalist, fails WP:BIO, WP:GNG. This is Paul (talk) 23:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:39, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I suggest she is right at the beginning of her career. I found an entry in the times, a marriage notice. No other coverage. scope_creep^Talk 09:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. --Lockley (talk) 19:23, 16 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) 22:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Powell (presenter)[edit]

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

Non-notable presenter, despite being on a network station. Article not strong enough with poor refs and only a profile page as a link. Doesn't meet WP:GNG requirements. - Funky Snack (Talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 15:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 15:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 15:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable radio persenter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:24, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, doesn't meet GNG - sources are all non-independant, primary, or non-reliable. Samsmachado (talk) 23:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: She's mentioned in several articles from ITV News. Other than that, I barely found anything about her. Easily fails WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:47, 12 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 as per WP:CSK #3. (non-admin closure) Juliette Han (talk) 14:55, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prometheus (2012 film)[edit]

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

So, where should we start..Subject needs adjusting Gabtreats (talk) 14:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Potential for the article. Definitely meets WP:Film standards. - Funky Snack (Talk) 14:31, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No, we're not going to delete an article about an Oscar-nominated film directed by Ridley Scott that grossed over $400 million worldwide and stars Noomi Rapace, Michael Fassbender, Idris Elba, and Charlize Theron ... especially when the article is extensively sourced with over 250 references. I don't know if this nomination is a joke or just reflects the nominator's failure to understand the standards of notability for films. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Nominator fails to advance a policy rationale for deletion (or even a start of an argument, "subject needs adjusting" is not a rationale). A 20th Century Studios film with a budget of over 100 million and box office receipts of over 400 million dollars is notable, as evidence by some 265 references in the article.--Eostrix (talk) 14:54, 9 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) 22:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum gravity: the integral method[edit]

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

This article was based on creator's own original research, and when copyrighted content was removed by Diannaa, the article provides no context or references anymore. All previous edits by the creator up to now amounted to original research and/or references to own unpublished articles. DVdm (talk) 14:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 14:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self-promotion of unpublished fringe material. Total lack of notability. XOR'easter (talk) 14:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Without content, I think it is a foregone conclusion. It is difficult to trace what this was, since the previous content has been hidden. Online searches find similarly named approaches by Hawking and relating to Feynman, which are presumably not directly connected. —Quondum 14:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Quondum: The content (and the link to the creator's source) can still be found at User:Alexander_Klimets/Quantum_gravity._The_integral_method. Ping Diannaa: are copyviols allowed in userspace? If not, shouldn't that be removed as well? - DVdm (talk) 15:17, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you for letting me know. I have removed the userspace copy.— Diannaa (talk) 15:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sorry, Quondum, it's hidden too now...

. - DVdm (talk) 15:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Quondum: Yes, "path integral" is a standard term and might generate false positives. The content had been copied from here, an unpublished ramble that nobody has taken note of. XOR'easter (talk) 15:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks – I'd found that, but failed to note the specific relevance because it is only in the last section. I concur that anything based on this would fail our notability requirements. —Quondum 16:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vague and unreliably supported content.--ReyHahn (talk) 16:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsupported, unreferenced. At best maybe should be a comment on the main quantum gravity article, not a separate article itself. Kj cheetham (talk) 10:19, 12 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) 22:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Di Stefano[edit]

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

This is a case of WP:BLP1E, the only thing he's known for is the controversy. As such, this page is massively undue in overstating this, and is full of speculation and selective quoting. This draft was rejected twice and moved from article to draft space already, but the creator just wrote is again in article space. We shouldn't have such negative, undue articles on living people. Complaint about it was made at Wikipedia:Teahouse#Query of attack page (if someone can add perm link, would be appreciated) Joseph2302 (talk) 13:55, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:55, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:55, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:55, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sounds about right. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Service) Teahouse diff Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When the article was first created, I suggested on its talk page that the mention of the incident with refs should be added to Zoombombing instead. The BLP isn't notable outside of WP:ONEEVENT, and even the event isn't notable enough for a stand-alone article, but it would be relevant in the Zoombombing article. Schazjmd (talk) 14:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely WP:UNDUE. Not sure what I just saw, but it isn't an encyclopedia article. Hillelfrei ^talk 15:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing notable; nothing worth salvaging. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 16:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - one event does not notability make. Even as an example of zoombooming, it was a yawn. David notMD (talk) 16:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BLP1E. Guy (help!) 13:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the above reasons, I would also say it seems primarily an attack page. Zoozaz1 (talk) 01:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The page seems to be created for the sole reason of attacking its subject, it is also out of date and poorly written/formatted. It doesn't fit the characterisitics a Wikipedia page needs. Heyoostorm (talk) 13:42, 11 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Rubenstein[edit]

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

The edit history of this page points to the fact that it was written largely by accounts affiliated with the subject, or IP edits. There is no clear notability of this character, and the relevance of their page is unquestionably proven to be... irrelevant. Edit history shows that TheCarefulReader being not only the page creator, but also the repeated person to vouch for the notability of this page.

I propose deletion on the following merits:

Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of self-promotion <- TheCarefulReader created this page and tries to keep it up as a means of self promotion
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information <- Self explanatory
Notability is not temporary <- The only argument for keeping the page up is his minor involvement in a recent one-off event. It does not pass the merits required of notability. He is only relevant because of a temporary event. This does not pass the guidelines required.

I tried my best to clean up the page as it existed (which was filled with editorialized details and non-NPOV). That said, given Wikipedia guidelines, there's no reason why this page has to exist. I agree with the preceding comments in the talk page and nominate for deletion.westin (talk) 21:46, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Few users visited this page before his 15 minutes of fame. This qualifies as temporary notability. Notwithstanding the clear evidence that the subject of this article was the creator, I also nominate for deletion. Tawnybrunt (talk) 06:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:17, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Pi (Talk to me!) 21:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Pi (Talk to me!) 21:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - reasons stated above.--Surv1v4l1st ^{▌Talk|Contribs▌} 20:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - reasons stated above. westin (talk) 02:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - reasons stated above. Tawnybrunt (talk) 20:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:26, 14 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. Even the keep votes highlight the weakness of the argument for keeping this against policy. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sufiyan Malik[edit]

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

Delete Not notable, the article is getting used for self promotion. LuciferEdits (talk) 13:36, 9 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 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the article Sufiyan Malik has been proposed for deletion but I want to highlight some points which will clear that he is notable and this article is not for promotion. Sufiyan Malik is a well known and notable person in India. I will be adding citations and official goverment links that have his name and awards repectively in it. He has won the highest civilian state awards by the Goverment of India. The article is not in any way used for self promotion or whatsoever. He has also been a part of game of thrones web series. His music video was th lone entry from India into HBO's Official Game of Thrones fan anthem. Also, the article is written in Neutral point of view. Kashpeople (talk) 14:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@LuciferEdits: Hi Sir, I have added more citations, information on the page regarding the subjects awards, and media links that are on the top national news media. I have added the goverment page that shows his name as the republic awardee in 2020. That is the highest civilian state honour. I wont remove the tag. You can go ahead and see the information and delete the tag. Thank you. Kashpeople (talk) 14:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Nom. Noobmaster29 (talk) 17:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Note that the article's very first edit was by Mr. Malik himself, but most other edits are by a different editor, Kashpeople, and accusations of promotion since then need proof of a connection between those two editors. The article has been improved from its previous state. Mr. Malik just barely passes #1 at WP:MUSICBIO with independent coverage of a government award and for latching onto a Game of Thrones contest. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 02:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doomsdayer520: The article has also been created by the same person, to whom the article addresses to. Wikipedia is not a place to write autobiographies. LuciferEdits (talk) 04:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was an autobiography in its very first version. There have been more than a dozen content-oriented edits by other people since then. And even if "autobiography" is still a problem now, a deletion discussion is supposed to be about the notability of the person. If notable (and I voted "weak" above), any remaining autobiographical text can be removed by the community. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:10, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@LuciferEdits: The article is not used for any promotion of Mr.Malik. As I have added today that he is nominated for the fourth highest civilian honour the Padma Shri. And also I have given links below in this discussion to magazine interview where he is artist of the month. Also, he has won the Kashmir's got Talent show in 2015 citation's you find below in my another comment with citation from a school newspaper also. He qualifies the WP:MUSICBIO .Also that he was the only entry from India into Game of Thrones Fan anthem citation's are on the article. This discussion should be closed and the tag should be removed from the article. I have voted for keep below. Kashpeople (talk) 14:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@LuciferEdits: After the article was created, it was edited by different editors with whom I have no connection with. It has been improved and reached a state of neutral point of view.Sufiyanmalik123 (talk) 12:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable, a Padma Shri 2021 Nominee, Highest civilian state goverment award and game of thrones fan anthem appearence as the only entry from India. Has articles/interviews from top national media coverage news sites, goverment websites, and has enough to pass WP:MUSICBIO. Also as mentioned above by 'Kashpeople' has won "Kashmirs Got Talent" show with 1st position and has coverage on school newspaper also. The article should be kept. Sufiyanmalik123 (talk) 08:53, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -Notable, meets WP:GNG, with significant coverage in reliable sources. Also passes WP:MUSICBIO with a goverment award and recently added in the article Sufiyan Malik, a nomination for Padma Shri with a reference to a goverment website for Padma awards. Also, has worked for HBO's game of thrones fan anthem as the only from India. Kashpeople (talk) 14:20, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can't vote twice, and your comment is a misperception of how "Speedy Keep" works. (This refers to a vote that has since been deleted.) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:04, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted the last vote. My vote is a 'keep'.Kashpeople (talk) 14:20, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, the Padma Award nomination is by an individual and not by the Indian government. Sidchakrab (talk) 14:32, 15 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Young & Beautiful (film series)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. I looked for additional sources and found only press releases, blogs, promotional or unreliable coverage in the pornography trade press, and award rosters; adult industry awards are a dime a dozen. Cheers, gnu 57 13:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 13:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 13:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:run-of-the-mill. No credible evidence (provided or found by independent searches) that this film series satisfies any criterion of WP:NFILM. I searched for supporting references while I did a basic clean-up of the article. I only found the 2 citations now present, which confirm some fundamental basics of the subject's existence. The award nominations are promotional fluff. AVN tries to nominate everybody for something, and XBIZ nominations come from the clients. Furthermore, porn industry award wins have been debunked as "major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking" as PORNBIO was taken down piecemeal before being completely deprecated. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as does not pass WP:GNG and is also a directory style listing, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:24, 14 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) 22:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ghislain Sauvé[edit]

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

Not seeing any indication of notability in a WP:BEFORE search - the few hits are news pieces where he was quoted, not pieces about him. Retired as a Lt. Col. ([23]), so he fails WP:NSOLDIER #2, and there are no sources indicating he meets any of the other criteria. I believe there's general precedent that MBE doesn't grant notability in and of itself. The Operational Service Medal is the lowest of the Canadian military awards, so that also doesn't contribute. Overall, although he's certainly a professionally accomplished man, there's just nothing here to say that he's encyclopedically notable. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NSOLDIER based on rank, award, or participating in a major battle. There's not coverage of him to meet WP:NPERSON and the general consensus has been that MBE alone is not sufficiently distinguished by itself to pass WP:ANYBIO unless it's accompanied by in-depth coverage (see here and User:Necrothesp/Notability criteria for recipients of honours as well). The majority of coverage of Sauvé is in listings of award recipients, not in-depth by any measure. There may be some articles in French that aren't available in English, but it seems unlikely. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SOLDIER. No credible claim of notability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cleary fails GNG and SOLDIER. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:02, 16 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 18:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dungeon Decor[edit]

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

One review (well, one part of a review of "playing aids", not a full review of this product alone), and a mere mention in one sentence (as one of four similar things), is not enough to meet WP:N (unless you desperately want to include a 2-line review in the "Mixumaxu Gazette" fanzine as well). Nothing further could be found in the 29 Google hits, apparently even in the RPG world this is very obscure). No obvious redirect target, company has no article either. Fram (talk) 13:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This does not appear to be a notable product at all. As stated in the nom, the actual coverage in the sources cited are less than trivial. The book listed, for example, has no coverage of this actual product at all, it just mentions its name alongside a number of other similar products. The fact that the publisher is also non-notable means that there is no target for a Redirect or Merge. Not that there would actually be much in the way of actual sourced content to merge. Rorshacma (talk) 15:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. there is significance to this general topical area in knowing that this type of product even did exist. the sources are valid enough to be genuinely credible. --Sm8900 (talk) 17:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rorshacma's reasoning. --Lockley (talk) 01:13, 16 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 play-by-mail games. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kings War[edit]

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

Lacks all notability. The 14 Google hits[24] and seems to have not received any attention after the first review (or round of reviews, if any others existed). No obvious redirect target as the company has no article either. Fram (talk) 12:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 12:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect to - List of play-by-mail games Both the one source already included in the article, as well as the only relevant looking result in the search, are both from White Wolf, and both written by the same individual. This does not demonstrate that it was covered by multiple, reliable sources. Additionally, unless the content of the source currently in the article is actually expanded on, I'm not even sure that one could even count as a single reliable source - based on the title of the article being cited, it sounds more like a directory listing than an actual review. It looks like this game is already listed on the List of play-by-mail games, but seeing how incredibly non-notable it appears to be, I would actually recommend removing its entry from that list rather than Redirecting this article to there.

