Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 November 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< October 31	November 02 >

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 keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:08, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Attack Vector: Tactical[edit]

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

I cannot find any reliable secondary sources or reviews with secondary coverage for this product apart from the fact it won an award. I did find a brief mention of it in an academic article but I don't think that's enough for WP:GNG. Furthermore, the only comment on the talk page after 13 years is "This seems like nothing more than a commercial for this product," and the article would need to be heavily cleaned up to pass WP:PROMO. SportingFlyer T·C 23:35, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 23:35, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Elms^super 02:00, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is in a bad shape, but the question is - is this product notable? Reviews: borderline (rather short, poorly formatted - old page?, and is the site notable?), and frankly I don't see anything better. But the article does have a claim that "Attack Vector: Tactical won the Origins Award in 2004 for "Best New Miniatures Game" (2004 Origins Award winners), and that is a major award in the board gaming world (and it is verifiable: [1]). I also found a brief mention of the game in [2] (hardly in-depth). I expected to find some more stuff out there, but I am not finding anything. I think the Origins award gives this game a borderline pass, although see Wikipedia:Notability (video games) section on awards (and while it is about video games, the same logic applies). If we could find some reviews... maybe in some non-digitized sources? There are magazines and such for wargame fans, I think. Even though I cannot find reviews, the game got an entry in the SF Encyclopedia: [3], and we do have the rule of thumb that topics good enough for other encyclopedias are good enough for us. I think this should stay. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:27, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments and per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. BOZ (talk) 13:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Piotr above. // Timothy :: talk 17:28, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Skyscrapers of Windsor, Ontario[edit]

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

I feel that this list is a bit on the redundant side when we already have List of tallest buildings in Windsor, Ontario. I also am not sure if it passes WP:LISTN and may even be a violation of WP:NOTDIR in that it's just a large directory of external links. Spiderone 23:11, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:11, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:11, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:11, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just rename it List of notable buildings in Windsor, Ontario. The other article does not contain all of this information, and no blue links on any of its entries. Category:Buildings and structures in Windsor, Ontario Dream Focus 23:55, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But is this a notable topic? I've just blue linked all the List of tallest buildings in Windsor, Ontario that had articles so that list now has a navigational function as well. Listings in database websites like Emporis and Skyscraperpage do not provide evidence that the topic is notable. Also, I do not see any evidence that the topic 'skyscrapers in Windsor' has received significant coverage from reliable sources. Spiderone 10:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List articles have different rules than regular articles. Listing every building in that city that has its own Wikipedia article, along with valid information about it, makes it a valid list article. Dream Focus 10:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LISTN says One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Are there any sources discussing this as a group? Spiderone 11:12, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, one of the accepted reasons is there, but its not the only one. The bit after what you link to reads: There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists And it also reads: Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists. Hope that clears things up for you. Dream Focus 17:34, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we could merge any valuable content with the tallest buildings article? I see no point in having two separate articles on tall buildings in this city. I also think most of the info in this article could be lost as I don't see any reason why we need Google Maps locations and bits of unsourced trivia which should go to the bin like In terms of amenities, it is well equipped, including a full sized salt water swimming pool, with 10 person jacuzzi, shower and change facilities with dry saunas, fully equipped gymnasium, and squash, racquet ball and basketball courts. The second floor amenities area also includes a common reading area with big screen satellite TV, and a games room with billiards and table tennis. Spiderone 10:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The rename above would be wholly inappropriate: many of the items in the list are just generic somewhat tall buildings that aren't particularly notable, and it of course doesn't include shorter buildings in Category:Buildings and structures in Windsor, Ontario. This largely duplicates the list, which could have a comments column if merged. Reywas92^Talk 20:21, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree Spiderone 10:32, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: buildings are not notably tall and city not known for tall buildings. // Timothy :: talk 08:18, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. Even if this medium-sized city were known for its buildings, the weasel words like "tall ... large" and just a series of in-line external links would require a total re-do. Bearian (talk) 21:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Geschichte (talk) 07:41, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sakurai's Bell inequality[edit]

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

Original research and primary sources only, not notable as a standalone topic, would propose to merge, but Bell's inequalities and Bell test experiments don't appear to need any of this. The article is based of the approach of one (highly notable) textbook but doesn't and I can't establish the notability of this specific approach to merit its own article; there is not coverage. Otherwise information is redundant and no authorship history needs to be saved and no redirect is needed. Footlessmouse (talk) 22:48, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:12, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:12, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Before I read this article, I knew it would fail WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, complete with unencyclopedic sentences like This is ugly, but not in itself fatal.. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:54, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per LaundryPizza. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:58, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "keep" opinions do not address our inclusion criteria. Sandstein 21:13, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Victoria, British Columbia[edit]

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

Yet another tallest building list whose message is "nothing in this city is very tall." I can see taking a small part of this list and putting it in the main article for the city, but not a separate list. Mangoe (talk) 22:35, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This was nominated for deletion before and was kept. Jumpytoo Talk 03:12, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The 'tallness' of buildings has nothing to do with the notability of an article. Besides that, I think these are fine as they basically catalog the notable buildings in a city that wouldn't otherwise merit much of an article on their own. TostitosAreGross (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:08, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The very title of the article asserts that these buildings are notable for being tall, and in any case plenty of buildings are of note in a general sense simply because they are among the tallest anywhere. So I have to disagree with your first sentence. And not looking at the article this instant, I have to doubt whether very many of these are of any real note, and certainly not for their height. Besides, a list of notable buildings is obviously not the same as a list of those that are tall. Mangoe (talk) 06:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:LISTN for multiple reasons. Firstly, the list has no navigational purpose as the overwhelming majority of the buildings featured are not notable enough for their own Wikipedia article. Secondly, this topic does not have WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Database listings in Emporis, Citified and Skyscraperpage do not constitute significant coverage. Thirdly, I see no evidence that the topic 'List of tallest buildings in Victoria' is covered as a group by reliable secondary sources Spiderone 10:25, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: in my opinion, whether a city gets its own list of tallest building depends on how notable that city is. There are many cities in the world where height is either restricted by regulations or natural disasters. If we use the height as a standard, then you likely will have to delete many other articles around the world regarding the similar lists (such as Template:Tallest buildings in Canada). This article is quite well written and Victoria is certainly a notable Canadian city that will in the future, inevitably build more taller buildings.Jjj84206 (talk) 01:55, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:LISTN does not have WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS discussing this as a group. The city is not notable for tall buildings and the buildings are not notably tall (no offense Victoria ;). The list does not meet WP:CLN, there is nothing there that can assist in navigation. // Timothy :: talk 13:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. For more info on appropriate sources, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Some_types_of_sources. We always avoid sources that repackage press releases and that are not published from outlets with reputations for fact-checking and accuracy. czar 00:13, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kyoorius[edit]

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

Was previously deleted through AfD as "Sources found were not considered to be independent significant coverage." I don't see any changes in the article, sources are still non reliable, announcements, interviews, and do not add up to establishing notability. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 15:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this notice - a few days ago I went ahead and re-posted this Kyoorius article without many changes because I wanted feedback on how to bring the article to its bare-bones of necessary and reliable information. Which specific sources do you think are unreliable and should (along with the corresponding information) be removed? Bagabondo (talk) 21:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 15:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 15:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources that are significantly about this organization are not sufficiently independent to satisfy WP:GNG and vice-versa. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:30, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would like further participation, and also for the nominator to answer the question given
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:09, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly the article is in no better condition sourcing wise then when it got deleted the first time. Really, it shouldn't have been recreated. Or at least it should have been and first and gone through the approvel process when it was actually up to standards. I don't think the nominator should answer the question either. As its obvious by looking at the article and this is totally on the person who recreated it. Although, in their favor a lot of time has passed since the original AfD, but it just doesn't seem to have been enough. Adamant1 (talk) 22:35, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Swakopmund#Public health. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:00, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cottage Medi-Clinic[edit]

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:HOSPITAL / WP:NBUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Does not have coverage that meets significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV.