Update - Airborne84 adding the info on the actual review from White Wolf, I think, is enough that I would now be fine with it being included on the master Play By Mail list and Redirected there. Rorshacma (talk) 15:18, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I added a non-trivial review from White Wolf Magazine #13. Doesn't establish notability as per WP:GNG, but gets it closer. I only added a bit of info from the review to the article since it may end up on the chopping block. However, I also added the ref at the respective entry at List of play-by-mail games so if it's deleted but another substantial source turns up later perhaps they can be combined to establish notability. Airborne84 (talk) 04:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add that I'm only commenting vs. recommending delete as web searches are not likely to generate results for games like these. Many of the magazines that would have carried articles on this topic such as Paper Mayhem, either of Gaming Universal's two print runs, The Nuts & Bolts of PBM, Flagship, and others are out of print and not digitized or incompletely digitized. So, WP:NEXIST can come into play in these cases. Of course, some of these games simply never were notable. I don't know which category this one falls into. Airborne84 (talk) 04:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Now that the review from White Wolf has been added to the article, it would not be unreasonable to merge to the List of play-by-mail games if no additional sources are found. BOZ (talk) 17:42, 10 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) 13:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Ehlers[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSPORT, professional career was non notable in UK and Hungary, college career is borderline, won a conference award, has never won a national award. Sources mainly consist of puff pieces from his college with the odd mention in the morning call. Other mentions include Where are they now fluff from local papers. TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 12:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:31, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:31, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:31, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NCOLLATH as the Patriot League player of the year. Meets GNG with sources like [25]. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:38, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I added two more sources: The “catching up with” article from Lehighvalleylive.com and a substantial profile from the Boston Globe. I think he meets WP:GNG. He is also one of the primary players profiled in John Feinstein’s book “The Last Amateurs,” looks like close to 50 pages devoted to him and his senior season (which is the one Feinstein covers in the book) as he was the Player of the Year and Lafayette won the league. Rikster2 (talk) 01:00, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Users above added additional references that exemplify general notability. I feel that Ehlers sufficiently satisfies NCOLLATH as well, having twice received the highest individual honor in a Division I conference. SportsGuy789 (talk) 05:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:NCOLLATH, per all above. Ejgreen77 (talk) 10:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per GNG. Rlendog (talk) 13:01, 16 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. Snow keep. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 20:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020–21 United States network television schedule[edit]

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

This is a television guide and not encyclopedic content. It totally fits the description of what Wikipedia is not. Furthermore, it's not neutral, as it only advertises the content 5 networks.SFBB (talk) 12:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Point 4 of WP:DIRECTORY explicitly mentions that it does not belong to Wikipedia. SFBB (talk) 12:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This network schedule page is a continuation of the yearly schedule for television that has a page for every year since the 1946-47 TV season. If this page gets deleted, then every year must be deleted. Are you arguing just for this season or all 70+ pages? Donaldd23 (talk) 13:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In addition, the reason it only contains the 5 networks is because the name is Network Schedule. To include other channels such as HBO or Netflix wouldn't make it any less "neutral", it is a detailed summary of network programming. This page is not advertising. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, after multiple long-running discussions indicating that there is a strong consensus to keep these, and that they do not violate WP:NOTTVGUIDE and provide encyclopedic content. That said, draftify 2021–22 United States network television schedule as per WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:TOOSOON. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article and draftify 2021–22 United States network television schedule per IJBall. TheTVExpert (talk) 15:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article, draftify 2021–22 United States network television schedule per IJBall. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How come it does not violate WP:NOTTVGUIDE? it is precisely what it is. If this would not violate WP:NOTTVGUIDE, then how would something violating WP:NOTTVGUIDE look like?

If you'd like to create encyclopedic content on the shows broadcasted in the US, you don't need to include a schedule and, also, you need to cover all shows, no only shows broadcasted by 5 networks. Who decide, why the shows aired by these networks are included and not other shows? This is bad at so many levels.SFBB (talk) 15:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is not a day-by-day listing of every single program aired during a year. The terms "fall TV season" and "spring TV season", for example, are commonly referred to by reliable sources. Only programs that air roughly three or more episodes in a timeslot are listed. I would have to say though that in recent years I feel some editors have crossed this line by writing notes below the tables listing single-day or single-timeslot events/sports programs which, in my opinion, aren't really related to a TV season schedule. Nonetheless, by only including the 5 major US TV networks, this article furthers the fact it's not an indiscriminate list or a TV guide. I do agree that 2021–22 United States network television schedule should be a draft, preferably until a network announces their schedule for the season, most likely in May 2021. Heartfox (talk) 15:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to say that I believe the "historically significant program lists" clause in WP:NOTTVGUIDE refers to this and other articles perfectly. Many media outlets make reference to TV seasons. For example, "the 1975–76 TV season was when the networks had the highest share of viewers"... or something like that. Then, a reader could find this schedule on Wikipedia and see what shows were broadcast at the time. It also serves well as a navigational tool, which is beneficial as it links in and out to other TV show articles. This and other similar articles are for historical purposes, not advertising. Heartfox (talk) 15:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article because it doesn't violate WP:NOTTVGUIDE, but definitely draftify 2021–22 United States network television schedule. — YoungForever^(talk) 15:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the previous comments, and the fact that we have like 74 past TV seasons covered in the same manner.— TAnthony^Talk 15:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Network schedules are significant because they contribute to an understanding of the history of television programming. They're not created as a guide for people to see what's airing now — there are much better online sources for that. They're created to be historical documentation. 2020-21 isn't historical yet, but it will be. To choose an example at random, 1956–57 United States network television schedule is clearly relevant for the history of television, and is not a TV guide. — Toughpigs (talk) 15:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per all previous comments. We have been making these articles for years, and the fact that this is being targeted for deletion now after all this time is quite frankly a pointless discussion. JE98 (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is absurd. Perhaps the nominator might want to familiarize hin/herself with the structure of American television before proposing deleting an article about the network schedule. --Dr.Margi ✉ 19:56, 9 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) 22:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Janix Mendez[edit]

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a musician, with no strong or reliably sourced claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The only stated notability claim here is that her music exists, with no claim being made that she's achieved anything that would pass the notability tests in NMUSIC (charting hits, national radio airplay, a Grammy Award, etc.) -- and the article is referenced entirely to press releases from her own record label on a user-generated content platform, not to any evidence of independent third party journalism about her in real media. Wikipedia, as always, is not a free PR platform for aspiring future stars to advertise themselves: musicians are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because it's verifiable that they exist, but have to have more significant achievements than just having music available for sale, and real media coverage documenting those achievements beyond just their own self-created EPK. Bearcat (talk) 11:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 11:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 11:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 11:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with nom. Non-notable musician Donaldd23 (talk) 13:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable 17-year-old musician. I guess there are actually some musicians who are notable by this age, but the subject here is not one of them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. It's funny how there's a Medium article about her supposedly from Universal Music with only 3 followers :D — Infogapp1 (talk) 22:54, 12 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) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Google Stadia games[edit]

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

WP:NOTBROCHURE / WP:NOTCATALOG. Eostrix (talk) 11:18, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (talk) 11:18, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (talk) 08:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - how exactly is this different from say List of Nintendo Switch games (A–L)? Whilst I personally think these things are more suited to categories than a list like this, I don't really see how it's all that different. NOT BROCHURE is about purely promotional pieces (which this isn't, and even if it was, it could be easily fixed), and NOTCATALOGUE is for directories, or lists of loosely associated subjects. In this case, we have a list of items grouped sensibly by platform(?). The only issue is how we treat the stadia, rather than it being an unsuitable list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At least in the case of Nintendo Switch, that's a platform and some of the games aren't sold by Nintendo. I think Steam (service) is a better comparison here. The list here is a list of items for purchase on the Stadia website/service. The list here is a catalog of games Stadia is selling on its platform.--Eostrix (talk) 12:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the difference at all. If the switch no longer had physical releases, would this mean that article is no longer suitable? No. That is the equivalent. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a distinction. A PS3 game is always playable in the future on a PS3, even in twenty years on some emulator. If Stadia drops a game from their catalog (server network), you can no longer play it on clients connected to the Stadia servers. Stadia hosting a game is like YouTube hosting a video (YouTube and Stadia are technically related), and this list is Stadia's catalog.--Eostrix (talk) 08:21, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per every other “list of video game platform x” article, which Theres is a clear consensus for having. Steam is a poor analogy. It’s set up is similar to consoles, except for that there’s is cloud computing involved. The only thing Stadia is guilty of is being unpopular, but we don’t delete lists on these grounds. Sergecross73 msg me 12:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If the outcome of this discussion is keep, the list should be renamed "List of Stadia games" as the platform name is "Stadia". The article for the platform itself is mistitled to simulate a disambiguator. IceWelder [✉] 13:18, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I understand it, Google Stadia is a gaming platform. Although hardware is available for it, it is largely a software innovation. For this reason, it's not really comparable to the Nintendo Switch because that is a piece of hardware, and games have to be specifically made for it. In layman's terms, having an article on a list of Stadia games is like having an article on a list of different products available on Amazon. If we had an article like this for the largest gaming platform, Steam, it would contain over 35,000 listings with 50 or 60 being added per day. It is not easily maintainable or encyclopedic and that is why it doesn't exist. If Stadia expands (which it likely will) it is not unthinkable that it will become this large. The article could become outdated within hours, not to mention all of the other problems with having an article that is an enormous list of products. Fails WP:CATALOGUE and WP:LISTCRUFT. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 14:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Steam not Amazon are a good comparison point. Both are a different service with a different scope. If we absolutely need one, PlayStation Now and List of PlayStation Now games would be more acceptable, both in similarity and scope. (Stadia is absolutely not on track to be the next Steam, and does not have the same size/INDISCRIMINATE issues a list of Steam games would have. Sergecross73 msg me 15:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Might nominate that Playstation Now page per WP:LISTCRUFT as well. Would be much better as a category instead. I don't see what one paragraph followed by 842 games adds to the context of the topic. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 16:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guess it’s just hard to see where exactly the line is drawn here, as that doesn’t sound all that different from many of the platform game list articles in existence right now. I think a better approach is to get a consensus developed in the MOS area, and then act from there. I think were going to get conflicting viewpoints and conclusions if we just keep sending them to AFD one by one... Sergecross73 msg me 17:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Topic meets WP:LISTN. The above is an uninformed understanding of Stadia. Stadia is an independent platform which requires unique development considerations for game developers. The fact that the digital storefront for purchasing licenses to games developed for the platform is proprietary is irrelevant, given that most gaming consoles have similar proprietary digital storefronts. Further, though other consoles with similar lists currently allow purchase from third party vendors, games purchased for those consoles also require first-party approval and the use of proprietary software (and frequently hardware in the case of physical copies). 2601:182:C901:9170:B0E4:8AA5:EEB3:4EB9 (talk) 03:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Topic clearly meets WP:LISTN. --letcreate123 (talk) 00:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment This one is really going to depend on maintainability (which is probably why we don't have list of GeForce Now games). If it fades away and dies then this list is viable. Otherwise size will be an issue.©Geni (talk) 07:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move to list of Stadia games. WP:VG considers Stadia a valid platform for infoboxes, so it differs from something like a list of GeForce Now games. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 09:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to vote keep, because so far, RS have treated Stadia as a separate platform as well as a service: there are exclusive releases and users have the option to purchase games, not just that they're temporarily available. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 16:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keeep per 2601:182:C901:9170:B0E4:8AA5:EEB3:4EB9 and Dissident93 - Stadia has consensus as a video gaming platform for which games are speficially programmed and ported to (which comes with its infobox field, category, list(s), mention in lede, all the usual). You're confusing storefront and platform (which Stadia is both in a way, I'll concede, but this is about the platform). You're arguing this is like a List of video games sold at Gamestop or List of Netflix flims, which it is not. Unless you're arguing all "Lists of games for X console" should be deleted (which is an argument I might actually entertain!), there is no reason to delete this one and keep others. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 16:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Video games#Platforms Stadia is listed in video game infoboxes just like any other platform like the PlayStation 4 (as discussed here [26]). Therefore, there is no reason to delete it otherwise the same logic can be applied to all other platform lists like List of PlayStation 4 games. This list is not a catalog and meet WP:LISTN. Regards Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 16:30, 16 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)} 14:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weeve[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

2013 AfD closed as no consensus. But there's no evidence this was a notable website during its year of existence, or that it's notable now. StarM 18:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. StarM 18:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. StarM 18:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. StarM 18:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Domain is parked. Last bit of media coverage is a one time mention in an article about it being sold in 2014. I don't believe it doesn't meets (or ever met) WP:ORGCRITE or WP:WEBCRIT.

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

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

The result was keep. BD2412 T 23:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-völkisch movements[edit]

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

The article has serious issues and I don't think it can be salvaged. The scope is too unclear and has been a hodgepodge of WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACK from the very start. It was started in 2007 as an article on Nazi satanism, and quickly went through several moves and discussions about what to include. It was moved from Nazi satanism to Neo-fascism and paganism, but still covered phenomena like neo-Nazi Satanism, Nazi occultism and esoteric Nazism, repeatedly changing form and causing confusion on the talk page. Eventually a somewhat scholarly term was found: Neo-völkisch movements, which comes from the 2002 book Black Sun by the historian Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke. But Goodrick-Clarke's term only covers parts of the content, of which most either is unsourced or comes from other sources, where the term doesn't appear at all. And from what I can see, the term hasn't been picked up by other scholars. A search on Google Books gives a few hits, but they neither follow Goodrick-Clarke's definition nor align with the content of this article. The main user of the term other than Goodrick-Clarke is the anti-racist organization Southern Poverty Law Center, which uses it as a classification on its website, but the SPLC has its own definition, limited to racist neo-pagan groups. The SPLC's definition also seems to be the one used in the only other scholarly publication where I found the term (Höfig, V. (2019). "Vinland and White Nationalism"). Even if the SPLC definition was notable on its own, which I doubt it is, it would still be wrong to shoehorn it into an article that used to be about Nazi satanism.

I propose that we either delete this article or redirect it to the article about Goodrick-Clarke's book, which is the source for the few parts that could be considered substantiated. Ffranc (talk) 10:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-Völkisch is used by some European scholars to desginate movements inspired by the Völkisch movement that emerged after WWII. It describes a political worldview centred around a quasi-mystical racialist populism, which does not necessarily encompass a form of esoteric occultism (just like what the Völkisch movement itself was). See for instance François (2005) or Wagner (2015). Alcaios (talk)

Yes, there is a few instances of other uses of the term. But they are separate from Goodrick-Clarke's use, which has its own definition and focuses on neo-Nazi mysticism, and thereby can include Nazi Satanism etc. The ones you linked and the other ones I found refer more directly to the historical völkisch movement, without creating any new definition. Ffranc (talk) 11:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

split -- I agree with the analysis of WP:COATRACK, but I would suggest the proper approach to this would be splitting, not deleting. This is preferable because the edit history will be preserved, and there is no reason to throw out the work already done just because there is no unity in subject matter. The title can become a redirect or a disambiguation page. The term "neo-völkisch" exists, even though it may be a political neologism and as such only used by detractors, so it may or may not be proper to use it "in Wikipedia's voice", but "neo-völkisch" as a concept held by at least some observers to be useful in grouping this type of ideology surely can find some kind of treatment somewhere on Wikipedia. A quick survey suggests that the term is coined by Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke, so if nothing else, it can be discussed in his article as something suggested or entertained by this particular writer. --dab (𒁳) 11:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How should it be split though? Some of the groups and individuals already have their own articles, so there is nothing further that needs to be split there. I'm afraid that if we cut or split out everything problematic, what we will be left with is a partial summary of Goodrick-Clarke's book. And then it's better to just redirect to the book and write a proper summary there. Ffranc (talk) 11:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I could see it work as a disambiguation page, with one link to Völkisch movement and one to Black Sun (Goodrick-Clarke book). Possibly also a link to Southern Poverty Law Center, although it doesn't currently mention the term. Ffranc (talk) 12:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Split or delete but at the very least rewrite. This article has long had a major problem with synthesis. If it is going to remain, the article needs to be restricted to where the phrase Neo-Völkisch is actually used, which does not appear to be much exterior to Goodrick-Clarke and the SPLC. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:23, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable subject, referenced. No reason to delete. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Beyond My Ken, as well the new movements should be distinguished from the historic Völkisch movement.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:05, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:05, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:05, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This may need to be improved or protected, but objective content on this is needed. --- FULBERT (talk) 13:19, 16 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Burning Inside[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable band. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:55, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

American death metal band. I have just found out that this article has been deleted back in 2005, on the ground that the article only contained the word "yo". But since then the article has been re-created, this time about the band itself. Anyhow, I think they are not notable. The article is also poorly sourced to an Allmusic biography and the band's official site. While the former provides some notability to this group, the latter does not, obviously. The articles on their albums are also up for deletion because they are not notable either. I did a Google search on both the band and the albums. Since this group shares the name with the Ministry song, it was difficult to search for it because most of the results are about this song, the rest of the results are either about other metal bands which have "burning" and "inside" in their names, or, just like in the case of other non-notable bands, are stuff which contain these two words but that's it. The coverage about THIS band is very scarce, the results were the following: unreliable databases, streaming service links, the aforementioned Allmusic biography, an interview and basically that's it. Most of the "sources" that are actually about this band copy the Allmusic biography. I also searched for the albums but nothing reliable came up besides the unreliable databases, retail sites, fan pages and blogs. This seems like an obscure, underground metal band which has made no waves whatsoever, and to be frank I have never heard about them or their members (with the exception of Richard Christy) but that's not the point here. So with all this being said, I don't think they are notable so I put them up for deletion. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the rationale for the nomination, it's impossible to find anything substantial about the band. They are not notable.JohnmgKing (talk) 12:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: if a band article is nominated at AfD there's no need to separately nominate their album pages unless they have some claim of notability such as charting or multiple reliable reviews. This is because if the band article is deleted then their album pages can be speedy deleted as A9 as per WP:CSD, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:44, 12 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. CSD A9 also applied. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Masked (album)[edit]

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

Redlink artist, prod denied. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Infinity Complex which is unsourced but this at least has an AllMusic Guide review. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delelte This falls under A9 of Speedy delete, which states "Unremarkable musical recording where artist's article doesn't exist" Donaldd23 (talk) 13:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The band has no page, so why would their album have one? Especially if it's sourced to the site of their record label only. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:A9. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:03, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:A9 , Neither the artist nor band's page exist . Kpg jhp jm 16:36, 10 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. CSD A9 also applied. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Infinity Complex[edit]

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

Redlink artist, prod denied. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masked (album)―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delelte This falls under A9 of Speedy delete, which states "Unremarkable musical recording where artist's article doesn't exist" Donaldd23 (talk) 14:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:A9. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:03, 10 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. Fenix down (talk) 06:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Q8C Pro Clubs Premier League[edit]

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

Author removed CSD tag. Fails WP:GNG. Non-notable esports org. JTtheOG (talk) 09:38, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 12:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 12:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 12:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG Spiderone 10:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:19, 12 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. Fenix down (talk) 06:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2019–20 Q8C Pro Clubs Premier League[edit]

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

IP address most likely belonging to the author removed previously-placed CSD tag. Subject fails WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 09:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 12:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 12:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG Spiderone 10:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:39, 12 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) 22:28, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Ali Pourmiri[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 09:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Joeykai (talk) 09:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no explanations given as to why this person is notable enough for an article. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per Donaldd23. Celestina007 (talk) 23:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:45, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT, no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Joeykai (talk) 22:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article has been subject to extensive vandalism by various IP editors since August 2019. Perhaps for good reason, because that version appears to be a hoax by User:Apormiri, including claims that he played for Cruz Azul. Presumably he's also responsible for File:Mohammad_ali_pourmiri.jpg that is a photo of someone in a Cruz Azul kit. Nfitz (talk) 09:47, 15 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. Even keep arguments demonstrate a lack of notability Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sriram Krishnan[edit]

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

Run-of-the-mill business executive. Of the 15 sources in the article, not one single one meets WP:SIGCOV. Obvious promotional effort; Draft:Sriram Krishnan exists but the draft's creator copypasted it into mainspace instead of submitting it for review, when told at the Teahouse that the subject does not meet WP:GNG. bonadea contributions talk 09:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 09:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman. Fails WP:GNG. - MRRaja001 (talk) 11:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To demonstrate notability, multiple WP:RS pieces directly on him (Vox, Techcrunch, Times of India) not tied to any direct press release/interview and several passing mentions in other mainstream sources like the NYTimes citation and WSJ citation. Mentioned in the book on Snapchat. Also urge editors to Google for multiple other mentions. Several long standing business people articles on Wikipedia have far less to demonstrate notability. If not possible, would kindly ask for the article to be moved back into draft space so I can work on it more. To specifically address bonadea's critique: the pieces themselves don't claim to know much about the incident in question but that's distinct from the question of whether the pieces demonstrate the subject is notable. Though they didn't seem to know much about the incident in question (the subject leaving Snap), they do go into why the subject's background and notability. Vox is a fairly mainstream publication and even if the others (Techcrunch, Business Insider) are business focused ones. Vipulsshah (talk)

FTR, the "critique" refers to my evaluation of the "five strongest" sources, here. Two (or three) brief notices don't come close to significant coverage even if they are independent – it is trivial and minor coverage of a run-of-the-mill kind. (The Techcrunch piece refers to a press release and adds a few sentences to that.) Top X-lists, passing mentions, and the like don't do anything to show notability. --bonadea contributions talk 16:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Understood your point better but I would dispute your characterization as "run-of-the-mill". Both the Techcrunch and Vox pieces on his leaving Snap don't seem tied to a press release (referring to https://techcrunch.com/2017/02/19/sriram/ and https://www.vox.com/2017/2/19/14662264/snap-sriram-krishnan-exec-departure-ipo) and refer to him as a key executive and his history as notable. The NYTimes piece mentions the subject in a broader context but also has significant parts on him with a photo. He's also in the Snap book cited in multiple places. Altogether confer notability IMO especially as I see several long standing business executive wikipedia pages with a lot less. Several similar long standing pages (see Mike_Vernal as another Facebook executive) have a lot less. But some of you editors have been doing this longer than I have so understand if I'm wrong. I'm also worried that the initial encounter on the Talkspace page (which was my mistake) is coloring this entire discussion a bit. Vipulsshah (talk)

Delete per Bonadea's analysis. At first sight, it may look like it is reasonably sourced, but a closer examination shows them to be either of the "passing mention" or WP:MILL variety. Incidentally, @MRRaja001: I don't know why you need to WP:CANVAS. Anyone can make their way here in good time; it does, after all, have another ~159 hours to run yet... ——Serial^# 17:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since @Girth Summit: have reviewed a similar page called Sunder Madakshira. I just wanted to know his opinion on this, Thanks - MRRaja001 (talk) 18:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment MRRaja001, Serial# is correct - it's not appropriate to approach editors about AfD discussions just because they have been involved in discussions on similar topics in the past, that does give the impression of trying to canvas support by contacting people likely to agree with your position; I'm reluctant therefore to cast a !vote, but I will observe that bonadea's analysis does seem to have merit, the sourcing currently in the article certainly looks pretty ropey. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit: Sorry for that. From next time i won't ask anyone for their opinion on Afd's. I thought i could learn something from your analysis since you're an Administrator. - MRRaja001 (talk) 18:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MRRaja001, yeah, I understand that - I wasn't meaning to chastise you, just to let you know for next time that it's not the done thing. It's normally seen as OK to post a neutral notice on a message board about a particular AfD (provided it's a relevant notice board, not just a random one where your mates hang out!), but contacting individual editors should only be done if there's a clear reason for doing so, such as notifying an article's author or a really significant contributor to it. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 18:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit: Yeah i understand. Thanks for the caution - MRRaja001 (talk) 18:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Asides the fact that editors who engage in canvassing in any manner irk me, I’d have to agree with the rationale of the nom & Serial Number 54129’s analysis. Celestina007 (talk) 19:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : I'm not sure this is possible but as the article's creator I would love to work on it more in draft space ( I made a mistake moving it into main space) . If this possible, I highly request this. As a newbie editor, I messed up and would love to fix my mistake. Vipulsshah (talk) 07:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vipulsshah: the article is already in draftspace, feel free to edit away! ——Serial^# 09:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject appears notable from my Google search results for the subject. But the creator of this article has to work more to establish its notability. For instance there was significant media coverage of the subject in Indian media when he joined Twitter. Though many of the media reports appeared to be sponsored or advertorial (press release) from either the subject or Twitter, some media reports indicate that the story was sourced from the subject's Twitter handle an indication that it wasn't a sponsored press release. Cryforjustice (talk) 16:28, June 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:44, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

István Tarrósy[edit]

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

Associate professor. Does not meet GNG or Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Google scholar citations here: [27]. The journal he founded/edits (Hungarian Journal of African Studies (Afrikai Tanulmányok)) is not major. Eostrix (talk) 09:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a notable and leading Africanist in Hungary. --Norden1990 (talk) 21:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We hardly ever keep articles on associate professors. I'm not seeing citation impact for WP:NPROF C1, and I agree that the local interest journal (which doesn't seem to be indexed etc) is not a pass of C8. He doesn't appear to have books sufficient for WP:NAUTHOR, let alone reviewed volumes. If kept, the article would need a serious trim per WP:NOTCV. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:54, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not convinced that the statement about not keeping associate professors is true or helpful. Assistant professors are rarely notable; full professors at good research universities are usually notable; associate professors are, as you might expect, somewhere in between, with considerable variation. In any case, in his case, he has neither the heavy citations nor the book reviews that I would need to be convinced of WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct, and I was writing too quickly. It's a bit uncommon, but not "hardly ever". Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:00, 10 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 as per WP:CSK #3. (non-admin closure) Juliette Han (talk) 09:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

7 July 2005 London bombings[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Should be deleted to change the label Gabtreats (talk) 08:59, 9 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 18:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic theodicy[edit]

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

This is an article compiled entirely from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which makes it a WP:POVFORK of theodicy. Guy (help!) 08:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's an interesting compilation of the viewpoints of the Catholic Church, but it is not a theodicy. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Pi (Talk to me!) 23:24, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Pi (Talk to me!) 23:24, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Guy, this article is entirely from the Catechism, and as such does not have any additional credible or reliable sources beyond itself. --- FULBERT (talk) 22:18, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- It is not about theodicy, though it is an exercise in apologetics. If it were based on multiple sources, there mighgt be something worth rescuing, but with a single source TNT is the only answer. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:34, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with TNT. --Lockley (talk) 09:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - it might be salvageable, but as it is appears to only be a POV content fork as noted above. --Surv1v4l1st ^{▌Talk|Contribs▌} 15:08, 17 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 18:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sook Spaces[edit]

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

Promotional. Small (two retail spaces) and new (2019) startup that rents out retail space by the hour. Eostrix (talk) 07:31, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unremarkable company. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article on a recent start-up, by an editor with a declared WP:COI. The start-up awards and programmes linked in the article text are not inherently notable; searches find more promotional coverage but nothing to demonstrate notability at this time. AllyD (talk) 09:28, 11 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chaos (performer)[edit]

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

Not a notable subject (fails WP:GNG). No improvement since application of notability tag in Mar 18. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable performer. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per Johnpacklambert. Indeed subject is not a notable performer. Celestina007 (talk) 19:17, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Pi (Talk to me!) 23:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per AfD reason. --Surv1v4l1st ^{▌Talk|Contribs▌} 20:28, 10 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amirul Momenin Manik[edit]

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

The article fails to fulfill WP:GNG and/or basic criteria and promotional in nature. Sources are press release, regular news about the release of his books, not independent of the subject and over all trivial mention. The author of this article has a COI and blocked on bnwiki for doing WP:COVERT. ~ Nahid ^Talk 06:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~ Nahid ^Talk 06:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ~ Nahid ^Talk 06:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is a living person, fails to fulfill WP:JOURNALIST or WP:ANYBIO and it is promotional article. --DelwarHossain (talk) 14:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support This article was just a bull shit and not have must Caveating to be a part of in Wikipedia.F R Shuvo (talk) 14:55, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete this is straight up vanity spam. In fact, I feel like I've seen this exact article deleted before under another name but can't for hte life of me figure out what it was. Praxidicae (talk) 15:31, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:59, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:59, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:59, 14 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) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 00:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adventist Health Portland[edit]

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

This hospital doesn't seem to be notable. I can't find anything in a search for it except for trivial coverage and passing mentions in travel guides. There's nothing that passes general notability or NCORP though. Adamant1 (talk) 15:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect this and all the others like it to Adventist Health. No independently-sourced content, so nothing to merge. See close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adventist Health Hanford for precedent. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:51, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NPOSSIBLE: Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. The affiliation with Adventist Health is relatively recent in the organization's history--after 2012. If you search for its previous name, "Portland Adventist Medical Center", you will find at least a dozen secondary sources, like the ones listed below. BTW, I left out run-of -the-mill death announcements and sensationalized lawsuits. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 00:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Balsiger-Petersen-Shewbridge & Associates (1974). Portland Adventist Hospital/Adventist Medical Center, 10123 S.E. Market Street, Portland, Oregon 97216: Architectural Specifications. The Associates.
"Hospital Finances Flashback: A Look Inside Adventist Health, Catholic Health Initiatives, CHE Trinity Health | The Lund Report". www.thelundreport.org. Retrieved 2020-06-04. Portland Adventist Medical Center serves eastern Multnomah County, an area where the low-income population is growing as gentrification elsewhere drives poorer residents of the Portland out of the central city. The 248-bed hospital and its affiliated clinics also provide services in Oregon's Clackamas and Washington counties and in Washington's Clark County. Adventist Medical Center ended its 2012 fiscal year with $193.4 million in net assets, up 3.5 percent.
ProPublica, Mike Tigas, Sisi Wei, Ken Schwencke, Brandon Roberts, Alec Glassford. "Portland Adventist Medical Center - Nonprofit Explorer". ProPublica. Retrieved 2020-06-04.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
"Bond plans". The World. 1979-06-30. p. 8. Retrieved 2020-06-04.
"9OR5 - Portland Adventist Medical Center Heliport | SkyVector". skyvector.com. Retrieved 2020-06-04.
HealthCare4PPL. "Portland Adventist Medical Center - Medical Group in Portland Oregon". www.healthcare4ppl.com. Retrieved 2020-06-04.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
Rojas-Burke, Joe (2010-05-24). "Report shows Oregon hospital infection rates". oregonlive. The Oregonian. Retrieved 2020-06-04.
Foden-Vencil, Kristian. "Oregon Approves Legacy And PacificSource Merger". www.opb.org. Retrieved 2020-06-04. A fourth integrated system is currently in the works between OHSU, Tuality Healthcare, Portland Adventist Medical Center and several rural hospitals.
"Adventist Health Portland in Portland, Oregon - General Acute Care Hospital Address and Contact". npino.com. Retrieved 2020-06-04.
"1801887658 NPI Number | PORTLAND ADVENTIST MEDICAL CENTER | PORTLAND, OR |* NPI Registry | Medical Coding Library | www.HIPAASpace.com © 2020". www.hipaaspace.com. Retrieved 2020-06-04.
"Bloomberg - Portland Adventist Medical Centr". www.bloomberg.com. Retrieved 2020-06-04.
(a mention) daVinci robotic surgeries 2011Cecil, Neita. "Robotic surgery comes to MCMC". The Dalles Chronicle. Retrieved 2020-06-04.