WP:BEFORE revealed advertising, WP:ROUTINE, WP:MILL coverage, and directory style listings. // Timothy :: talk 22:00, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Swakopmund#Public_health Interestingly, Angelina Jolie gave birth at the Cottage Medi-Clinic in 2006 but that is not mention here. I also found some information on the hospital under its former name Rössing Cottage Hospital. However, there are not enough independent sources for an article by 2020 standards.--User:Namiba 22:20, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it seems already to have been merged. Possibly a redirect is needed DGG ( talk ) 03:26, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect per DGG. It is a small 70-bed facility. Bearian (talk) 21:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:57, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Promontory (building)[edit]

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Does not have coverage that meets significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV. WP:BEFORE revealed advertising, WP:ROUTINE, WP:MILL coverage, and directory style listings. // Timothy :: talk 21:54, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 21:54, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 21:54, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete Well, at least there is some claim to notability, but the second or third tallest building in a city where nothing is all that tall is not much of a distinction. Mangoe (talk) 22:48, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and really isn't that tall Spiderone 22:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NBUILD and WP:GNG. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:23, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Longshoremen (band)[edit]

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

Non-notable band. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:48, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:48, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:48, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NBAND. KidAd talk 23:50, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NBAND. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 16:19, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above and per WP:NBAND Sliekid (talk) 06:29, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I think we have safely determined that a small yard is not a community. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pee Vee, Hopkins County, Kentucky[edit]

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

Rennick doesn't mention this in his Hopkins County directory, but his index calls it a locale (geography), the definition of which generally excludes permanently populated places. Topos show a small cluster of buildings near the railroad. I'm finding a bit of coverage for Pee Vee, Harlan County, Kentucky, which was a coal mining community, but I'm not finding much about the Hopkins County Pee Vee. This mentions a Pee Vee railroad spur. Listed as a point on the railroad, but that list also seems to include railroad features such as "West Yard" and some mines, so that's not proof of a community. For what it's worth, the italics type on the name here means there was a railroad station, but no post office. From the sum of the information, I can't see any indication this passes WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:44, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:44, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:44, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for heaven's sake, delete. It's one end of a small yard, sitting next to Pleasant View Lake. Very obviously just a railroad point. Mangoe (talk) 22:39, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Not creating a redirect since it's apparently not solely used for this album, but I'm not opposed to one being made, or a disambig page or something. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shake Hands with Danger[edit]

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

Non-notable album. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:24, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:24, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:24, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:24, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You know you could've PRODded it, right? Enjoyer of World^💬 09:47, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. The notability of the band itself is dubious to me - there are no reliable sources in that article either, with the exception of the Allmusic biography. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to TRS-80 (group): Barely found anything about the album. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Despite having reviews other than AllMusic's ([4], [5], [6]), seems like it fails WP:NM. Also, the title "Shake Hands with Danger" is used in several other works ([7], [8], [9], [10]). L to the K (talk) 19:16, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Girlyman#Pre-Girlyman. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow of a habit[edit]

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

Non-notable album. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:13, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:13, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:13, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Girlyman#Pre-Girlyman. I can't find any coverage in RS, but the redirect is at least a plausible search term. Generally better off redirecting NN albums rather than deleting, unless it's a mixtape or has an ambiguous title. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as proposed by the previous voter. But the article is such a mess in terms of spelling and capitalization, even in the title, that the history may not deserve preservation. DOOMSDAYER520 | TALK | CONTRIBS 22:16, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Geschichte (talk) 08:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A.S. Tiare Anani[edit]

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

Clubs on the third Tahitian tier aren't notable. Geschichte (talk) 19:57, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:01, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:01, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:22, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - correct me if I'm wrong but I believe consensus, as per WP:FOOTYN, is that we keep articles on clubs that compete in national cups [11], which is the Tahiti version of the FA Cup I guess Spiderone 22:49, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Spiderone, playing in national cup is benchmark - needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 12:27, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plays in national cup - another poor nomination by User:Geschichte, with potential WP:BIAS. Time to topic ban them from AFD creation? Nfitz (talk) 17:05, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's quite clear that it was a good faith nomination so a topic ban wouldn't be appropriate Spiderone 19:21, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying it isn't in good faith - but it's yet another false statement, User:Spiderone, that hasn't been corrected in the nomination statement. The club is second tier, not third tier. I've not encountered this user before, and I'm yet to see a decent nomination, in the recent series of football AFDs. Nfitz (talk) 21:45, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article pass WP:FOOTYN due to the team having competed in the national cup. It needs expanding not deleting here. HawkAussie (talk) 00:51, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Waters[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:34, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:34, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:42, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As written, fails WP:V and WP:NFICT. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:39, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Piotrus: I don't have an opinion on this nomination, but "As written, fails WP:V and WP:NFICTION" is not a legitimate criteria for deletion. Per WP:ARTN, WP:NEXIST, WP:ATD, and WP:PRESERVE, notability isn't determined by what's already written in the article. Likewise, not every major problem with an article is a AfD problem. Dark knight 2149 20:35, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Darkknight2149: My bad, I forgot to append the "and my BEFORE failed to find anything". So per WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES, unless such sources are presented, this topic fails cited guidelines. If a topic is notable but does not indicate this, {{notability}} and draftification are viable alternatives, but when such sources are not found at all, well... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:58, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing the WP:GNG, even after following WP:BEFORE. There are reliable independent sources to write an encyclopedic article. Jontesta (talk) 20:10, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lola Jonze[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:34, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:34, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:34, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge relevant content from this list and the other Britannia High articles, Claudine Cameron and Lauren Waters, into the main article. See also the AfDs for those other two articles. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:38, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge - I'm open to correction, but a WP:BEFORE test proved fruitless. Dark knight 2149 22:38, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As written, fails WP:V and WP:NFICT. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:40, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:V and WP:GNG. Even after following WP:BEFORE, the characters from this fiction simply do not have the reliable coverage. Jontesta (talk) 20:11, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Claudine Cameron[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:33, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:41, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:41, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all of these character blurbs into a single list of characters article --~ฅ(ↀωↀ=)neko-chan^nyan 20:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As written, fails WP:V and WP:NFICT. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:39, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:V and WP:GNG. Even after following WP:BEFORE, the characters from this fiction simply do not have the reliable coverage. Jontesta (talk) 20:11, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:27, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:19, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sadie Mitchell[edit]

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

I added one reliable in-depth source to the article but could not find any more so I don't think it meets WP:GNG. Since she doesn't yet meet WP:NFOOTY either, I would suggest either deleting or sending to draft space. Spiderone 19:14, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:14, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:14, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:14, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:15, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:23, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:27, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet GNG or our inclusion criteria for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:25, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unfortunately does not currently meet inclusion or notability criteria as stated above. Possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON. Dunarc (talk) 23:56, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bari Williams[edit]

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

Single poor ref, no coverage. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 18:46, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:16, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:16, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:16, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable lawyer and writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:08, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per John Pack Lambert above. 1292simon (talk) 07:48, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks the significant coverage as is required by WP:NBIO, WP:BASIC, and WP:GNG. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:55, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Geschichte (talk) 18:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yardland International School (Chitrakoot)[edit]

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

Advertising. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP The Banner talk 18:32, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:17, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:17, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Of the three sources listed in the article, two [12][13] appear to be commercial/directory listings and the third [14] seems to be the school's own page (possibly hosted at a third-party site). Google searching does not produce anything of substance. No evidence of notability here under any of the applicable guidelines. Nsk92 (talk) 21:06, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Muhandes (talk) 19:58, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above. Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRIT / WP:NSCHOOL. Sources in article and WP:BEFORE are not WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth. // Timothy :: talk 10:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SK1: Nominator does not propose deleting the page; AfD is not for proposing merging. (Note: I will open a merge discussion following closing this.) The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:33, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Air Guinee Express[edit]

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

Merge with Air Guinée. The only ref here is duplicated there (the other ref just goes to a Wikipedia page). No info that would merit a separate article. Also, contradictory content (domestic airline but lists international flights). Special-T (talk) 18:16, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:18, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:18, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:18, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Genocide. Sandstein 21:10, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Slow genocide[edit]

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

Basically a dicdef, tagged as orphaned for 6 years Staszek Lem (talk) 01:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:16, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wikitionary, as it is mostly a definition. Foxnpichu (talk) 10:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to persecution or genocide. The idea that this is a dictionary definition is nonsense. The topic is not a word and the title is a phrase, not a word. I suppose it's the usual confusion per WP:DICDEF, "One perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a dictionary entry, and stubs are often poorly written;" The concept appears in a variety of papers and so deletion is not appropriate when there are sensible alternatives: The slow-burning genocide of Myanmar's Rohingya;A slow industrial genocide;A slow-motion genocide;Slow genocide: The dynamics of violence and oppression in refugee camps and American ghettos; Last Exit from the Kalahari. The Slow Genocide of the Bushmen/Sa;Israel's Slow-Motion Genocide in Occupied Palestine. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:52, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
is a dictionary definition is nonsense - it is your idea is nonsense: dictionaries do cover phrases and whole sentences. "Appears in a variety of papers" is an invalid argument. Every phrase is in variety of papers. Also "another perennial source of confusion" is that you can make a wikipedia article from a bunch of usage examples. We do not have articles frog eaters or slow burning conflict, right? Staszek Lem (talk) 16:05, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, per Staszek to be honest. Foxnpichu (talk) 21:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 12:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, there are wikipedians smarter than me, who created redirects from my red links. Well, I beat them with at least one :-) Staszek Lem (talk) 21:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 12:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 12:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki and delete. I agree, this is nothing more than a broad journalistic phrase rather than a specific sociopolitical concept. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:33, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to genocide. Obvious subtopic that has references which substantiate notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:34, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no references, even for the definition. Mere word usage. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:09, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:13, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to genocide per above Reywas92^Talk 19:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to genocide because there's nothing in the article aside from a short definition. SacredSunflower (talk) 02:07, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki and Merge. Would serve as a good mention in genocide as a perspective on the topic, and an interesting thing to define for Wikitonary. Otherwise, just a definition. Zkidwiki (talk) 21:14, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 22:11, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chandni Jafri[edit]

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

Non-notable businesswoman. The article is promotional, poorly referenced and riddled with references that do not support what is written. The references that do check out are either mere mentions or are not independent, e.g. her own companies or interviews. The best coverage that I found in my before search is the general reference that I have added, but that too reads like a PR piece. The article was created by a long-inactive SPA. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:12, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:12, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:12, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:20, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businesswoman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:16, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article presenting the subject's CV of family background, various corporate jobs and her own start-up ventures. As the nominator says, the references are poor, and there are various unsubstantiated claims in the article text. Searches find various in-role mentions and quotes, along with the 2017 Asian Age article, but that is a PR-type profile. I am not seeing the coverage needed to establish the subject as having achieved biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 18:19, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS and WP:NOTRESUME. I'd expect reliable sources even in India, which has several good newspapers. It's written like a resume, not an article. Bearian (talk) 21:11, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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}}.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Geschichte (talk) 18:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Naresh Kumar Madiki[edit]

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

A non-notable cinematographer and film director with no significant coverage in reliable sources. GSS ^💬 15:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 15:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 15:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find no significant, independent, reliable coverage of this person, so it would appear they do not pass WP:GNG. I only managed to find user generated content and a few mentions in blog sites. This article (along with the articles on the films he was involved with) were created by a user with the same name as the article subject, suggesting potential WP:COI editing. 192.76.8.82 (talk) 00:41, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is high time Wikipedia purged itself of all articles sourced only to IMDb.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:03, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence or even an assertion of notability Spiderone 21:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 History of the Kuomintang. Stifle (talk) 15:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conservatism in Taiwan[edit]

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

None of the sources cited in this article are specifically about conservatism in Taiwan. In fact, the large majority don't even mention the word "conservatism". Though right-wing ideas obviously exist in Taiwan, it's unclear whether or not we should apply the entire Western political concept of "conservatism" to Taiwanese politics. The bulk of this article is just about the political history of the KMT anyway, so whatever is useful in this article can easily be moved elsewhere. Hko2333 (talk) 08:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nominator created this discussion page with the wrong template. ~~Above text was what I could copypaste from the edit summary.~~ I have no opinion on the article at this time. ~~@Hko2333: Please complete your nomination statement.~~ --Finngall ^talk 23:38, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator did as requested, striking comments no longer relevant. --Finngall ^talk 15:17, 18 October 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 October 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:50, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:50, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:10, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:08, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge to History of the Kuomintang. Nom is correct, article is not about conservatism, it's about the KMT. Reywas92^Talk 19:57, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak merge: The article appears to be more about the Kuomintang political party than about conservative philosophy/ideology in Taiwan. Perhaps the two are closely correlated, but the article still appears to focus on the former, not the latter. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:37, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:42, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Activate (newspaper)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NMEDIA, WP:NNEWSPAPER. The only source in the article is a primary source, their own website on WordPress. The newspapers seems to have some history but I can't find any RS verifying that. Apart from that there is no significant coverage of the newspaper in secondary RS. The newspaper gets mentioned only a few times for its own quote or twitter account in other media articles regarding the activity in the campus. One source [15] that I found is written by an former editor and hence a primary source. Also important to note is that campus newspapers are very rarely notable as per University article guideline. Roller26 (talk) 13:42, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 13:42, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 13:42, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 13:42, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:05, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NNEWSPAPER. Lefcentreright ^{Talk | Contribs | Global} 21:07, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:41, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Oppidan Press[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NMEDIA, WP:NNEWSPAPER. The only source in the article is a primary source, written by an early editor of the newspaper. Apart from that there is no significant coverage of the newspaper in secondary RS. The newspaper gets mentioned for its photo license attribution or its twitter account in other media articles regarding the activity in the campus. Also important to note is that campus newspapers are very rarely notable as per University article guideline. Though the article was created nearly 12 years ago, it was pretty clearly created by a COI account OppiPress (having a total of only 3 edits). The user also mentioned in its edit summary [16] not meant to be an advertisement. It's just filling a gap since other South African student newspapers have wiki articles, clearly pointing to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as the rationale for creating the article. Roller26 (talk) 13:22, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 13:22, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 13:22, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 13:22, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:05, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pretty much per the nom. It is a non-notable student newspaper. Lefcentreright ^{Talk | Contribs | Global} 21:05, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 08:19, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don_Coleone[edit]

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

Fail to see how this musician is notable, almost all the sources are mainly about his album promotions. the topic of this article fails WP:NMUSICIAN , it fails wikipedia notability guildlines, another upcoming musician without any relevant to speak about , completely and utterly non-notable musician, sourced entirely to press releases , No evidence of notability Samat lib (talk) 09:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Samat lib (talk) 09:53, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions Samat lib (talk) 09:53, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Samat lib (talk) 09:53, 25 October 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Keep, subject has clearly received some some independent coverage ([17], [18]). --Paul ❬talk❭ 11:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit unsure what to think of this one, especially due to the COI of interest. It might take me a few days before I cast my !vote. Foxnpichu (talk) 13:35, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the few sources related to this article fail WP:NMUSICIAN , no significant coverege about the musician, it fail WP:GNG it does not satisfy any criteria Samat lib (talk) 19:33, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Could we possibly Redirect this to tooXclusive since some of his songs premiered on there? Foxnpichu (talk) 10:54, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:04, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — not the first time someone tried to sneak this article into mainspace. I do not see subject of our article satisfying WP:MUSICBIO. Celestina007 (talk) 09:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:MUSICBIO. Some of the cited sources in the article are not independent at all. --KartikeyaS (talk) 19:13, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:40, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Soulmate Project[edit]

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

Planned television series that was cancelled due to COVID-19 pandemic and ABS-CBN franchise renewal controversy. This means it has been abandoned permanently and no plans to revive the project. ApprenticeFan work 06:32, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ApprenticeFan work 06:32, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ApprenticeFan work 06:32, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let’s wait until an official statement says that it’s shelved or cancelled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.53.39.52 (talk) 16:35, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It's unnecessary because there is no filming due to pandemic. -152.32.113.251 (talk) 23:05, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: For now. There's no announcement yet whether it's cancelled or it will push through. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- No need to wait for news or announcements because there's no more development on that project a long time ago. Isn't it fancruft to keep that article alive? -152.32.113.251 (talk) 08:32, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Waiting for an announcement about the show is the only practical thing to make sure. There's really nothing fancruft about it. So, don't bother arguing with me. My keep stands no matter what. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 13:45, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - If that's your opinion, it's fine with me. However, the Soulmate collaboration project seems to be very impossible now because of pandemic and travel restrictions, no wonder there's no developments or updates about that show for the past several months. -152.32.113.251 (talk) 18:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Its funny tho, the production hasn't even started filming yet but there is already a wikipedia page for that. Why not wait until this production actually takes place first. I mean why too hurry to create a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fitsdar (talk • contribs) 02:23, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't make sense to keep that article stay when there's no news about that show a long time ago. -152.32.113.251 (talk) 04:58, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:CRYSTAL: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." Following the pandemic and the cancellation of the franchise of ABS-CBN, the show won't happen in the near future. HiwilmsTalk 03:43, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:02, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, no notability as a planned show. Geschichte (talk) 08:57, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Variations of basketball. czar 02:38, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beach basketball[edit]

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

Seemingly non-notable basketball variant that mostly serves as an advertisement. Google search turns up nothing in the way of external references or notability. Deadbeef 04:23, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve: This is a valid and increasingly popular form of sport. Yes the page has been amended to give prominence to one particular institution, so the advertisement / promotional aspect. But that's not a cause for deleting the page, rather replacing the promotional aspect with more reliable information. werldwayd (talk) 04:35, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, replace the current information with... what? Are you seeing any external references or evidence of notability that I'm missing? Deadbeef 04:40, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary. Many beaches that you visit, there are top notch basketball courts to accommodate for the sport. And it is unique. It is even played on plain sand just like beach volleyball. So we want to cancel a valid sport because the page has some promotional material. Even as a skeleton article it needs to stay as this is a valid variety of basketball and spreading greatly. werldwayd (talk) 18:54, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 11:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 11:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 11:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The sport is not notable enough for its own article, and at present is difficult to find enough reliable information about it to replace the advertisement-like resources for even an inclusion in Variations of basketball. MagPlex ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:09, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Variations of basketball as per suggestions below. I have changed my mind regarding the topic's notability and there is enough information at present to move over and expand upon. MagPlex ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:16, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Variations of basketball. There is some coverage, but it would probably be better to simply mention it on the Variations page unless a decent article can be written, not this promo piece. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:40, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Variations of basketball seems like the most sensible option available Spiderone 17:53, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:01, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Real recognized version of the sport, even though article needs improvements, no reason to delete just because of that.--Seacactus 13 (talk) 00:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Variations of basketball: per above. // Timothy :: talk 12:19, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:15, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heritage (2020 film)[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NFILM unless I'm missing something. There does not appear to be any significant coverage in reliable secondary sources nor are there any independent/reliable reviews. Spiderone 14:11, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heritage is mentioned in many independent sites: [19] [20] [21] [22]. Also Toho himself contacted with film producers. --Дейноніх (talk) 14:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Out of those sources, only Dread Central is reliable and, unfortunately, the coverage is not really that significant. Are there any reviews in reliable sources? Spiderone 15:58, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How about IMDb? Also why godzilla-movies.com isn't reliable? --Дейноніх (talk) 16:04, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Citing IMDb. You haven't cited Godzilla Movies but, from what I can see, it looks like a fan site so not WP:RS. Spiderone 16:44, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, delete if you want. That is just my opinion, that this page can be here. --Дейноніх (talk) 17:02, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:18, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:18, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from page creator - Hello! I read WP:NFILM and WP:GNG, but I really don't understand, why this film cannot be on Wikipedia. Film is mentioned in many independent sites. Why it cannot be here? Wikipedia has articles about FORTY Star Warsfan films, but Heritage cannot be here? I don't think so. Even if Godzilla: Battle Royale would be deleted, I think that this article should not be deleted. Please, do not delete this page. --Дейноніх (talk) 12:27, 1 November 2020 (UTC) Spiderone 14:25, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the sources you mentioned don’t appear to be very reliable. Foxnpichu (talk) 22:33, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 15:32, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable "fan film".John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:21, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm finding some sourcing, however right now it doesn't really seem like enough to meet NFF. I think that at most there could be an argument made to mention it at the page for Godzilla in pop culture or in the legacy section on the page for Godzilla,_King_of_the_Monsters!, however. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I pretty much agree with everybody else. Delete. Foxnpichu (talk) 19:09, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is consensus at this time that the subject does not currently satisfy the notability requirements of WP:NPROF or WP:GNG. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dipen Kumar Rajak[edit]