Merge > Adventist Health using primary source provided with information about original name, founding, location, and merger in Adventist Health, whose article needs updating.19:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Keep as per the multiple reliable sources coverage identified above that shows it has independent notability and merits a stand-alone article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One of the references cited above is literally just their contact information and another one is the coordinates of their helicopter landing pad. Seriously, what is "independent reliable sourcing that establishes notability" about either of those? Adamant1 (talk) 13:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If anyone has built a modern 300-bed hospital facility without it being discussed at great length in the local newspaper, then I've never heard of it. The fact that nobody's yet looked in the 1970s archives of The Oregonian to find those sources does not mean that the subject is non-notable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't have access to the 1970s archives of The Oregonian, but I did search its website OregonLive and found 7 more solid resources in about 15 minutes. I'm confident WhatamIdoing is correct that there are probably many more in the archives. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bingham, Larry (2013-05-30). "Adventist Health breaks ground on East Portland medical plaza". oregonlive. Retrieved 2020-06-07.
Healthcare, Tuality (2012-09-13). "Adventist Health opens JobCare Clinic in Hillsboro". oregonlive. Retrieved 2020-06-07.
Oregonian/OregonLive, Fenit Nirappil | The (2013-01-28). "Adventist Health in Hillsboro joins network of preventive health care providers". oregonlive. Retrieved 2020-06-07.
Rojas-Burke, Joe (2012-06-16). "Health reform: Portland collaborative lands $17.3 million health innovation award". oregonlive. Retrieved 2020-06-07.
Oregonian/OregonLive, Katy Muldoon | The (2014-03-28). "New Parkrose Medical Plaza opens Monday in Northeast Portland". oregonlive. Retrieved 2020-06-07.
Verzemnieks, Inara (2009-09-15). "A week at the Portland Adventist Community Services: Volunteering isn't always easy". oregonlive. Retrieved 2020-06-07.
Peck, Dennis (2009-06-03). "Adventist Medical Center expands to keep up with need for ER, cardiac space". oregonlive. Retrieved 2020-06-07.

Cool, more trivial sources like the ones you posted above containing nothing but contact details. You should really familiarize yourself with what is considered trivial coverage. Instead of ref bombing a bunch of links to things that don't work for notability. Everything you linked to is extremely MILL. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first one in this list is 200 words on the construction of a new building. The last is 500 words on a US$94 million building expansion. (I haven't looked at the ones in between.) If you are seeing "nothing but contact details" at those links, then you might check your browser settings and ad blocker. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I say every link had nothing but contact details? The fact that only a few of them do is irrelevant. None of them should. Building expansions are just as trivial anyway. CORP specifically calls that kind of out as not notable. "of the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business." Same goes for the subjects of every other link. I don't feel the need to waste my time on an in-depth analysis of them here though just because you and the other users aren't willing to put the proper research into your votes. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:03, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Closed as keep but was asked to relist as quality of sources challenged. Extra eyes always useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of independent reliable sources. --Lockley (talk) 16:51, 15 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. Arguments that meeting WP:SIGCOV is a reason to delete seem particularly unconvincing... (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Werksmans[edit]

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

I see nothing beyond run of the mill mentions in some sources, and a bunch of directory listings. Nothing in the coverage I see suggests that this law firm is somehow noteworthy per CORP. Drmies (talk) 15:34, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I see an article about a South African law firm that has been in operation since the year 1917. The firm has worked on behalf of multiple noteworthy clients, which the mainstream media has seen fit to memorialize in print. If it were not noteworthy, then the reliable sources would have ignored this firm. They have not, and so the article should be kept.

Extended content

(Disclosure: the nominator seems to be stalking several of my past edits and deleting content that does not seem to fit with his world-view, because he objected to my use of New York Post, Graham Media Group, and CNN as sources for background information about a controversial personality in a Wikipedia article. This seems petty and vindictive to me. Note that I had not seen nor realized that a protracted debate had been taking place on the article's Talk page, which was a substantial oversight on my part, so Drmies is certainly correct about that, though was it necessary for Drmies to paint me as "barging" into the article and being "quite careless". What did I do that deserves that sort of treatment -- posting sources from New York Post, Graham Media Group, and CNN is "barging" and "quite careless"? Nonetheless, I and others have felt strongly that the article has been deliberately slanted in a way that violates Wikipedia's ambition to be neutral in its characterization of subjects, so I thought that sharing the three sources would have been welcomed.)

I am conscious of Wikipedia's Western-white-male systemic bias, so my only note in the "Delete" column would be that Werksmans is historically a white-male enterprise, so perhaps it should be removed for that reason. - Buckaboob Bonsai (talk) 21:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Please really shorten your vote! (this is by far a WP:TLDR rationale), and please don't attack the nominator. And the nominator likely objected to your sources as they all come from the same source and same story from a common wire service. Nate • (chatter) 23:11, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply Thank you for letting me know that. I had no idea that Daily Dispatch and the Sunday World tabloid were the same source. - Buckaboob Bonsai (talk) 02:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - with a bit of digging I found mentions of Werksmans in a few books. Its been around since 1917 and not just your run of the mill firm Gbawden (talk) 07:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- What books? Can you name them or provide any information about them or links? I'

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content. I have located some references from books but they're either articles written by people from the firm (fails WP:ORGIND or mentions-in-passing. I'm open to changing my !vote if someone can provide good references but for now, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If there is indeed non-run-of-the-mill coverage it would be useful if someone would present it, or the article is indeed likely to be deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 01:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of the largest and oldest law firms in South Africa, UCS, please. Easily passes CORP and the GNG. [28][29][30][31] AfD is not clean up. --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can someone comment on the new sources please?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:CORP. Arguments that the page should be deleted because it's owned by white people (that's a new one) aren't based on any policy. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 09:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Arguments that the page should be deleted because it's owned by white people" ... I suspect Buckaboob Bonsai forgot to add <sarcasm></sarcasm> tags. :) --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the original for the AfD is completely ridiculous, the company doesn't seem notable. On the new sources, they all contain trivial coverage like hiring/firing people and how much they got paid. None of it passes NCORP. Companies hire and fire people and get paid for things. It's in their nature and is pretty run of the mill. The last source in particular is just one dude slandering the company by making accusations and is more akin to a tabloid piece then actual journalism. I'm pretty sure there is a guideline about not using those kinds of sources. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1: I don't think you are referring to the four sources I've cited above - do they change your opinion? Similar question to @HighKing:.--Goldsztajn (talk) 22:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Goldsztajn: Hhhmmm, it's weird that you would think that. Since I specifically said I was talking about the new sources. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Adamant1: just checking before I did this:

Source	Significant?	Independent?	Reliable?	Secondary?	Pass/Fail	Notes
Daily Maverick 1	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Detailed story focussed on firm discussing impact of Covid-19 on staff, loss of salaries. See: Daily Maverick for sources on reliablility and independence
Daily Maverick 2	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Detailed story focussed on firm, discussion in relation to State Capture Commission
Independent Online	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Detailed story on firm's financial dealings with state agency, discussion on corruption investigations. See: Independent Online (South Africa) for sources on reliability and independence
Ground Up	Y	Y See: [32]	Y	Y	Y	Story focussed entirely on firm's actions trying to recover large outstanding debt from state rail agency
Total qualifying sources					4

Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 07:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's zero way you can say the first source is a pass when it is about staffing and WP:CORPDEPTH specifically says coverage of staffing is trivial. Even more so because it's in relation to staffing problems caused by covid-19. Literally every company in the world has had staffing issues because of it and there's absolutely nothing notable about it. Not to the article is them discussing it. Which also fails the whole secondary thing. The third and forth also fail according to WP:CORPDEPTH because they are about debt and profits. Plus they involve court filings. Which are considered primary. The fact that one of them is from Independent Online is completely irrelevant if the article is trivial primary coverage. So, I completely disagree with your analysis of the sources. Especially the one about covid-19 and staffing. There's millions of articles about almost every company on the planet dealing with that stuff. It's extremely MILL and there's absolutely nothing notable about it as a topic. It also goes against NOTNEWS and probably TOSOON. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CORPDEPTH notes: Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. All the sources meet that criteria. A discussion about staffing problems is not trivial; the question of employment has been everywhere in the news worldwide - the fact that a large firm is featured in an examination of the issue confirms the firm's notability existed before the outbreak. This is a firm with a 100+ year history, representing clients at the highest levels of South African political economy, we are not discussing some middling run of the mill firm.--Goldsztajn (talk) 10:10, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given the comment from Adamant1 above, further sourcing. 2018 reports on corruption investigation in state railways.^[1]^[2] 2019 report of the head of police corruption body discussing the firm's actions.^[3] Discussion in relation to firm's role with regard to corruption and the South African president.^[4] Firm's investigation causes leading South African Newspaper to suspend editor.^[5] Investigating firm in one the 10 largest corruption scandals in South Africa of the last decade.^[6] Refs indicating status of the firm: "Compared to giants like Werksmans...^[7] Werksmans Attorneys (a leading South African law firm)^[8]

References

^ "Werksmans report shows Transnet wasted billions in locomotives deal". BusinessLIVE.
^ Dentlinger, Lindsay. "Werksmans Attorneys report recommends inquiry into Transnet corruption". Eyewitness News.
^ Bateman, Barry (12 April 2019). "Robert McBride stops short of accusing Werksmans of acting in bad faith". ewn.co.za.
^ "More damning Zondo evidence – Zuma's options lessen by the day". BizNews.com. 16 April 2019.
^ "Mail & Guardian suspends political editor over 'involvement' in irregular Prasa tender". News24. 31 October 2018.
^ "The biggest South African business scandals over the past decade". BusinessInsider. 11 January 2020.
^ Bezuidenhout, Jessica (16 April 2018). "SCORPIO: Gupta, Inc: The Lawyers, Part One". Daily Maverick.
^ "Frontier Rare Earths Limited: Appointment of Non-Executive Director". finance.yahoo.com. 28 October 2016.

No run of the mill firm has this level of coverage, this level of representation.--Goldsztajn (talk) 10:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re " A discussion about staffing problems is not trivial." It's trivial if your trying to use it as a claim of notability from the Covid-19 outbreak, because again it applies to every company out there. For the same reasons stock fluctuations, expansions, etc etc etc are trivial. For it not to be, it has to be a topic that can't be applied to everyone. The depth of coverage doesn't matter. The uniqueness of the subject does. There's unique about this companies Covid-19 staffing problems compared to those of any other company. Read MILL "Something that is run-of-the-mill is a common, everyday, ordinary item that does not stand out from the rest." Their staffing issues just don't stand out from the same staffing problems millions of other companies are having. Do a search of Google news for "Covid-19 staffing issue." There's millions of results, because it's something that every company is going through and isn't unique to this company. Which is the definition run-of-the-mill and trivial. There is no "depth" clause to that either. A change in stock prices does not suddenly become notable and not trivial just because some reporter who likes to be long winded and use big words decides to write an extra long article about it. Seriously.