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

I didn't find sufficient evidence to warrant a pass of WP:NPROF. Kj cheetham (talk) 11:33, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 11:33, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 11:33, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An Assistant Professor in a high citation engineering field; GScholar h-index of 10 with the top cite 61. Not enough for passing WP:PROF yet. Nsk92 (talk) 12:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:TOOSOON, citation record not good enough yet for WP:PROF#C1 and no other claim of notability evident. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:42, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Missing WP:NPROF. WP:TOOSOON in all likelihood. - Roger editor (talk) 11:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for spamming, likely WP:UPE. MER-C 15:19, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:50, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Taking action to transform the article will be up to subsequent editors. Geschichte (talk) 08:42, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dead in The Water (novel)[edit]

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

This is the 2nd book in a series of four, which probably wouldn't meet NBOOK as a series either. There's no coverage to speak of and the only sources are catalogues. Paul ❬talk❭ 11:22, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Paul ❬talk❭ 11:22, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This isn't much of an article but the work seems to meet WP:NBOOK, which only requires two reviews. There is one in the Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books[23], one in Booklist[24], one in Kirkus[25] Haukur (talk) 19:04, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: My recommendation here would be to turn it into a series page rather than a page for an individual book. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:58, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

wouldn't we need reviews/reports on the series as a whole for a series wikiarticle? Coolabahapple (talk) 07:19, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We would, but there should be enough for the series as a whole to establish notability. I found a couple for the first book. It's harder for the last two in the series, but I figure that we could easier justify one series page than a couple of individual ones. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:10, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:NBOOK, multiple reviews as brought out above plus heres one from School Library Journal. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:33, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: and convert into series article per ReaderofthePack above. The series collectively will meet notability. If anyone of the individual books becomes enough for a stand alone article, it can be split per WP:SUMMARY. // Timothy :: talk 12:24, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Pamzeis (talk) 11:42, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marmen Quartet[edit]

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

Band which has won a couple of competitions but neither of them major (see WP:NMUSIC). No recording contract, reviewed performances, mainstream coverage etc etc. Paul ❬talk❭ 10:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Paul ❬talk❭ 10:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Paul ❬talk❭ 10:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sorry, I can't see why the reviewer considers these competitions not to be major. The Banff International String Quartet Competition is one of the 2 or 3 longest standing and most prestigious competitions in the world in this medium. Can the reviewer justify his opinion please? Could a second opinion be sought from someone with a good knowledge of classical music (it does seem curious for someone to refer to a classical string quartet as a "band", sorry.) They perform regularly at the Wigmore Hall and in other major concert venues. If that isn't notable, how can any classical chamber music ensemble be notable? It seems inappropriate to propose deletion just because nobody has provided a few cross-references to concert reviews in newspapers. Hyperman 42 (talk) 18:41, 1 November 2020 (UTC) Incidentally, the notability criterion that this quartet qualifies under is 9 in WP:NMUSIC. Hyperman 42 (talk) 18:44, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperman, here is what seems like an independent source about the quartet. One or two more of those, using them in the article, and you'd be all set to make the article pass WP:GNG. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:17, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This one maybe too. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:27, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And this one (rather "local press" but still usable as part of a GNG set of independent sources afaics). --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:41, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
& this one (in German). --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:48, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another one reporting on the Banff competition finale --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another German one --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:56, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
About the quartet's (current) viola player --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:58, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
About winning "Bridge" --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:02, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another concert review
... and there's surely more. All in all enough independent reliable sources: if you use the best of these in the article there shouldn't be a problem notability-wise. Whether or not it passes a particular NMUSIC criterion will by then be of less importance while it passes GNG with flying colors. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:08, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Hyperman 42, you thanked me for my last edit above, but please keep in mind that the actual work still has to be done. As is, that is with no more than two references, neither of which counts as "independent" in a GNG logic (e.g. neither the quartet's website, nor the Banff website can be used to establish that Banff is an important competition: it is, but sources self-published by the quartet or by the Banff competition can't be used to establish that), the article still fails notability. So, please, get started: summarize content from independent reliable sources, and add it to the article with a reference to these sources. As long as more than (approx.) 50% of the article's content is exclusively referenced to non-independent sources there continues to be a notability problem. I haven't !voted in this AfD yet, but based on the current state of the article my !vote would need to be "delete". I might be postponing my !vote still a few days, but unless the article's content & references have improved significantly by then, I'd rather have to suggest a "delete with WP:REFUND option" when I do cast my !vote. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (ec) Referring to a string quartet as a "band" is strange: the repertoire they perform is part of classical music (Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Debussy, etc). Winning competitions in international competitions is extremely relevant, and two of these are listed (and easy to verify). Venues, such as the Wigmore Hall and the Barbican, are amongst the top in the UK. The quartet were scheduled to play at numerous venues in Britain, Europe and NZ over this year (e.g. at the Berlin Philharmonie) but corona virus has resulted in many cancellations. The first violinist, Johannes Marmén, also plays with other instrumental groups; he has been recorded by Hyperion Records with works composed by himself as well as arrangements of pieces by John Lennon and George Harrison. Mathsci (talk) 20:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews should be added directly to the article where appropriate; the Crawley Observer (listed above) is a red link. Mathsci (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at various sources, rejigging some of the material and adding content that comes from music journals like The Strad and Diapason. Unsurprisingly large numbers of events were cancelled or postponed this year. What is surprising, however, is that during September, with suitable precautions, there were live performances at 4 different venues in Germany and Austria. Mathsci (talk) 11:54, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources adduced by Francis Schonken. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the multiple reliable sources identified in this discussion and added to the article that show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:47, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Godzilla: Battle Royale[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a youtube video which does not make any particular claim of notability. Paul ❬talk❭ 10:31, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I think, that this page should not be speedily deleted. Godzilla: Battle Royale can be on Wikipedia, because that film was mentioned in many independent sites and reviews. Also this film has 2,3 millions views on YouTube. This film is unofficial and low-budget, but this fact isn't reason for deleting this page. Wikipedia has articles about FORTY Star Wars fan films, but Wikipedia can't have page about this film, that was mentioned in many independent sites? I do not think so. Also there are not references in this page, but I took all information from official YouTube channel and video. Please, do not delete this page. --Дейноніх (talk) 10:39, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you provide evidence for this alleged significant coverage in reliable sources? Spiderone 10:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- - If you want reliable sources, like ScreenRant or CBR, this film isn't mentioned in sources of this type. It's mentioned in only user reviews and blogs. Now I understand, why you want to delete this page. Sorry for creating it. --Дейноніх (talk) 13:38, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Paul ❬talk❭ 10:31, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NFILM and completely fails WP:GNG; 2.3 million views on YouTube does not automatically make the film notable Spiderone 10:54, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete A Google search turns up literally no sources, so it fails WP:GNG. EMachine03 (talk) 11:42, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:00, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 12:15, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clear and thorough failure of WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:15, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No effective references. scope_creep^Talk 20:18, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW applies in this instance. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Webb (medical physicist)[edit]

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

The subject of the article has again made it known that he is unhappy with the way the article has been edited and he would now prefer it to be deleted.

He says, "Please can you get this wiki profile of me taken down or reinstated as was? The current article says NOTHING of useful academic or clinical relevance." LynwoodF (talk) 10:29, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. LynwoodF (talk) 10:29, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. LynwoodF (talk) 10:29, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The GScholar h-index of 70 is very high, and the subject has received significant awards and honors that are well referenced in the article. The subject clearly satisfies WP:PROF#C1. There are no BLP concerns about potentially negative information here and this request is not based on privacy concerns. Rather, the subject was apparently unhappy about this edit[26]. The edit trimmed the overly long portion of the article with extensive award citations that was indeed problematic in terms of WP:DUEWEIGHT. The edit also removed the "Biography" section since at the time the only source cited there, [27], was failing verification. Since then, User:GA-RT-22 provided a link to the archived version of the source in question at the article's talk page, and I have restored the Biography section, with a corrected source link[28]. If the subject of the article still has some concerns, they appear to me to be of content dispute nature, rather than of privacy nature, of the kind that we take into account when considering WP:BLPDELETE requests. The subject should be directed to raise them at the article's talk page. Nsk92 (talk) 12:06, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per the last AFD in September, subject is still notable, and WP:DINC. Subject can request changes on the article's talk page. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly meets WP:NACADEMIC. Nothing has changed since the previous AFD. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:35, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – per discussion on previous AfD. GA-RT-22 (talk) 16:14, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Either let me edit it my way or take it down" is not the sort of valid privacy reason that WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE is supposed to be about. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep I know that September might seem like a long time ago, but even so, there's no reason to relitigate this now. Notability was established, uncontroversially. XOR'easter (talk) 19:06, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:51, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:51, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there's no valid reason for deletion. It's been a month and 21 days since the last time someone tried to delete this article. Natureium (talk) 00:42, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Everything else aside, academic notability criteria 8 states "The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area." With key words being in their subject area. The journal Physics in Medicine and Biology has an impact factor of just over 3, which is similar to or much higher than all the other medical physics journals I found in my survey, and has it been running for over fifty years and is therefore well established and major in that subject area. Footlessmouse (talk) 21:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets notability. Expertwikiguy (talk) 09:39, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing has changed since the first AfD. Edwardx (talk) 00:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A redirect can be optionally created, but' I'm going to AfD the redirect target... Sandstein 21:15, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spring Mountain Junior/Senior High School[edit]

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG / WP:NSCHOOL. Sources in article and WP:BEFORE are not WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth. Article is unsourced WP:OR and is not appropriate for a merge. // Timothy :: talk 10:25, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:11, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:11, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:54, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The second sentence in the nom sounds pretty strange given that the article has no sources. It is a bit surprising for a U.S. highschool, but there does not seem to be even substantive local news coverage of it. Google searching does not yield much beyond various directory listings. As things stand, indeed fails WP:GNG, WP:NORG/WP:NSCHOOL. Nsk92 (talk) 08:57, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I could only find one source at all on the topic [29], reading between the lines gives an indication as to why there is so little coverage. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_Clark_County_School_District_schools. This is a very small school - 11 teachers and under 100 students. Bearian (talk) 21:08, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Evangel Christian Academy (Albuquerque, New Mexico)[edit]

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG / WP:NSCHOOL. Sources in article and WP:BEFORE are not WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth. // Timothy :: talk 10:11, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 10:11, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 10:11, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we need to show more than that a school exists to show that it is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:26, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There doesn't appear to be any independent sources cited.... a google search shows only listing-style sites. Can't find any newsworthy material to include on this page.10Sany1? (talk) 17:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't passes WP:GNG and WP:Basic Sliekid (talk) 06:30, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hawthorn School (Marengo, Illinois)[edit]

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG / WP:NSCHOOL. Sources in article and WP:BEFORE are not WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth. Article contains mostly WP:OR // Timothy :: talk 10:05, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 10:05, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 10:05, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not every elementary school is notable, and that is the only standard that would make this notable. Even if the high school that was here for a short time is notable (I have my doubts) that would not change this to a notable institution.13:30, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Delete It seems that this is just a regular elementary school. Elementary schools are not inherently notable. Scorpions13256 (talk) 17:22, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Geschichte (talk) 08:40, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tournament of Minds[edit]

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

Not notable. A google search reveals little information on this tournament besides its own social media outlets. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 09:50, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a very long standing competition - I took part in it in 1991 or 1992. A search of the National Library of Australia's Trove service returns 115 results [30], so this is highly likely to be notable. Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily notable, long running competition and there are lots of sources available in an online search.--Mvqr (talk) 12:17, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article desperately needs attention but a quick Google News search reveals that it's clearly notable and shouldn't be deleted Spiderone 14:24, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient items found to turn this into an adequate article and meet notability requirements. The article is a present sub-standard. NealeFamily (talk) 09:52, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Both "Meets notability guidelines" and "Is not notable" aren't useful arguments without an explanation of why that is believed to be the case. This leaves us with only two useful opinions that do address the number and quality of the article's sources, and both conclude that it should be deleted. Sandstein 09:55, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Northwest High School (McDermott, Ohio)[edit]

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

Is not notable Dawkin Verbier (talk) 09:46, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:49, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:49, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets notability guidelines. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:02, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets notability guidelines. Why we even have these discussions anymore? EagleFan (talk) 02:18, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources in the article are extremely trivial and primary. Plus, I couldn't find anything in-depth or that would pass WP:NORG about it when I looked. Let alone WP:GNG. The main section of the article isn't even about the high school. Outside of that the article would just be notable alumni and a list of coaches (that should probably be gotten rid of). At the end of the day there's zero notable about this school. Wikipedia isn't a directory and that's literally all this article is or likely ever will be. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:06, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete " Meets notability guidelines" without any sources means nothing. Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG / WP:NSCHOOL. Sources in article and WP:BEFORE are not WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth. // Timothy :: talk 10:41, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was a clear consensus to delete. NYC Guru (talk) 14:05, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Preppy Party[edit]

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

Article about a song that I improved but was marked for speedy deletion. Bringing article here to be reviewed and confirm deletion consensus. NYC Guru (talk) 09:43, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete db-hoax. No trace of the song or its singer in an online search. One of a series of hoax articles by new editor. Captain Calm (talk) 09:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 10:15, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 10:15, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Author has been creating many articles about a musician that quite literally does not exist because the musician is, in the author’s words, “fanon.” In other words, the author is creating many articles about a topic that does not exist at all and is just a fanfiction. EMachine03 (talk) 10:16, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Cruft Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:58, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment article creator has just been blocked indefinitely. Captain Calm (talk) 11:03, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as an obvious hoax. The author has stated that the singer who performed this song is a fanfiction character per the edit summary here. The first draft of the singer's page claims they first gained fame on the television series "New Style Boutique", which appears to be a Nintendo DS game. I can find no sign of this song's existence online, which should exist for a song released in 2017. 192.76.8.82 (talk) 11:38, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete under G3 - if it does exist, it has definitely became lost media which only one person seems to remember. Foxnpichu (talk) 12:01, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability, no sources evident in search.--Mvqr (talk) 12:24, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Geschichte (talk) 08:39, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rooftop Films[edit]

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

I nominated this for speedy deletion back in 2014. It was declined for making a credible claim of significance, but even now I cannot see how this passes WP:NCORP. I don't believe this subject was ever notable enough to have deserved an article. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 05:56, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:18, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:18, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:18, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the sources are dead links to the official website or blogs. There's two other references with titles like Where to Watch Outdoor Summer Movies in Brooklyn and The Must-See Movies and Venues at Rooftop Films in Brooklyn and contain little significant coverage or passing mentions. I can't find anything to satisfy WP:ORGDEPTH. Dylsss^{(talk • contribs)} 19:35, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wasn't able to find those sources, but there's enough depth below in my opinion. Dylsss^{(talk • contribs)} 02:55, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources in the article are lacking, but there are plenty in-depth sources available:

Dollar, Steve (May 19, 2016). "Rooftop Films Looks Back on 20 Years". Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660.

Kohn, Eric (September 18, 2020). "NYFF at the Drive-In: How Rooftop Films Helped Save the City's Most Revered Film Event". IndieWire. Retrieved October 31, 2020.

Dollar, Steve (May 11, 2011). "Film Series Lands a New Role". Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660.

O'Falt, Chris (May 29, 2015). "Rooftop Films Helped Launch Lena Dunham and Benh Zeitlin: Who's Next?". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved October 31, 2020.