Also,Your whole thing that "news coverage of the company proves their notability existed before the outbreak" is just bizarre circular reasoning. The news covers things all the time that where not notable before the coverage and most of the time still aren't after. often aren't notable still afterwords. The topic being in the news doesn't mean anything about it's past notability and it's completely nonsensical to claim it does. Notability isn't retro-active (we aren't editing in the past here). The staffing problems at Hammonton Center for Rehabilitation was just featured in a Reuters article due to staffing issues, but that doesn't mean it proves they where always notable, just that the writer at Reuters decided to use them as an example of what they were writing about. That's it. It's extremely ridiculous read into it and claim otherwise. No one at Reuters or anywhere else in the world cared or was witting about the company before Covid-19. Give me a break. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We differ in opinion; I don't think anything further can be said on this single source that has not already been said. Even without that source, there's another 9 here which clearly show the firm meets the GNG.--Goldsztajn (talk) 13:38, 10 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. Sourcing appears to fall short and assertions are not enough Inna BLP. One keep vote from a sock Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Swift (photographer)[edit]

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

Reviewed as a part of new article review/ curation process. Skateboard photographer. No indication of wp:notability. Little content because there are no suitable sources to build content from. Circa early 5/24/20 the references are: #1 Note on a web site that that says he is starting a website. #2 & #3 two links to a place to download an MP3 produced by him. The listing includes a bio of him, probably written by him. #4, #6 & #7 are links to something he created. #5 is a two sentence listing in a book. #8. A website interviewed a panel of approx 6 persons (no bios) including him and this lists his answers. Article was previously draftified for these same reasons. North8000 (talk) 12:05, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:16, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:16, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:18, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 14:30, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a search finds only trivial coverage, which is insuffient to support WP:GNG.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:23, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I respectfully disagree. I added a vice.com article that mentions his contributions. Swift has undoubted notability as he was around in the early days of the Del Mar Skate Ranch, spent many years as editor in chief of Transworld Skateboarding, and cofounding the Skateboard Mag. That's two major and significant skateboard publications. I'm having trouble finding great sources because he was kind of behind the scenes.--Wil540 art (talk) 19:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the effort, but if he was notable then we would have no trouble finding great sources.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Wil540 art Alexdlp10 (talk) 09:22, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 06:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep EIC/Founder of notable magazines is notable enough for me. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question if "Swift was featured in Transworld Skateboarding Check Out section in the December 1988 issue", and if "be featured" has significant meaning, then shouldn't the article cite what was said about him there? (As it is, this gives the impression of insubstantiality, as does the article as a whole.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:28, 12 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 Gothic fiction. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 08:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of the Eighteenth century Gothic novel[edit]

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

Article topic is not a coherent, notable, encyclopedic concept. The subject is both too specific and too broad: it addresses four or five concepts that are all unrelated except for involving the word "translation." Some information is useful, but belongs at Gothic fiction (where I have already copied it). An imaginary better-sourced version of this material would similarly belong on articles about specific novels or the 18thC book trade. The article is currently an orphan, and even as a subject matter expert, I cannot see how to improve it into something encyclopedic enough that I would link to it from elsewhere. ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 05:55, 9 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 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move to larger article. As per nom above, as long as all of this data is moved to the larger entry for this topical area, it seems fine to upmerge this entry with a larger article. --Sm8900 (talk) 17:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. The useful part of this article is now in a useful place, thank you Oulfis. The rest is illogical. --Lockley (talk) 05:14, 16 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

George Aguilar[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable actor. Was not able to find an RS about him. Natg 19 (talk) 01:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 01:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 02:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree, his role in the critically acclaimed Bagdad Café earned him a WP:NEntertainer. Moreover the article is not self promotional and sourced. The article should be kept and expanded. ≈Innovamus≈ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Innovamus (talk • contribs) 02:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC) Sorry I'm a new editor, still unfamiliar with signatures Innovamus (talk) 02:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)InnovamusInnovamus (talk) 02:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete The only coverage other than IMDb is the obituary of his son. This in no way shows notability. We deleted this article once, no reason to keep it on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:23, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: The subject has had enough main or supporting roles in notable films to pass WP:NACTOR, I think. I have applied at WP:RX for an article to be clipped; it appears to be an in-depth write-up dedicated to the subject. I'll post it here as soon as I can, and then I'll be able to give a more informed opinion vis-à-vis WP:GNG. Dflaw4 (talk) 12:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow time to collect sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 07:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here is the write-up I referred to above, but I think it may be a different person: here. There are other sources, though (however, I'm not sure that they are as in-depth), and I'll post them here soon. Dflaw4 (talk) 09:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I recognise him and he has a solid bit-part actor career from the 70's onwards. I think is more to go onto IMDB. There is not a titanic amount of coverage, slim, but I think he is notable. scope_creep^Talk 17:13, 17 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) 11:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of clothing and footwear shops in the United Kingdom[edit]

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

This is an incomplete list that will never be completed. Full of non notable shops and shops from all the ages. In addition there are multiple sourcing issues. This would be better as a category rather than a list. Games of the world (talk) 07:21, 1 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 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We wouldn't expect a list like this to be complete as that would tend to make it a directory. Readers will expect a list of the famous and notable cases such as Marks and Spencer and Clarks. These are best done as a list rather than a category because citations can support the entries, red links can be used for missing entries, images can be added and so forth. In any case WP:CLN makes it very clear that we don't delete lists to favour categories. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, magnet for entries about non-notable businesses. Redundant to a (self-maintaining) category. Stifle (talk) 09:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Categories are not self-maintaining. They require editorial effort and, as a result, are routinely inaccurate. For example, consider Marks & Spencer – one of the largest chains in the UK. This has Category:Clothing retailers of the United Kingdom but not Category:Food retailers of the United Kingdom. That's junk because the business makes more money from food sales than clothing. The chain also sells other items such as shoes but they are not mentioned either. Categories are also junk because they are never supported by citations and so fail WP:V. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. I have added M&S to the food retailers category - why didn't you do it yourself? RobinCarmody (talk) 01:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and trim back all non-notable businesses and advertising links so it doesn't act like a directory. Ajf773 (talk) 10:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Eliminate anything that doesn't have its own article to link to or otherwise evidence of its notability. Perfectly valid list, shows links to related articles, and provides more information than a category would. Dream Focus 16:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Categories are not use able and referenced and regularly get changed due to people arguing issues over titles. A list will never be completely accurate, but neither are categories or many pages based on retail. We have department store lists around the world, as well as discounters and supermarkets. The older retailers which have very little online references but are part of the history of retail won't be notable for their own page, but need to be referenced to show their part of the development in the history of UK retail. User:davidstewartharvey) 18:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENTIn addition to my keep statement, there are retailers like Hotter who are a national footwear retailer who advertise on national TV, who currently don't have their own page. Losing the list means they will be lost. User:davidstewartharvey) 18:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep valid WP:LISTN Lightburst (talk) 01:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There should be no problem if non-notable entries have been removed. Orientls (talk) 03:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. But remove any independent shops that don't have their own articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment an editor has started to remove non notable businesses but has already bodged that up by removing national retailers (like Footasylum who were very much in the press coverage since last year) with national notable refs.User talk:Davidstewartharvey
If its so notable than someone should write an article on them. Including entries without an article in this list is a violation of NOTDIR. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Because there is not a page yet it does not meet its not notable, just not written yet.WP:LISTN Secondly Dune which is a national chain and was replaced referenced from national press(the independent) is an example which you deleted. Yes delete local stores but national chains!.User talk:Davidstewartharvey
Delete From what I can tell most of the items aren't even about the topic of the list, UK clothing and footwear shops. For instance the article about is Adidas is for the brand and the item for Charlie Allen is about the designer. Neither of which has anything to do with UK clothing or footwear shops. Especially with the listings for global footwear shops like Adidas when they have stores all over the world and there's zero notable about them having in the UK. Their UK stores aren't even mentioned in the Adidas article. Which should be a basic standard for an item to be listed and for it's article to be linked to. The list seems like a case of "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks, because otherwise it will get deleted." I know an AfD isn't clean up, but a good argument could be made that the article isn't notable precisely because most of the blue links have nothing to do with the subject of the list. I'd could also argue that the list should be split up into one for "clothing shops" and one for "footwear shops" and be confined to entries about actually notable brick and mortar locations and legitimate UK companies. Not every single global brand that might have a shop in the UK as a function of the fact that they have shops everywhere on the planet. I think would fix a lot of the problem. Sans that though, the article should be deleted as not actually covering the topic it was created for and for not being notable without citing off topic articles. Wikipedia isn't a directory. Especially of only loosely related subjects. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A list of shops violates WP:NOTDIR - most of the shops listed have a single branch, are in no way notable, and this lead us into phone book territory. A list of retail chains might be appropriate where each chain has its own article, but this isn't that.----Pontificalibus 13:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It is incorrect to say that "a list of shops violates WP:NOTDIR"; such a list can violate it, but not merely by existing to index shops. "Most of the shops listed...are in no way notable" -- this is so inaccurate I have no idea what you're even looking at; every entry under #Current is bluelinked. There are many redlinks under #Defunct, but there are also sources provided for those entries that could support notability. In any event, if the list included nonnotable entries that it should not, that's clearly fixable. postdlf (talk) 20:22, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're wrong, as has already been pointed out above the bluelinks are mostly not links to articles about shops in the UK, but to articles on brands etc which don't even mention UK shops. And then there's entries on a single shop like "Charlie Allen - Charlie Allen founded his tailoring shop in 1984." which links to an article about a person which doesn't mention a shop. So yes, the vast majority of entries aren't notable. It's not an index article but an attempt to create a directory of all UK clothing shops.----Pontificalibus 20:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - You seem to be expecting that the individual shop locations should be notable? In any event this seems like a complaint about inclusion criteria. If the parent company is notable and they operate shops in the UK, then it's certainly reasonable to think it's appropriate to list here. Even for articles such as 7 for All Mankind, which don't mention a UK presence, its entry in this list has a source verifying its inclusion. So whether the article mentions it or not is irrelevant. Further, Category:Clothing retailers of the United Kingdom has 136 entries not even including what is in subcategories. There are clearly enough notable entries to include even if one splits hairs the way you seem to want. postdlf (talk) 20:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the individual shops be notable if that's what the article is explicitly about? You can't title the article "Shops in the UK" and then claim the notability of said shops don't matter and that it doesn't even matter if the shops are listed in the article that are being blue linked to. Just like you can't create articles for albums, claim they are notable just because the band that put it out is, and then say it doesn't matter if the album isn't even mentioned on the bands page. Those things matter. Otherwise, your just being circularly about it and saying anything in the list automatically notable simply for being in the list. Then that the list and article is notable just because of the items in it. Which is complete nonsense. LISTN says notability is based on the list as a whole and that it should follow GNG. So yes, the items in the list have to have their own notability and it's not based on the company that owns the store. "Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable." So is there anything particular notable about the subject of clothing stores in the UK? No there isn't. Every country has clothing stores. There's nothing unique about the UK Gap clothing stores compared to the Gap clothing stores in every other place in the world. Otherwise, there would be a specific Gap store in the UK that has it's own coverage and notability. There isn't though. So there's nothing notable about it just because it's included in a list and nothing else in the list either. "But, but, but it must be notable it's in the list" is a completely meaningless justification for the articles notability. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:51, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- - comment the list is no different to supermarkets, department stores, convenience stores, dime/discount store lists on Wikipedia. In fact I afd List of Retail Stores in UK because it was not specific, and we already had specific lists. This was deleted as all editors comments were the same, not specific. Your argument does not also hold water as that means all lists must not be notable! User:Davidstewartharvey

Of course, the whole "If this isn't notable nothing else on Wikipedia like it is" argument always tends to come up when there is nothing else to argue. I'll indulge you though, and cite the other "list of retail stores in UK" articles that you claim are exactly like this and cause to keep it. Let's see, there's List of convenience shops in the United Kingdom. Which doesn't list global brands and does list individual locations that have their own articles. So, it's nothing like this one. There's also List of shopping centres in the United Kingdom by size. Which again, doesn't list global brands and only lists individual locations that have their own articles/notability. What about List of discount shops in the United Kingdom? Again, exactly like the other ones and nothing like this article. How about List of supermarket chains in the United Kingdom? Also nothing like this article for the same reasons as the others. List of companies of the United Kingdom A-J? Again, nothing like this article. Etc, etc, etc. I think I've made my point. But sure, lets keep this article because of a bunch of other articles that are nothing like it except for having the words "list" and "UK" in the titles. Rrrriiiggghhhttttt.... --Adamant1 (talk) 15:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This list is specific to clothing and footwear stores in the UK. This is exactly the same as the other lists. In fact you have argued that there different as there is no multinational brands, but there is. In discount chains you have Poundland and Tiger. In supermarkets, we have Tesco which operate across Europe, while Iceland operate elsewhere other than the UK.

Except Tesco is the largest all-purpose retailer in UK and there's a specific section for the UK locations in the Tesco article. Whereas, in this article a brand like American Eagle Outfitters only has three locations and there isn't a UK specific section in its article. In fact the UK isn't even mentioned in the International stores section. So your comparing apples and oranges. I was pretty clear about the differences and what makes them notable and this not. Which included mention of the UK stores in the brands article. Otherwise it's an indiscriminate list that generates it's own notability. Also, the UKs largest retailer and a company with only three locations really have absolutely nothing in common when it comes to notability. Adamant1 (talk) 20:46, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the reason the UK American Eagle Outfitter stores aren't mentioned in American Eagle Outfitters is because according to the article all their UK locations closed down in 2017. Which just confirms what I said above about how this is an indiscriminate list that people are throwing everything at the wall with to make it seem notable. Which just doing cleanup isn't going to remedy. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:44, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep List is notable. Argument from adamant is weak. As per previous comment "If the parent company is notable and they operate shops in the UK, then it's certainly reasonable to think it's appropriate to list here. Even for articles such as 7 for All Mankind, which don't mention a UK presence, its entry in this list has a source verifying its inclusion. So whether the article mentions it or not is irrelevant.“ that American Eagle does not mention UK is irrevelant. It does not mention any of the countries it operates in other than US. That they closed and he has not removed it is lazy editoring. Remove what is a notable list because it needs work is lazy and poor argument.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aakanksha Sareen[edit]

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

Fails WP:ENT, no reliable sources were found. Antila ✉ 06:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Antila ✉ 06:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Antila ✉ 06:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Passing mentions. All the references indicate non-notable. Fails WP:NACTOR. scope_creep^Talk 06:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: Hii Sir, I have a question. If a movie doesn't have wikipedia article So wouldn't that movie be considered notable?