Courtesy ping @Dylsss and Drm310 czar 18:23, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs evaluation of sources provided: do they provide WP:ORGDEPTH?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (t · c) buidhe 09:43, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in view of the additional multiple reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion that show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:21, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep thanks to Czar's identified sources. — Toughpigs (talk) 23:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Singh Jossan[edit]

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

Non notable wrestler with no indication of satisfying WP:GNG. He has got training at Great Khali's academy Continental Wrestling Entertainment and having won a world tag team title there is barely a claim to fame. Also the page creator appears to have a COI with subject. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:15, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:15, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:15, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:15, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable wrestler.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:20, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looking at the at article he appears to be only know for being a being a tag team champion in a a wrestling company that was deleted for not being notable and attending a WWE tryout.--65.92.160.124 (talk) 22:50, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mater Spei College[edit]

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

This secondary school (It's not a college despite the name) doesn't seem notable. As the only sources in the article are a basic listing and a couple of dead links to what looks like a primary source. Even if it's not they are still dead links though. I couldn't find multiple in reliable secondary sources about it in a BEFORE either. Plus, secondary schools are not automatically notable. So it doesn't pass either WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Also, it's written like an advertisement and would essentially be blank or a basic directory listing if it wasn't. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:46, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 14:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for anyone considering the second source (Community Financing of Schools in Botswana) as part of their vote, it's just contains a name drop of the school and doesn't actually talk about it at all. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:27, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It verifies when the school was founded and that it was the second Catholic secondary school in Botswana. That is not extensive coverage, but it is more than a name drop. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. My opinion is that a name drop is anytime something is mentioned only by name in a single sentence without in-depth details. For instance "Mater Spei College exists" is still a name drop even with the "exists" in the sentence. Your never going to find just a name of a school in any article without any other words, because it's not a complete sentence. The point is, even "Mater Spei College was built in 1987" without anything else is still just a casual passing mention and therefore a name drop. At least IMO. Your mileage may vary though. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:16, 15 October 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)} 15:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per WP:NSCHOOL, schools are not inherently notable and need to pass WP:GNG; this school doesn't pass; the coverage is entirely routine Spiderone 15:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my standards; it a religious school for two grades and has no special coverage of its programs or alumni. Bearian (talk) 17:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to pass WP:GNG fairly easily: [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] Article does need a bit of cleanup. SportingFlyer T·C 08:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All of those are extremely trivial or non-reliable. For instance there's nothing notable about them celebrating their 50 year anniversary. Litterally ever school on the planet it does and gets coverage for doing so. There's nothing notable their students wearing masks for COVID-19. Every school in the world is getting coverage for that right now. Including the ones in my local area. And I don't think they should have a Wikipedia article for it. Notability isn't about search results. Adamant1 (talk) 12:56, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They are in-depth articles from the largest Batswana newspapers, clearly demonstrating that the school has been taken notice of in secondary sources. I'm sorry you don't like them, but the school clearly passes WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 17:53, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The good thing about this is that we can have different opinions, or at least I think we can. I'm not so sure with you though. Since apparently someone disagreeing with you is "gatekeeping." For whatever reason, it seems like keep voters are really against any kind of discussion. Go figure. I have my theories as to why, but this isn't the place to give them. Anymore then it is for you to make accusations about nominators "gatekeeping." --Adamant1 (talk) 18:03, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, if you do an academic search, the school comes up multiple times in multiple scholarly research articles, including a couple already in the document. SportingFlyer T·C 23:38, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG / WP:NSCHOOL. Sources in article and WP:BEFORE were not WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and in depth. // Timothy :: talk 18:12, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How is Mmegi unreliable? Daily News? The Botswana Gazette? SportingFlyer T·C 21:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep - agree with SportinFlyer. Several instances of coverage in a national publications is "routine"? Six pages of material consisting of more than 3000 words is "trivial"? Was the top performing school in the country. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:51, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which source was six pages that consisted of more then 3000 words? There needs to be two in-depth sources anyway, but I'd still like to know. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:07, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That would be me taking the time to aggregate the sources, and doing a word count. How is that not significant coverage? I suggest you look at the sources, and do a word count on them individually yourself. I will say that of the five sources aggregated, only one was less than three paragraphs (it was two). 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:34, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't want to put the time into providing the source that you said had 3000 words directly about the school, but then I should have to spend my time sifting through a bunch of sources? Yeah right. Usually the way this works is if there usable sources out there then you should post them here or in the article. Not just say they exist and then refuse to provide them when people ask you. Otherwise, anyone could say there's sources and we would have to just take their word for it. See WP:GOOGLEHITS and similar things. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:02, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what aggregated means? Did you look at the sources sportingflyer provided. I aggregated those. I copied them into a word processor and did a word and charachter count. I so stated in my response. But... your response seems to indicate you question my integrity. As such, what difference does it make if I were to provide a word count for each article? I invited you to check my results, but of course you don't have to. Have a nice day. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's nothing to do with integrity. It's just a good thing usually if people provide sources they find so they can be added to the articles, because it helps there from being another AfD later and it just improves them in the meantime. Especially when your talking about Africa. Since the sources are so hard to find in the first place. My guess is that a lot of them won't be found in the future or at least it will be an uphill battle. So, might as well have access to them now. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:11, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've tidied it, expanded some of the information and added some additional references, ranging from official government publications to national media. There's an acceptable range of robust sources. And I repeat the point I make over and over about articles on topics in the developing world: you won't find the same range and volume of sources online in a poor country where only 20% of households have access to a laptop that you will in Europe or North America. Humansdorpie (talk) 22:37, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Government refereneces don't work for notability. No one is expecting the same range. Two independent reliable in-depth sources is a pretty low bar that even fairly remote places should be able to meet though. I mean, there's lots of places besides Africa where people don't have that great of access to technology and where the journalism isn't that great. the Apalachicola mountains, Indian reservations, some counties in California, a couple of smaller European countries, probably Siberia, a couple of Latin American countries, and the North and South pole. Maybe American Samoa to. Probably some of the Virgin Island also. Oh yeah, and likely a good portion of Oceania. Don't forget Antarctica. I mean, really, how many news outlets are there in Antarctica? According to Google like 2. Maybe they should all get a free pass, or at least we should majorly degrade the standards that we apply to them. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:02, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:GNG--17jiangz1 (talk) 07:42, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:49, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is specific in-depth coverage by several national newspapers, as noted by SportingFlyer, including The Botswana Gazette [36], Mmegi, [37][38], and Botswana Daily News [39]. Sufficient for passing WP:GNG. Nsk92 (talk) 20:08, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just an fyi, Botswana Daily News seems to be government run and therefore isn't reliable/independent or able to be used for be used for WP:GNG/notability. Especially for things that it has a relationship with. Adamant1 (talk) 22:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is a government newspaper but that does not rule it out as an independent WP:RS here. Newspapers and various other news sources set up by governments still have editors, editorial boards and generally follow standard journalistic practices and we don't rule them out as WP:RS unless there is a specific reason to do so. For example, BBC is government run, and we use it all the time as a WP:RS. In third-word countries in particular where the economies are weak and the infrastructure, including the information infrustruture, is underdeveloped and there are fewer newspapers and news sources of any kind, we need to make greater allowances in this regard to avoid systemic bias. Regarding the source being independent, we are talking about a private secondary Catholic school which receives some government funding. That's sufficiently far removed from the source for the source to count as independent in this case. Nsk92 (talk) 23:36, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's simply wrong. There have been multiple RfCs about government newspapers lately and the overwhelming consensus is that they are not reliable sources. Especially when they are talking about the government that they are owned by. While I agree that "third world countries" (the term is kind of a misnomer that doesn't help systemic bias at all) is an issue, it's not on us to use an unreliable, non-independent source just because of it. Again, the clear consensus is that we shouldn't. Maybe it's a "Catholic" school, but the article says they have "received considerable financial support from the Botswana government." So, 100% the government is not going to be neutral about them. No government is when it comes to things they make a "considerable" investment in. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:08, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see some of those RfCs. And regarding financial support, even if the financial support was "massive" rather than "considerable", that still does not make a private Catholic school a part of the government. Most universities and colleges in the U.S. receive massive federal governnment support in the form of federal grants and yet we do not view these schools as a part of the federal government. If the article concerned a government official or a government ministry, I'd probably have said that the source was not independent. But arguing non-independence in this case, for a private Catholic school, just because the school received significant state funding, that really strains common sense, IMO. Nsk92 (talk) 01:34, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IMO it strains common sense to say that a government isn't going to speak positively about a project that they spent a whole bunch of tax payer dollars on when (or if) it goes bad. Even if it doesn't though they will still be overly positive. That kind of thing happens all the time. Governments are obligated to make everything they do look fantastic. Especially in "third world countries" where the chance of a government overthrow is pretty high. Even in places like America where it's extremely small though governments spin the hell out of things. Also, they wouldn't run their own news organization unless it helped their bottom line somehow. Period. Outlets like the BBC aren't really comparably, because they are independent and their website isn't a sub domain of gov.uk. As far as the RfCs go, there's Xinhua News Agency, RT, Wen Wei Po. Just to name a few. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The RFCs you cite are from totalitarian/authoritarian regimes like China and Russia. Yeah, with RT I would not need an RfC to come to the conclusion that RT is not a WP:RS. I don't think that The Botswana Gazette belongs to the same category. As for the issue of the independence of the source, you made your position clear and you are, of course, entitled to your opinion, but I think that in this specific case you are just plain wrong, and that the souce is far enough removed from the subject to count as independent. Let's just see what the other editors think about these issues as I think we have argued here long enough. Nsk92 (talk) 02:38, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just an FYI, not every discussion is arguing. I didn't feel that this one was. Like you said, we are both entitled to our opinions. I was just interested in what yours was and giving mine. In no way is that arguing. At least not on my end. It's important and helpful to hash these things out in AfDs sometimes. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:44, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: More than enough sources for GNG. — Toughpigs (talk) 23:56, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As we're here to educate, let's start with the word "college". This essentially means a group of people (colleagues) organised for some purpose such as the electoral college which is in the news currently. Then there's the word "notable". This doesn't mean extraordinary or superlative; it just means worthy of note. As we are an encyclopedia rather than a work such as Guinness or Ripley, we expect to cover everything rather than just the most exceptional items. This school is worthy of note and we know this because it has been noticed and written about in works such as this. That's significant coverage and so we're good. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:56, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure me and another user already "educated" you in another AfD about why the word college is being used here and there. You continuing to take jabs at me about it is just petty. Not that it wasn't in the first place. Sorry your little plan to get me blocked feel through dude, but you seriously need to stop badgering me about biennial nonsense and move on. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:11, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notability demonstrated by sources currently in the article. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 10:29, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets notability guidelines. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to a list of schools or the page about the location or another appropriate page - it's not an institute of higher education even though it's called a "college". We don't judge GNG by combining all the sources together; rather, each one should be reliable, secondary, independent, and in depth. I don't see WP:THREE that are. We don't include everything just because we're not paper (WP:NOTEVERYTHING). More generally speaking, primary and secondary schools are rarely actually notable, almost never the subject of non-local coverage, and it doesn't improve the encyclopedia to cover them; they are, by their very nature, inherently routine and trivial topics, like gas stations or grocery stores or post offices (or train stations). They should be covered in lists of schools, not on their own page. Lev!vich 15:26, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but comparing secondary schools to "gas stations or grocery stores or post offices" is utterly ludicrous. As for railway stations, we do consider them to be notable! They're always kept at AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:42, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Yeah, and it's a problem. #GNGorbust Le v!v ich 16:56, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  No, it's no sort of problem whatsoever. It's called consensus. That's how we operate. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:00, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes, those are two more problems (that inherent notability of train stations has consensus, and that this how we operate). Back to schools, nationally-accredited universities that award PhDs might be inherently notable, but otherwise schools should meet GNG, and this one doesn't. My viewpoint -- that secondary schools must meet GNG -- has consensus, and that's how we operate. Le v!v ich 17:05, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Given that there have been 5 sources presented with in-depth coverage of the topic, why do you believe GNG isn't met? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:50, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Because (obviously) I disagree with the "given" part; there are not 5 sources presented with in-depth coverage of the topic, and furthermore, in-depth coverage is not the only criteria. At best, there are two sources that might satisfy GNG: Feb 2019 by Mmegi and Sep 2013 by The Botswana Gazette. However, the Mmegi piece is an interview with the headmaster proclaiming the school to be the best in the country; that's not independent, it's very promotional. The Botswana Gazette piece is barely any better: it's just quotes from the headmaster and a gov't minister praising the school for its 50th anniversary. This is routine, and not independent or in-depth. Le v!v ich 21:09, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  We will disagree regarding the value of these sources, but that is helpful. Thank you. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:23, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Government publications should never be used as IS RS for government institutions. Even if you accept the questionable independence and reliability of one source, it still doesn't mean there is SIGCOV from multiple IS RS secondary sources. // Timothy :: talk 03:24, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bjørn Lisdorf[edit]