Virenderthind2019 (talk) 06:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin Hi Sir/Mam, before taking any decision please check the Article properly as She has acted in Mitti: Virasat Babbaran Di and Dulla Vaily as a lead and in Jagga Jiunda E and Angrej as a special appearance. 2 movies are upcoming I mentioned with better sources. Apart from this, she has acted in multiple music videos as a lead model and She has won Miss Diva Chandigarh Title by Femina Miss India. I think it is enough for notebility. I hope you will check these details then take the decision. Thank You Virenderthind2019 (talk) 23:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable actress with no evidence of satisfying WP:NACTOR. GSS ^💬 08:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Hatchens (talk) 12:23, 15 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. Eggishorn is correct that an assumption that sources exist is not enough - but the article does now cite numerous sources (not only Youtube and ImdB) , and nobody here discusses why these aren't sufficient. Sandstein 13:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elbrus Together[edit]

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

non-notable film, absolutely no meaningful coverage. fails WP:NFILM Praxidicae (talk) 15:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Praxidicae and CAPTAIN RAJU. Thanks for taking the time to read the article I edited and to help improve Wikipedia articles in general. I understand that you nominated the Elbrus Together article for deletion according to the Notability (films) guideline. I respect your opinion, so I did further work to improve the article. I explained what I did and how the article, in my opinion, now satisfies the 5 points of General notability guideline as a comment in the article source code. I understand that the article can be improved greatly with the help of other Wikipedia editors so please don't delete it. Let's try to find more details on the film online and in published magazines. I might do that a little later. Thanks again and have a great day! Keep Tom Mark Alexis (talk) 16:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also found a few references of the film on a New York film production company website. I'll put one reference in the article now. Thanks Tom Mark Alexis (talk) 12:57, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac 1 5 06:18, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent secondary sources discussing the film points towards it not being notable Smanworld (talk) 21:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm gonna go with Keep under the assumption that there is a lot of film coverage in the Russian and Ukrainian speaking websites/magazines/etc. This film premiered in theaters in Ukraine, so it should say that this is a Ukrainian film, not an American film. Sam1529 (talk) 05:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I want to apologise to User:Praxidicae for the two inappropriate BADNAC. This page is now open. Captain Galaxy (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sign of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. The assumption that there must be coverage in Ukrainian or Russian sources needs to actually be demonstrated - there is no presumption in favor of notability based on existence. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Procedural keep; no non-blocked editors arguing for deletion. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 08:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Instituto Latinoamericano de Museos[edit]

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

Not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Wikieditor600 (talk) 15:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. StarM 00:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. StarM 00:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:49, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and yes, I know this is OSE, but we have ICOM, AAM and this fits within there as well. We're deficient in our coverage of non English speaking areas, color me surprised. There are no sources in the article, but I'll work on that right now. Note for closer: nom is indef blocked with questions of being a sock StarM 17:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The added sources are sufficient evidence that we could find enough sources for notability, especially if searching in Spanish-language sources. Dreamyshade (talk) 01:25, 13 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sonyaa Ayodhya[edit]

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

Actor who does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. She has had one recurring role in Nazar, but nothing indicates that it was a major role, and that doesn't come close to notability requirements for an actor. The sources are press releases (including at least one PR that's used as two different sources) and gossip magazines. There has been a number of attempts to create Wikipedia articles about this individual before, by a number of paid accounts (see deletion logs for Sonyaa and Sonyaa Pink, and the current article was created as a draft and then moved to mainspace by another account who was later blocked as a sock of the first one. This is a person who really wants to use Wikipedia as a promotional platform, and although the current article is not overly promotional, she does not meet any notability requirements. bonadea contributions talk 15:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 15:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 15:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

*KEEP - I read it, Sources establish notability it mets WP:ICTFSOURCES and WP:GNG yes information in article is not enough need to find more resources and information for article you can put NOTABILITY tag instead of deleting it. I vote to KEEP. Krishna Murthy DL (talk) 10:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC) Sock puppet comment struck. --bonadea contributions talk 15:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But none of the sources meets WP:ICTFSOURCES and there is certainly no WP:SIGCOV – so how do you reckon WP:GNG is met? --bonadea contributions talk 11:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bonadea: The reference No. 2,3,4,5,6 are very reliable in india, specifically 2, 3 are from Times Group which is well know groups and very authentic references. As I said above Yes article lacks a information but not doing advertising Sonyaa Ayodhya is a known (not well known definitely) actress in india. I still vote for 'keep'. further feel free to ping for any queries. please read list of sources in article WP:ICTFSOURCES. Krishna Murthy DL (talk) 11:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)Sock puppet comment struck. --bonadea contributions talk 15:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a vote, and please do not post more than one bolded opinion. I realise that you are a very new editor, and as such it is easy to misinterpret the many pages of guidelines and policies that exist. Press releases, such as reference 2, do not count towards notability since they are not independent. And it goes without saying that a piece called "Nazar actress Sonyaa is a siren in real life; a look at her sultry pictures" (reference 3) is not going to be useful. If you take a moment to look at it, you will see that it is just a bunch of pictures from the actor's own Instagram account, with empty blurbs written for the clickbait value – in other words, it is not close to being a reliable source, and contains no information that is relevant for the article. I'll make a summary table for the sources tonight if I have the time, to show more clearly why none of them counts towards GNG. Please do not ping me. Thank you. --bonadea contributions talk 11:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for misinterpret your thoughts about me.... I'd only say one thing... as mentioned in WP:ICTFSOURCES sources are valid and article dosent look doing any promotions. I have never edited this article as was not aware it was in exist, now ill definitely take efforts to find more sources and information in neutral pov for contribution. About pictures I suggest one can nominate it for deletion instead of article if it dosent fits in criteria. Anyways this is my last communication on this afd I'd again say I vote to 'Keep' this article, as it has notability as per GNG or else 'they would have not approved it in AFC (This was created through AFC kindly check.) Thanks Krishna Murthy DL (talk) 12:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)Sock puppet comment struck. --bonadea contributions talk 15:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was never submitted to AfC, and not approved by an AfC reviewer. The account that moved the draft to mainspace was used by the same user who created the draft, and both accounts have since been blocked for using multiple accounts deceptively. I apologise for calling you a new editor – that was based on your displaying a "Novice editor" badge on your user page as well as on the fact that you started editing English Wikipedia a week ago, but if you say that it is a misinterpretation, I stand corrected. --bonadea contributions talk 12:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Reliable sources are present for this known television actress. इं. हेमंत बोरकर (talk) 14:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)Sock puppet comment struck. --bonadea contributions talk 15:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:47, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Krishna Murthy DL and ErHemantBorkar (who signed themself इं. हेमंत बोरकर) have been blocked as socks of the same LTA sockmaster. I have struck their comments. --bonadea contributions talk 15:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG as of now upcoming at best a case of WP:TOOSOON.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Case of [{WP:TOOSOON]]. Fails WP:NACTOR. scope_creep^Talk 17:29, 17 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 Touro College and University System. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Touro College Los Angeles[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. While independent accredited universities are generally considered to be notable per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, this isn't an independent university, but rather part of the Touro College and University System. The sources currently cited by the article are either not independent, not reliable, or not secondary, and I was unable to find additional coverage searching on the internet and on Newspapers.com. I would suggest that this article should be redirected to Touro College and University System _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - not only is notability met, but it seems that this seems to be the standard across Wikipedia to include fully independent schools within a university system. Alansohn (talk) 17:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alansohn, could you clarify which sources you think establish notability? By my assessment I haven't been able to find a single example of independent coverage in a secondary reliable source. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not only is notability met, but it seems that this seems to be the standard across Wikipedia to include fully independent schools within a university system. _signed,GTFLETCH

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In its current state, the article lacks sufficient evidence to establish notability. Notability is not inherited; if there are other college and university articles about branch campuses or subsidiary institutions that are not independently notable then they should be discussed for deletion, too. ElKevbo (talk) 04:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article dose not provide basis for notability. Nika2020 (talk) 19:43, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Touro College and University System. --Lockley (talk) 04:39, 16 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) 11:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Evan R. Bernstein[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, specifically "significant coverage" and sources "independent of the subject". Also odd activity from multiple IPs, SPAs indicates possible WP:COI, WP:UPE. Loksmythe (talk) 16:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also appeared in MER-C's latest batch of suspicious new articles: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Suspicious new articles (30 May). Loksmythe (talk) 16:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Loksmythe (talk) 16:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable activist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm unsure as to why this has been put forward for deletion. He has held senior roles at four separate Jewish NGOs, American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), The David Project, served as Executive Director of Migdal Ohr and recently Anti-Defamation League. He recently joined a fifth in Community Security Service, which happened at the end of May and why I started putting this page together. At ADL, his coverage has been extensive to say the least. Anytime Antisemitism takes place in NYC and the surrounding areas, Bernstein seems to be the spokesperson for Jews in New York City and surrounding areas. The coverage is fairly consistent. Many racist incidents such as the Monsey Hanukkah stabbing, he took a leading role in interfaith relations.LondonNews (talk) 19:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 05:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the points made by LondonNews. Ibn Daud (talk) 22:06, 10 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 Vernon Building Society (Poynton) Brass Band. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

St George's Singers[edit]

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

A choir of local notability. It is tagged since 2017 and nobody bothered to address the concern Staszek Lem (talk) 17:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ if they have been featured on BBC Radio 3 and 4 national radio stations then they have more than local notice plus they have overseas touring imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
occasional radio stint without indepth coverage in reliable sources means nothing. I saw a guy touching his ear with his tongue on national TV . D Anybody knows his name now? Staszek Lem (talk) 03:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
perhaps he has an article? Instead of deletion this could be merged as a small paragraph into the Poynton article as it is reliably referenced, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, this may be a good idea. I looked into Poynton and see a yet another WP:PEACOCKy page there: Vernon Building Society (Poynton) Brass Band. The name sounds almost like "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" :-) I will go ahead and merge it and see if there will be any fuss. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there seems to be enough there about the Singers already so perhaps just a redirect is needed, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 05:02, 9 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) 11:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hybrid Insect Micro-Electro-Mechanical Systems[edit]

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

Non-notable government project. See [33] and [34]. Much of the sources in the Bing/Google just are trivial mentions of it and do not actually discuss the project. A a s i m 04:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG. A better search term to use rather than the whole name of the project, is "HI-MEMS". A search turned up a large number of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, I've added a couple to the article. Searching by the whole name is going to turn up a lot of unrelated junk due to the number of generic terms in the name. RecycledPixels (talk) 19:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep following the source additions by RecycledPixels - cheers. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:09, 12 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Matmice[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This was not a notable website. Only local reliable sources - Sydney Morning Herald. Wikieditor600 (talk) 20:34, 2 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 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: into Remember the Milk. Meticulo (talk) 08:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The current version of the article shows reliable sources covered the subject years ago. Notability is not temporary. Bvatsal61 (talk) 14:02, 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 02:55, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - appears to have been covered by reliable sources. And the Sydney Morning Herald is not "local" coverage, it's a national masthead in Australia. Deus et lex (talk) 09:18, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SMH isnt a national masthead its a NSW paper, its part a group of newspapers that share content. Gnangarra 15:10, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The SMH is about the closest thing to a masthead you can get. It's a paper with national recognition even if not published nation-wide. My point is that it's not "local" news. Deus et lex (talk) 01:39, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there is also this:[35] article in The Age. This website passes GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete not notable, The SMH(NSW), The Age(Victoria), Financial Review, Brisbane Times(QLD), WAToday(WA) are all part of the same group Nine Entertainment Co. with content published under all mastheads, but written by the same person. Gnan garra 15:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Impressive, considering the articles are completely different and were published six months apart from each other. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article provides enough sources to be notable. Nika2020 (talk) 19:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Also an article in The Guardian ([36]). That's definitely not local coverage. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 23:59, 16 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 11:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Baldi's Basics Plus[edit]

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

I PROD'd this article earlier, but it was contested by someone without an explanation. Copying my rationale for deletion from the PROD: "Virtually no evidence of notability found on WP:VGSE." letcreate123 (talk) 02:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. letcreate123 (talk) 02:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete sequel to non-notable game that hasn’t even been released yet. Dronebogus (talk) 03:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it has not even been released.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Let's see how well it does after it gets released, then reconsider then. Félix An (talk) 00:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That’s not a very good rationale to keep this article. It’s a sequel to a game that was declared non-notable, and the page could easily be recreated with better info if for some reason it actually DID turn out to be notable. Wikipedia doesn’t usually need articles for upcoming works unless they’re from a notable creator or franchise. The description of the original as “acclaimed” also makes the article seem like a promo piece. Dronebogus (talk) 00:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject fails WP:GNG fot the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Couldn't find anything about this at all. Simply WP:TOOSOON as the game is in early access right now. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:04, 16 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 Beaconsfield. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 08:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chiltern Shakespeare Company[edit]

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

A non notable amateur theatre company. WP:BEFORE shows some local and niche coverage but nothing beyond WP:MILL that would help to indicate notability. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 02:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 02:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 02:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 02:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 02:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:MILL. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:AUD. I tried to expand the article, but reliable, non-trivial, non-local sources just don't exist for the CSC. Samsmachado (talk) 19:05, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to a relevant short paragraph in Beaconsfield. --Lockley (talk) 01:23, 16 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. czar 02:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dell'Amico[edit]

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

This page has never had any article entries. Len Dell'Amico is the only mention that I could find. Leschnei (talk) 02:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 02:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sourced information on the name, and nobody with the name has a dedicated article. There's a name drop of Len Dell'Amico in a few pages, but that can be found via search after this is deleted.—Bagumba (talk) 08:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no suitable target for a redirect, and deletion would enable uninhibited Search. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:18, 10 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Teenu Arora[edit]

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

A non-notable music-composer. Also WP:BOMBARDMENT. Zoodino (talk) 23:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 23:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 23:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The composer is notable and relevant news sources from Times of India , Indian Express , Mid Day , Zee News and many more has been used as references and all are featured news articles about the composer Teenu Arora. Moreover if you check the google news section with the name Teenu Arora you will get a bunch of articles from top news sources and it is clearly not WP:BOMBARDMENT, Additionally the composer's songs have crossed millions of views in YouTube. eg - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6KsymnZ21U and he is known to collaborate with many top artists and music labels as seen in news sources. This tag is out of misunderstanding Jehowahyereh (talk) 12:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jehowahyereh all of the references mentioned by you have trivial mentions (or no mentions) of the subject and lacks in depth coverage, just having the name of the subject in a article does not depicts notability. Most of the articles are single paragraphs having few lines, that's even not about the subject. Also the references should be independent of the subject, this includes the articles where the subject talk about themselves, they are also not considered. Hope it clears out the misunderstanding. Cheers ! Zoodino (talk) 05:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. More misunderstanding from your response, You said Most of the articles are single paragraphs having few lines, that's even not about the subject, but the real scenario is different for example quoting reference articles - ( https://zeenews.india.com/entertainment/musicindia/delhi-based-dj-turns-composer_79295.html - Talks only about Teenu Arora and its not few lines ) , ( https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/music/news/Teenu-Arora-roped-in-by-Sushmita-Sen/articleshow/16739418.cms - Talks about Teenu Arora and its not few lines ) , ( https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Teenu-Arora-popularly-known-as-DJ-Tnu-has-become-a-music-director-Mumbai-Mast-Kalandar-is-the-movie-with-which-he-debuted-as-a-music-director-Teenu-who-will-be-in-Chandigarh-for-promotional-purposes-has-three-more-Bollywood-projects-lined-up-I-am-in-talks-with-directors-who-are-even-offering-me-to-redo-the-movie-numbers-he-said-/articleshow/7293728.cms - Talks about Teenu Arora and its not few lines ) , ( https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/chandigarh/out-of-the-box-4/ - Talks about Teenu Arora and its not few lines ) there are many more, all are detailed articles featuring Teenu Arora, which depicts notability and clears your misunderstanding Jehowahyereh (talk) 04:47, 11 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) b uidhe 08:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adhyan[edit]