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

This article has been sitting in the New Pages Feed unreviewed for months. The subject is a Danish Youtuber so unsurprisingly a lot of the references are to self-published sources. He has caused some public controversy and been referred to in public discourse about freedom of speech and media liability. I think the question is whether this coverage is sufficiently about him, rather than about the broader issues his activities raise, to indicate that he is notable. Seeking consensus. Mccapra (talk) 05:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for flagging this for discussion. I'd like to give my process for creating this article and making sure it meets the notability criteria. First, I checked the notability page for people articles:

"People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."

This article has multiple published sources (both primary and secondary). Some secondary sources are Weekendavisen, Newsweek, Dotesports, and Dexerto etc, often where Lisdorf is a main subject. For those in which Lisdorf is referenced (i.e., trivial mentions), there are several more sources. These sources are generally seen as reliable and are referenced throughout Wikipedia. These sources are also intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Thus, according to this definition, Bjorn is "presumed notable".

"If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below. Articles may still not be created for such people if they fall under exclusionary criteria, such as being notable only for a single event"

If the several primary and secondary sources are not substantial enough, then as above, they can be combined to demonstrate notability. Lisdorf is not known for a single event, but as a topic in general, as is clear in his Weekendavisen interview and comments by academics and others. Lisdorf is notable in general, i.e., not for a single event or other exclusionary criteria.

Ok, onto the individual notability criteria. First, it is not so correct to reduce this article to the single topic of "YouTuber", as his case is far different from others. It is more correct to call Bjorn a livestreamer or an influencer. First of all, Lisdorf's VODs are deleted as soon as they are broadcast, due to the controversial nature of his streams. He has also moved platforms multiple times and has multiple accounts on such platforms. Thus, almost all of his videos are removed, as are his views (and those which would add up over time). As such, Lisdorf cannot be represented as a member of an individual field of criteria (such as an entertainer or a creative professional), but as a combination. I would note that Lisdorf passes the following criteria, noted below:

"People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards:"

Creative professionals

"The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.

The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique."

Lisdorf meets these criteria, and is explicitly referred to in primary sources.

Entertainers

"Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.

Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.

Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment."

Lisdorf certainly meets these criteria, particularly the second and third points. Secondary sources back up the claims that Bjorn has made unique and prolific (not to mention notorious) contributions to the IRL genre of streaming. I see that this genre of streaming is underrepresented on Wikipedia (and doesn't even seem to distinguish it from lifelogging or lifestreaming).

I welcome any comments and feedback. ~ Drummermean (talk) 14:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources do not demonstrate significant coverage in reliable independent sources. The sources that are reliable and independent are about other Youtubers and not significantly about Lisdorf. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:36, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:33, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The attempt to defend the article makes it clear how very weak the claims to notability actually are. DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It seems that the majority of the coverage of this streamer is in relation to his association with Ice Poseidon, rather than being notable in his own right, meaning his claim to notability is a fail of WP:NOTINHERITED. The Weekendavisen, Newsweek, The New Yorker and some of the Dexerto sources are primarily about Ice Posideon, with Bjorn being mentioned. Likewise the coverage of his interview regarding the rape allegations against ONLYUSEmeBLADE is primarily about ONLYUSEmeBLADE, rather than Bjorn.

The controversy section seems to be primarily focused on Danish privacy/photography law and it's implications for livestreams, with Bjorn simply being used as an example, rather than it being about a specific controversy Bjorn has been involved in. He did generate some independent coverage in regard to the racist comments on a train incident, but since it generated no lasting coverage it would be a fail of WP:NOTNEWS.

The remainder of the article consists of some fairly crufty material that doesn't demonstrate notability, e.g. listing him as an photographer sourced to a DeviantArt account, and listing his previous jobs from his LinkedIn account. I'm just not seeing enough in-depth secondary sources to meet WP:GNG. 192.76.8.82 (talk) 15:38, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is unfair to say that Lisdorf has only been "mentioned", especially in the Dexerto and Weekendavisen articles. The two Dexerto posts are specifically about Bjorn Lisdorf and the controversy his streams have caused (not just the train incident but also the assault). Ice Poseidon was never mentioned in any of the Dexerto material. Weekendavisen doesn't simply "mention" Bjorn: it has interviews with him and with others about him. The article starts off about Bjorn and there are multiple paragraphs about his lifestory, so it is clearly not just a mention. The specific controversy is not Bjorn being used as an example, but is specifically about him. His videos were specifically reviewed by academics and commented on, with him as the subject. I agree that the personal part of this article does not demonstrate notability, as this is just here for background information. The notability is demonstrated by the sources to do with Bjorn Lisdorf's streaming career and controversy, not his personal life. ~ Drummermean (talk) 16:10, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Drummermean:, I suggest you take another look at WP:RS and how that relates to notability standards. Dexerto for example, has every appearance of a social media aggregating clickbait group blog, not a reliable source. Weekendavisen appears to be a RS but everything said about Lisdorf is said by Lisdorf, so it is not independent. See my second sentence in my !vote above but the obverse is also true: the sources that are significantly about Lisdorf do not appear to be in reliable and independent sources. Notability requires satisfying all three prongs of the sourcing test in at least some number of sources, not two here, another there, two different prongs with that one, etc. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:09, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reply and explanation. However, I do not understand this part of your comments: "Weekendavisen appears to be a RS but everything said about Lisdorf is said by Lisdorf, so it is not independent." This is not a correct statement. Not everything here that is said about Lisdorf is by Lisdorf. The rundown and commentary is provided by Kasper Baatrup, an independent journalist with no relation to Lisdorf. There are also comments by Sten Schaumburg-Müller about Lisdorf, who also has no relation to Lisdorf. I don't see how this topic is not deemed notable when there are others which have Dexerto as a third of their references and a single reliable source solely about the candidate, whilst the others are just mentions. Please advise, and thanks again. Drummermean (talk) 18:03, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Drummermean:, for the first part, I refer to your own statement above: "Weekendavisen doesn't simply "mention" Bjorn: it has interviews with him and with others about him." In order to be strictly accurate I should have said: "...but just about everything said about Lisdorf..." Regardless, it is not a persuasive source for the three criteria I mentioned. As to the other articles, I suggest reading Wikipedia:Other stuff exists and WP:WHATABOUT. We are not evaluating any other hypothetical articles, we are evaluating this one. Maybe those articles just haven't been noticed, maybe the other references in those articles are enough to carry them, maybe they did have an AfD discussion at a time when notability standards were different, maybe something I haven't thought of. None of that matters. We are discussing this article subject and by contemporary standards, this is just not a notable Youtuber. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Barely found anything about him aside from a Ganker article. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