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

Couldn't find any reliable sources other than a review from Times of India Samyam (Tamil) [37]. Notability for a film needs significant coverage from the media and reviews from two reliable sources. TamilMirchi (talk) 00:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 00:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 00:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:28, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't seem to be notable. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:02, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 03:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I found a review by Maalai Malar.--Kailash29792 (talk) 06:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as two newspaper reviews have now been identified which gives the film a claim to pass criteria 1 of WP:NFILM and that deletion is no longer necessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:27, 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 01:45, 9 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) 13:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Berkeley SkyDeck[edit]

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

vaguely promotional, primarily sourced, and overall non-notable - I don't think the sources show that this meets WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. -- puddleglum^2.0 17:19, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:44, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:44, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't seem to have much independent notability; notability is not inherent from notable related people. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Tahbaz, Meghan (2018-08-09). "Skydeck turns research into reality". O'Reilly Media. Archived from the original on 2020-05-25. Retrieved 2020-05-25.
Said, Carolyn (2018-08-15). "UC Berkeley startup accelerator gets a boost from venture fund". San Francisco Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2020-05-25. Retrieved 2020-05-25.
Douglass, John Aubrey, ed. (2016). The New Flagship University: Changing the Paradigm from Global Ranking to National Relevancy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 73. ISBN 978-1-349-57665-4. Retrieved 2020-05-25.
Corbyn, Zoe (2012-09-23). "Take one start-up, add expertise and grow with care". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 2020-05-25. Retrieved 2020-05-25.
Rinker, Brian (2020-01-24). "Armed with a new venture fund, UC Berkeley's SkyDeck continues its mission". San Francisco Business Times. Archived from the original on 2020-05-25. Retrieved 2020-05-25.
Truong, Kevin (2018-08-16). "Does UC Berkeley's SkyDeck accelerator represent a new way of funding higher education?". San Francisco Business Times. Archived from the original on 2020-05-25. Retrieved 2020-05-25.
Clark, Kate (2018-11-07). "20 startups take center stage at Berkeley SkyDeck's demo day". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2020-05-25. Retrieved 2020-05-25.
Rinker, Brian (2019-12-05). "UC Berkeley's prestigious startup accelerator opens applications". San Francisco Business Times. Archived from the original on 2020-05-25. Retrieved 2020-05-25.

Sources with quotes

Tahbaz, Meghan (2018-08-09). "Skydeck turns research into reality". O'Reilly Media. Archived from the original on 2020-05-25. Retrieved 2020-05-25.
The article notes:
The Berkeley Skydeck office is located in the penthouse of the tallest building in downtown Berkeley. Sweeping views of the bay are accessible from virtually every face of the large, open-concept space, surely providing inspiration to the teams selected for this spring’s portfolio. There is a modest kitchen, plenty of desk space, and perhaps most importantly, a large quantity of coffee.
Skydeck has built a space for their teams to work comfortably, and hopefully effectively, with the idea that they can accomplish most tasks in-house. Cultured through workshops, mentorship experiences, and a creative environment to develop in, teams are given the resources necessary to strengthen each of these facets. At the start of the portfolio period, each startup is given $50,000 in investments from the Berkeley SkyDeck Fund, with an additional $50,000 to follow after completion of half of the program. Over the course of six months, teams complete the Berkeley Acceleration Method (BAM) where they attend mandatory training in each of the six practice areas:
...
Beyond useful resources offered in the office, the accelerator also provides an abundance of human capital to its portfolio teams in the form of 115+ advisors and 27 partners. These advisors provide expertise on developing business models, raising funding, and so many other tasks that are key to growing a startup. The accessibility of these advisors is a significant feature of the program. Each team is matched with a lead advisor to remain in direct contact with throughout their participation in the program. Teams are also encouraged to contact anyone on the advisory board and to attend office hours for one-on-one counseling regarding branding, intellectual property, product development, and more. The advisors come from extremely diverse backgrounds, ranging anywhere from being a seed investor to being a chief scientist, providing the portfolio teams with a variety of consultants.
Said, Carolyn (2018-08-15). "UC Berkeley startup accelerator gets a boost from venture fund". San Francisco Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2020-05-25. Retrieved 2020-05-25.
The article notes:
This is UC Berkeley SkyDeck, the university’s accelerator and incubator for fledgling companies, many of them born in its classrooms and labs. Now SkyDeck is itself accelerating its own growth by creating a venture fund, accepting a broader and more global range of entrepreneurs, tripling its adviser group and doubling its office size.
SkyDeck started in 2012 as a work space with some mentorship. It evolved to provide both a startup accelerator (an intensive six-month program for 22 companies with formal workshops and assigned mentors that culminates in a Demo Day for investors) and an incubator (free work space and access to events and mentors for 80 companies).
...
For the first time, SkyDeck is investing in the companies in its accelerator, providing each with $100,000 for a 5 percent stake.
...
SkyDeck’s $1.8 million annual budget, which includes its real estate leases and five full-time staff, comes from sponsorships and donations. It does not take any campus money. It recently added the building’s third floor as extra space for its graduates and some of the incubator companies.
Douglass, John Aubrey, ed. (2016). The New Flagship University: Changing the Paradigm from Global Ranking to National Relevancy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 73. ISBN 978-1-349-57665-4. Retrieved 2020-05-25.
The book notes:
Another Berkeley program, Skydeck, is an engineering and MBA-focused incubator to create new digital technology focused businesses Skydeck, is a joint program of the Hass School of Business, the School of Engineering, various research institutions, and with Berkeley's affiliated Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. The focus is to promote new start-ups, some student directed and driven, and to keep more of them in and around the city of Berkeley. One program is focused on supporting student start-up ideas via a dedicated team of Haas MBA students who offer direct support to startup, helping to generate financial modeling, marketing strategies, impact analysis, customer relations, project management, sustainable business development.
Corbyn, Zoe (2012-09-23). "Take one start-up, add expertise and grow with care". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 2020-05-25. Retrieved 2020-05-25.
The article notes:
The University of California, Berkeley’s Skydeck incubator for student start-ups, has a decidedly un-student like feel. The incubator, which Haas School of Business, Berkeley helped establish and fund, occupies the penthouse suite of the tallest building in downtown Berkeley, with premium office space and views over San Francisco Bay.
Inside, 14 competitively chosen teams, most with at least one MBA, are developing companies based on everything from social media websites to medical devices and software. Each team can use the incubator for up to a year, receiving mentoring from Haas faculty and entrepreneurial alumni, hands-on help from Skydeck staff and the opportunity to pitch to the investors of nearby Silicon Valley.
Rinker, Brian (2020-01-24). "Armed with a new venture fund, UC Berkeley's SkyDeck continues its mission". San Francisco Business Times. Archived from the original on 2020-05-25. Retrieved 2020-05-25.
The article notes:
With a new venture fund as well as its top reputation, incubator and accelerator program SkyDeck offers both funds and expertise to early-stage companies eager to solve the world's problems.
More than 1,600 founders applied to the University of California, Berkeley program this year — double that of last year's pool — but only 20 or so founders will receive the $100,000 seed funding and mentorship. Startups will also enjoy access to the university’s resources and vast alumni network.
...
Since its beginnings in 2012, SkyDeck has become named by Forbes as one of the top five university accelerators, helping to grow more than 340 companies. Besides its accelerator program, SkyDeck also runs an incubator program for early-stage startups called HotDesk, and is a joint program in UC Berkeley Haas School of Business, the College of Engineering and the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research.
The seed funding comes from the SkyDeck Fund, a public-private partnership. Launched last year, the fund is managed by venture firms such as Sequoia Capital, Sierra Ventures and Canvas Ventures. The school doesn’t put a dime in, but gets a 50% cut of the equity after a startup has a successful exit. This financing model, according to Winnett, may one day prove to be a useful model for funding education.
Truong, Kevin (2018-08-16). "Does UC Berkeley's SkyDeck accelerator represent a new way of funding higher education?". San Francisco Business Times. Archived from the original on 2020-05-25. Retrieved 2020-05-25.
The article notes:
From its humble beginnings in 2012 as a volunteer-led mentorship organization for nascent entrepreneurs, SkyDeck has developed into a full-fledged incubator and accelerator program, recently doubling its office space and launching an associated $24 million venture fund called the Berkeley SkyDeck Fund with the ability to directly seed companies in exchange for equity.
The fund is mainly backed by traditional VCs including Sequoia Capital, Mayfield, Canvas Ventures and Sierra Ventures who receive a regular deal flow made up of a curated selection of some of the top new companies coming out of UC Berkeley, for what amounts to a pittance of their total resources.
...
SkyDeck is also open to global founders who don’t need a prior affiliation with Berkeley. Some of these international companies include include Mexican earthquake alert startup SkyAlert and autonomous delivery robot company Kiwi Campus, which got its start in Colombia.
Clark, Kate (2018-11-07). "20 startups take center stage at Berkeley SkyDeck's demo day". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2020-05-25. Retrieved 2020-05-25.
The article notes:
The largest-ever Berkeley SkyDeck demo day kicked off with a high-energy performance from the Cal marching band, setting the tone for an afternoon of presentations from none other than Berkeley faculty and students-turned-entrepreneurs.
Launched in 2012 as a modest accelerator for student-run businesses, SkyDeck has flourished since its inception. To date, the program has mentored 300 startups, which have gone on to raise $800 million via 27 funding rounds and 10 acquisition deals. Earlier this year, it raised a $24 million venture fund so it could finally seed participating startups with $100,000 in exchange for 5 percent equity. Today’s cohort is only the second to receive an investment from SkyDeck as part of the accelerator.
Rinker, Brian (2019-12-05). "UC Berkeley's prestigious startup accelerator opens applications". San Francisco Business Times. Archived from the original on 2020-05-25. Retrieved 2020-05-25.
The article notes:
Top-ranked UC Berkeley startup accelerator SkyDeck, which helped bring forth scooter and bike rental company Lime that is now valued at more than $2 billion, opened applications today for its Spring 2020 cohort.
SkyDeck usually accepts about 20 applicants. The startups selected each receive $100,000 investment from UC Berkeley’s $25 million SkyDeck Fund plus mentorship, access to the school’s resources and a dedicated workspace. At the end of the 6-month program, startups present on demo day to hundreds of potential investors.
Applicants can be from any industry — life sciences to consumer apps to hardware or software — but need to have at least one team member who has gone to one of the 10 UCs or UC labs. Applications are also open to any startup that has an international founder, regardless of UC affiliation.

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

Cunard (talk) 11:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need analysis of Cunard's sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 06:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Cunard has found reliable sources giving them significant coverage. Also common sense they were able to secure "more than $1 billion in total funding", that's something most companies can't do. Dream Focus 15:57, 12 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:22, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cruise of Deception[edit]

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

Possible WP:Fancruft, I’m thinking the mention about the storyline from 30 years ago on the main Days of Our Lives article is just enough to cover this storyline that this article only cites a defunct cable channel's top moments from the series as a primary source. Pahiy (talk) 03:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I improved the article with several sources, including:
- Soap Opera Super Couples: The Great Romances of Daytime Drama by Henrietta Roos, McFarland & Co (2016)
- Days of Our Lives: A Complete History of the Long-Running Soap Opera by Maureen Russell, McFarland & Co (2015)
- Days of Our Lives: A Tour Through Salem by Lorraine Zenka, Dutton (1999)

I think that this is enough to demonstrate notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need assessment of sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 07:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 9 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mashwani[edit]

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

Was previously deleted per this discussion and was deemed a hoax. The author was indeffed; so the author of this article is a blatant sock of that account also. IWI (chat) 16:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mashwani83 (talk) 11:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC) Hello, I am the author of Mashwani article. I would be happy to participate in the debate to stop the deletion of this article. I have provided strong references in the subject article if someone has doubts about the references I am willing to discuss each of the references with proofs. I see no reason for the deletion of this article, the topic is genuine. However, If I did not follow wikipedia policy at some places, I would request to highlight them to me so that I correct them accordingly, to further improve the article rather than deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mashwani83 (talk • contribs) 08:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article was deleted as a hoax in December 2018, with the author indefinitely blocked. Then you receated it in February ~~2020~~2019. That would definitely suggest you are a sockpuppet. Someone checked the sources (which were in Arabic and Pashto) and confirmed the articles were hoaxes. For these reasons, I have filed a sockpuppet investigation against you. IWI (chat) 12:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. Let me correct a typo in your comment, I recreated the page on 5 Feb 2019. Secondly, I am here to defend the article I wrote on Mashwani. If it was already written by someone else before and he/she could not defend his article, that is not related to my Article. Thirdly, regarding the Arabic and Pashto referencing, please I would once again humbly suggest to quote references from this article so that I could respond and defend. Fourthly, please highlight hoaxes in this article for debate. This article can not be deleted solely on the basis of previously poorly written article by another user. Looking forward for valuable comments. Thanks. Mashwani83 (talk) 13:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it can, as when a page is deemed a hoax, it means the subject does not exist. I cannot compare the sources as I cannot see deleted articles. The article is, at the very least, an un-notable ancestor. IWI (chat) 14:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mashwani83 (talk) 15:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC) Thank you for commenting. I recommend you to Please Identify false information with strong references for debate with me. Secondly, Mashwai is not un-notable ancestor, he has been discussed in different books time to time sinces 13th century, he is forefather of aroung 700000 papulation of Mashwani Tribe. on Wikipedia there are 100's of articles written on different tribes, then why can't this article on Mashwani? I am looking forward to unbiased, who comments with strong references and proofs to further improve the article. Otherwise, I would suggest restoring the status of this page back to normal.[reply]

I can't read the references you have given, but to my memory they are similar to before. An admin can confirm any similarities. Since this was deemed a hoax before, there is no reason to believe that this article isn't either, especially when obscure inaccessible sources have been used. IWI (chat) 16:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've also used names within the article like Syed Muhammad Masood, which was the name of another article deleted as a hoax in that discussion, further backing my point of this being a hoax. IWI (chat) 16:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your valuable comment. A user "IWI" has tagged this article for deletion solely on the basis of other deleted articles. Still, he is unable to find suitable issues within this article. He is talking generally, without referencing to books to proof the information in the subject article as a hoax. Although his reputation on Wikipedia is good but however, his allegations on this article are baseless without genuine proofs.

"IWI" is not aware of the actual issue with this article but he just tagged this article for deletion based on the previously written article on Mashwani and Syed Muhammad Masood, which were deleted because of the reason unknown to me. I suggest, if "IWI" wants deletion of the article he should come up with the solid reason within this particular article. But unfortunately, he has not done the research, particularly in this article. But talking generally and waisting time.

"IWI" quoted that I am the same author of the old deleted Mashwanis article which was deemed hoax and the author was blocked as per your remarks. Let me clarify, that I have nothing to do with the old article or its author whatsoever. This article is totally my research and this is my original ID, and I own and use only one ID since start.

"IWI" quoted that "the article is about an un-notable ancestor". But in fact, Mashwani is the forefather of Mashwani tribe whose population is around 7,00,000. Mashwani is discussed in different books by historians since the 13th-century from time to time, references to books already quoted in the main article. Furthermore, there are a lot of backlinks to Mashwani article from other Wikipedia articles as well as from the Web, showing the strong evidence of the popularity of the Mashwani hence proving the claim of "IWI" incorrect. Thousands of individuals have articles as well as almost every tribe has an article on Wikipedia then why there can not be an article about Mashwani?

"IWI" Quoted that "references of the Mashwani article are not accessible". All the references are authentic with correct titles, author names, and years of publishing. They can be found in libraries, stores, or on Web. Please have a look to references of the article, most of the references are linked to google books, click on them, it will lead you to the particular book on google books, hence showing the authenticity of the source, however because of copyright issue google books will not show you some or all of the contents of the book. But you can find them in libraries, stores or on the Web. I encourage you to find and read those books, you are always welcome to point out any misquotes (if you find any) and we will be glad to correct them if found. If you are unable to search books, I have them in soft form, please guide me, how can I share them with you.

Conclusion: "IWI" has misunderstood this article with the previously deleted article and its user. In this connection, he tagged my research in this article as a hoax and my ID and as a fake ID. However, this is his personal understanding and belief which cannot be presented as facts.

I request admins to restore the normal status of the article.Mashwani83 (talk) 19:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Someone checked the sources of the old article (which were in Arabic and Pashto) and confirmed that they didn't mention the subject. I am well aware of the issue. At the very least, this article lacks notability. IWI (chat) 21:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are still not talking about this article but the references of someone else article. Mashwani83 (talk) 02:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As proof I am attaching a screenshot from some of the strong and reliable sources where Mashwani is discussed:

First screen screenshot is from a Persian book (Harwi ہروی, Nimatullah خواجہ نعمت اللہ (1613). Tarikh-i-khan jahani makhzan-i-Afghani: A complete history of the Afghans in Indo-Pak sub-continent, Volume 2, تاریخ خان جھانی مخزن افغانی. pp. 648–649) .
Along with a screenshot of its English version book (Dorn, Bernhard (1829). History of the Afghans, (English translation of Tarikh-i-khan jahani makhzan-i-Afghani), Volume 2,. London. pp. 56–57),
and the third screenshot is of the book (Bellew, Henry Walter (1978). Journal of a Political Mission to Afghanistan, in 1857, Under Major (now Colonel) Lumsden: With an Account of the Country and People. Page 64).

The image is in the high quality, download it and zoom into any part for reading. I attached a few, but there are many others too.

Mashwani83 (talk) 05:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That image was a copyright violation so I tagged it with speedy deletion. Let's wait for other editors to get involved. IWI (chat) 13:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The books briefly mention this tribe, and that's about it. Like I said, a the very least this is not notable. IWI (chat) 13:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I quoted only three references in my above comment with screenshots (which is now tagged for fast deletion because of copyright violation) just for your convenience in response to your comment in which you said the Subject "Mashwani" was not even discussed in any of the cited references. Besides the above three, you can check each of the references of the article, you will find discussions on Mashwani in different parts of the books. In addition, you can refer to the below books which are specifically written on Mashwani only.

Shah, Syed Yousaf (1930). Halat-e-Mashwani حالات مشوانی. Lahore: Muhammad Press. A book was written about the history of Mashwani.
Khan, Juma (2015). Hayat-e-Mashwani, Yūnīvarsiṭī Buk Ejansī, length 500 Pages Historical and genealogical study of Mashwani (South Asian people).
Shah, Umar Khitab, (2014), Khitab-e-Mashwani, Karachi. A book written about the history of Mashwani.

In the main article, I preferred to restrict the citations to papular books only, besides them, there are also hundreds of other books and web articles/websites where the subject is discussed. Research in this article is a summary of all the references cited in the article as well as the sources that are not cited.

Thank you for your critics, I hope it will help me to further improve the article. Mashwani83 (talk) 15:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have just read a heated discussion here that had taken place between IWI and another user, about whom IWI is mistaken that it was my second ID. Now the situation is clear to me. In my opinion, it's totally personal between IWI and that user, that is why IWI is sticking to that old ID, and avoiding the authenticity of this article and all the strong references. I, therefore, appeal to admins to keep in mind that IWI is not neutral towards me and my article but he is biased because he is mistakenly considering me as the same user with whom he had heated discussion, I am expecting a fair decision. PS. No offense intended for IWI, Mashwani83 (talk) 19:59, 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 01:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This tribe appears to exist and is not a hoax [38] [39]. There is also a bucket load of sources mentioning them in passing, like this New York Times article: [40]. This is backed up by the books in the references. This says they occupy between forty and fifty villages in the border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan. There isn't a guideline for whether or not ethnic groups or tribes are notable, but if there was one I think they would pass it as they are a recognised group widely documented as living in a well-defined area. However, I think it is highly doubtful that this tribe has 700,000 members as stated in the article. The capital of this tribe, Sirikot, is perhaps a victim of similar embellishment, as it supposedly has a population of 85,000, despite appearing on google maps to be a small town with a few shops and a mosque. Perhaps a cleanup of these articles is needed. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 10:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there is certainly a "Mashwani tribe", as in "PML-N senator lauds services of Mashwani tribe" and "Chief of Mashwani tribe back in his hometown only to be buried" for example. Further, the Mashwani tribe are famous for their handwoven carpets: "Mashwani design rug, western Afghanistan" (Museum of Applied Arts & Sciences, Sydney). There is therefore no question of WP:HOAX, and really no doubt about notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:38, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Mashwani is an existing tribe, not a hoax. Ainty Painty (talk) 15:17, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Okay so not a hoax - It'd be interesting to see what was deleted beforehand then. The user is still probably a sock of an indeffed user. IWI (chat) 20:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Allegation on my ID here is not true and solely on the basis of assumptions. I am more than sure the allegation will be dropped after technical analysis, Thanks.Mashwani83 (talk) 04:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you - that is not a matter for this AfD. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:54, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tribe appears notable. A user possibly being a banned sock has no impact on that.★Trekker (talk) 14:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this article contains a lot of original research, in the sense that it does not appear to be assembled from reliable sources. It looks like a narrative that has been created from received wisdom and supported here and there with pieces of evidence assembled by google search into a whole that no source appears to cover. For example the entire section “Defeat of Hari Singh Nalwa (Sikh Khalsa Army) at the hands of Mashwanis (1824)“ appears to be constructed around a single source that happens to mention that a village was Mashwani. While I don’t think deletion is warranted, I think this should be stripped right back to the basics of what can be supported by reliable sources, which is not much. Mccapra (talk) 07:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

-All the references are from authentic books/reliable sources as also endorsed by the above voters in their comments. No new research is carried out in the article.Mashwani83 (talk) 14:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Since the article was tagged for deletion on the basis of hoax and notability. And is being discussed since 1st June and relisted on 9 June. So far all votes are in favor of keeping the article. Therefore, I would humbly request to conclude the voting result within the time period of the Wikipedia voting policy in-order to not discourage the editor. Mashwani83 (talk) 14:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Located north of the Kabul River. Certainly not a hoax. There is some confusion on Google books about where they are located, but they do exist. Also do you Mashwani rugs, which I've seen for sale. Solid keep.scope_creep^Talk 17:06, 17 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 Labrador Party#Second Labrador Party. Consensus to not keep. Undecided between delete and redirect, but I don't see arguments against a redirect for what is a possible search term. Sandstein 14:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ern Condon[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Has never been elected, lead a party that has never held a seat.--User19004 (talk) 00:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 02:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 02:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To be fair, this was created in 2004, a time when we did extend an automatic "inherently notable" freebie to all leaders of political parties regardless of their degree of electoral success or failure — but our notability standards for politicians have been tightened up considerably in the intervening 16 years, and this is not an article-clinching notability claim anymore if the person cannot be shown to get over WP:GNG on the quality of his sources. But literally the only source here is a raw table of election results, which is not a notability-making source. Bearcat (talk) 12:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Labrador Party#Second Labrador Party. He doesn’t pass NPOL and I see no evidence he passes GNG, but the party he founded is a good redirect target. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:54, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Labrador Party#Second Labrador Party as a plausible search term as the founder of a notable political party. --Enos733 (talk) 15:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable politician. Some things I have read suggest Wikipedia really did not have any notability guidelines at all until 2006, although that may have only been speaking about some subjects. They were nothing like what we have today until at least 2010, and by then the wild west nature had sown so many clearly non-notable subject articles that we have never fixed these problems. Just consider how long we had an article on Barahir, with no sources at all. I believe it was 16 years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:20, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't find much media coverage in Google, or since 2006, but digging deeper back in time, there's coverage of him from 1980 to 2006 - I'm finding 159 hits alone in ProQuest, some of which look significant. The shear volume over such an extended period of time is unusual. I've added some references to the article. Nfitz (talk) 05:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable perennial candidate. KidAd (talk) 06:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please note nominator has been blocked for sockpuppetry and has done little but AFD articles since they created their account - all of which that I've carefully checked seem to be notable. How User:KidAd looking at the articles I added, isn't the subject notable? Nfitz (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure what you mean. I’ve just been going through the AfD log from this past week. KidAd (talk) 17:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added 6 references to the article - and you are the only person to comment since I've done so. The view of the nominator doesn't count given they are a blocked sockpuppet. JPL has no ability to discern notability - as noted in in topic ban for creating AFDs. And the only other delete says there's only one reference - a table of results ... which is no longer true. So this delete is pretty much on you. What's wrong with the 6 references I added? Nfitz (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The delete is on me? Please remember WP:AGF. I haven't scoured every source you've added but I don't plan on retracting my vote. KidAd (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How is pointing out that you, User:KidAd are the only delete after I added lots of references not AGF? And how have you "voted" without examining every source I added? I had AGF that you'd done what is required WP:BEFORE "voting". Nfitz (talk) 21:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When would you prefer I vote? Is there a specific time of day that would be more convenient for you? Seeing as this guy is a non-notable perennial candidate who has never won an election, even the sources you've added (which only mention his name in passing as a candidate) are irrelevant to me. So please stop the meltdown and move on. KidAd (talk) 21:42, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure your point - why would I care when you "vote"? Perhaps you've missed the target of my pointed comment - please see WP:NOTAVOTE? How would this ever be a delete, and not a redirect to Labrador Party#Second Labrador Party? And why play along with a banned sockpuppet? The article has been here for the best part of two decades, but now we co-operate with sockpuppets? Nfitz (talk) 00:11, 16 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] "Selfish Dil Movie: Showtimes, Review, Trailer, Posters, News & Videos | eTimes".

[2] "Local lad Shreyan promotes his debut movie in Muniguda - OrissaPOST". Odisha News, Odisha Latest news, Odisha Daily - OrissaPOST. 18 July 2019.

[3] "Songs of 'Selfish Dil' get thumbs up from audiences". Odisha Television Ltd. 4 July 2019.

[4] "Selfish Dil Movie (2019) | Reviews, Cast & Release Date in". BookMyShow.

[5] "Selfish Dil on Moviebuff.com". Moviebuff.com.

[6] "Ollywood Directory". ollywooddiary.com.

[7] "Four Love Stories To Enthrall Odia Movie Buffs During 'Raja'". ODISHA BYTES. 10 June 2019.

[8] "Basant Sahu's Selfish Dil features newcomers - Times of India". The Times of India.

[9] "Prasarbharti.gov.in".

[10] ttps://amp.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/03/31/annual-middle-east-debates-institution-lacs/99564634/

[11] ttps://www.ithacajournal.com/story/news/local/2018/05/19/icsd-appoints-new-principal-lacs/622832002/

[12] "Madhampatty virundhu - The Hindu". The Hindu.

[13] Jeshi, K. (May 13, 2019). "Shweta Tripathi taught me method acting: Madhampatty Rangaraj on 'Mehandi Circus'". The Hindu.

[14] Karthi, E. Sudharshan. ""கார்த்தி கல்யாணத்துக்கு கேட்டரிங், சூர்யா அண்ணனின் வாழ்த்து!" - 'மெஹந்தி சர்க்கஸ்' ரங்கராஜ் ["Catering to Karthi wedding, Surya's brother greeting!" - 'Mehandi Circus' Rangaraj]". Vikatan (in Tamil).

[15] Karthi, E. Sudharshan. "``ஏழே கேரக்டர்ஸ்... கொடைக்கானலில் 32 நாள்... பென்ச்மார்க் கீர்த்தி! - `பெண்குயின்' அப்டேட்ஸ் [`` Seven Characters ... 32 Days in Kodaikanal ... Benchmark Keerthi! - `Penguin 'Updates]". Vikatan (in Tamil).

[16] "Werksmans report shows Transnet wasted billions in locomotives deal". BusinessLIVE.

[17] Dentlinger, Lindsay. "Werksmans Attorneys report recommends inquiry into Transnet corruption". Eyewitness News.

[18] Bateman, Barry (12 April 2019). "Robert McBride stops short of accusing Werksmans of acting in bad faith". ewn.co.za.

[19] "More damning Zondo evidence – Zuma's options lessen by the day". BizNews.com. 16 April 2019.

[20] "Mail & Guardian suspends political editor over 'involvement' in irregular Prasa tender". News24. 31 October 2018.

[21] "The biggest South African business scandals over the past decade". BusinessInsider. 11 January 2020.

[22] Bezuidenhout, Jessica (16 April 2018). "SCORPIO: Gupta, Inc: The Lawyers, Part One". Daily Maverick.

[23] "Frontier Rare Earths Limited: Appointment of Non-Executive Director". finance.yahoo.com. 28 October 2016.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]