N V Sathyanarayana[edit]

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

Fails to satisfy GNG. The article is refbombed with namedrop sources, interviews and other routine listings. Very likely to be COI editing. M4DU7 (talk) 03:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 03:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 03:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 03:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another in a very long line of articles on non-notable businessmen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:02, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Albuquerque riot[edit]

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

I am nomination this article for deletion because of lack of notability, specially for events pursuant to WP:EVENT. In my nomination, I make the following observations based on event notability criteria:

Lasting effects: The event indicated is not precedent nor a catalyst for something else. No broad societal changes occurred nor legislative or government behaviors. There does not even appear to be reference to this event in a source since (or at least significantly enough for this user to find it). Four years later, and this has not changed. Rather, this event is, at most, a note in the general unrest surrounding the initial campaign of Donald Trump.
Geographical scope: This event was, at its greatest impact, notable for Albuquerque, just one city. There are no indications of any broader impact. The event was covered by a few national media sources, as cited in the article, but these appear to be merely continuing coverage from the general unrest around the Trump campaign.
Depth of coverage: I stated this in the last point, but the coverage of this event is limited. The coverage was not in-depth, but merely indicates that this event happened, arrests occurred, and that Trump commented on the event.
Duration of coverage: This event appears to have been covered for two days, including the day it first occurred. This event was “only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion.”
Diversity of sources: Again building off previous comments, national coverage of this event did occur. However, other than local media sources, the national coverage is heavily reliant on AP for its information. This can be seen in the USA TODAY source that states, “Albuquerque attorney Doug Antoon told AP...” Thus, even these multiple sources should not be considered diverse.
Criminal acts: This article also harkens back to the circumstances of “criminal acts.” The coverage was mostly “breaking news,” without any lasting influence or significance.

As a few miscellaneous comments, this article hardly supports its assertion that it documents the “2016 Albuquerque riot.” While some sources indicate a “riot” occurred, the very limited scope does not lend to the notability of being about the 2016 Albuquerque riot. No source justifies such a broad categorization of the event. With only three arrests for an event that lasted half a day, the article is giving great credence to what I would subjectively call a “footnote” in a broad history. For my systematic analysis of criteria and general opinion on the article, I nominate it for deletion.

I did not propose this article for deletion due to the controversial nature of the 2016 and 2020 U.S. presidential elections, and the strong opinions about related events.

Zkidwiki (talk) 03:07, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Zkidwiki (talk) 03:07, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Zkidwiki (talk) 03:07, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Zkidwiki (talk) 03:07, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:08, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- With polling day a few days away, this is not the appropriate time to consider articles on issues relating to American elections. I have no view on notability or otherwise. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:10, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Greetings, I appreciate your comment on this matter. However, this article relates to a minor happening in the background of the 2016 election. Because it has no lasting impact, be it that polls are opening for an election in 2020 seems hardly relevant. This event is not more notable merely because the object of a group involved was to disrupt the campaign of who happens to be the current incumbent. Zkidwiki (talk) 10:12, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:EVENTCRIT. If there is no consensus to delete, the article definitely needs a name change. KidAd talk 01:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: very plainly lacks the lasting effects and duration of coverage we require of events. There's no reason this shouldn't be discussed in a couple of sentences somewhere, but I can't find a suitable merge target. Merging into Protests against Donald Trump would probably raise issues of weight, as that article currently covers 2016 protests in a sensibly concise way. If 2016 United States presidential election in New Mexico or List of rallies for the 2016 Donald Trump presidential campaign were rewritten to meet WP:INDISCRIMINATE then one of those might be a suitable target, but that isn't very likely to happen. The argument that we ought to suspend any discussion of articles about U.S. politics for the duration of the election has neither any basis in policy nor any merit. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:58, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, exaggerated "riot" without lasting significance. Geschichte (talk) 08:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 02:22, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1998–99 Scottish Junior Cup[edit]

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

To me this article doesn't seem to be notable per my view of WP:NSPORTSEVENT. It is an article about a specific single event (1998-99 junior cup) in junior sports lacking the significant coverage necessary to pass guidelines as a standalone article and is merely an incomplete (mostly blank) listing of stats. I believe it somewhat telling that not all years are covered and most don't have their own independent articles, merely being self-referential redirects like 2002–03 in Scottish football#Cup honours and 2004–05 in Scottish football#Cup honours. I think it's necessary to see if the editorial community sees any notability here. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 02:16, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 02:16, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:42, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For context, it may be worth mentioning that this is not a competition in "junior sports" in the sense of age, but a competition between teams under the auspices of the Scottish Junior Football Association. (Anyone expecting fresh-faced youngsters would be surprised by the greying and receding hair at a typical Junior match.) The Junior Cup Final has been broadcast live on BBC Scotland/Alba for many years, as presumably was the Kilwinning v Kelty final in the year in question. AllyD (talk) 08:35, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @AllyD: - yes, it does seem to have been shown on TV, bits of it are on YouTube -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:57, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:48, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:48, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 10:02, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's the Scottish equivalent of the FA Trophy? FA Vase? A newspapers.com search brings up 12,000 results for "Scottish Junior Cup" but then stops at 1899, an internet search brings up coverage, especially of the final, but not of this particular season. I don't want to make a must be sources argument, but I think it's very likely salvageable if anyone has access to sources from that era. SportingFlyer T·C 10:09, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- National press coverage of the final added to the article, will look for more later....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:16, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a notable competition which attracts national press coverage (and there have been books published on its history), I don't see an issue with having articles on individual seasons, although as noted above it does of course need finishing. Noting again that "junior" in the title does not indicate that this is a children's competition, it is a term specific to Scotland for adult men's football below the professional level -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:46, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ChrisTheDude's improvement and argument, and my comment above, which has now been resolved. SportingFlyer T·C 12:50, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Chris Spiderone 13:16, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The final was covered on STV as were many others. The Juniors get lots of coverage in the newspapers so the chances of this edition of the cup receiving little media attention is miniscule. Dougal18 (talk) 13:29, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Chris and above. Giant Snowman 14:29, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as noted above this is a major, well-known competition in Scotland. As noted "junior" has nothing to do with age and these matches, particularly in the latter stages, attract significant press interest. My memory is that all the finals in the 1990s were televised across Scotland. The competition has a long history which has been covered in various books and I certainly would not be opposed to more coverage of its individual seasons. Dunarc (talk) 20:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ChrisTheDude's improvements. — Toughpigs (talk) 20:54, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Purdue University#Academics. All are welcome to discuss potential splits and sources on the parent institution's talk page. czar 02:27, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Purdue University College of Veterinary Medicine[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to be independently notable (notability is not inherited from the parent institution) ElKevbo (talk) 01:31, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related articles for the same reason:

ElKevbo (talk) 01:37, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all as they are valid splits from the main article Purdue University which is too large to house all this information so negating the possibility of a merge. These split articles do not have to be independently notable from the main article which is obviously notable, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If there aren't sufficient sources to establish that the subjects are notable then they shouldn't have their own article regardless of the size of the university's article. Notability is not inherited and we don't make exceptions to WP:GNG for constituent units of otherwise notable institutions. ElKevbo (talk) 01:43, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would say they are notable in conjunction with the university and that notability is not inherited does not apply to splits from a main article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:49, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Our information page about "article splitting" explicitly says that splitting should be done "only if the new articles are themselves sufficiently notable to be included in the encyclopedia." ElKevbo (talk) 05:35, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:28, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:28, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:28, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remerge all Looking at hte actual articles, they are so short (generally 3 rathe brief paragraphs), that they'd fit very nicely into the main article. DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Remerge all but the College of Veterinary Medicine, I have long felt that most of these sort of articles on bureaucratic subdivisions of undergraduate colleges are useless. Vet schools are graduate level. Abductive (reasoning) 21:35, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't aware that "graduate level" schools are inherently notable or exempt from WP:GNG. Where is that documented? ElKevbo (talk) 05:32, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Remerge all. None of these articles, as they currently stand, are based on significant coverage from independent sources, and for the most part all the references are to Purdue itself. As such, these pages are essentially promotional in nature and they don't warrant to be split from the main article, regardless of their length. I see no difference between undergraduate and graduate bureacratic subdivisions in this regard. If there is some substantive coverage of the veterinary college by independent sources, then that page could be kept. But at the moment that article has 7 sources, of which 5 are to Purdue itself, one is a school ranking list, and only one [40], a rather brief report about the name change from "school" to "college", would seem to qualify as an independent WP:RS substantive source. That's not enough to justify a stand-alone article. Nsk92 (talk) 11:00, 2 November 2020 (UTC) [reply]
weak keep Not a ton of sources--searching is actually quite hard because this topic shows up *so* much in non-independent news. But yes, it seems like a reasonable breakout article and there are sources like [41]. Hobit (talk) 21:01, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm skeptical that there are independent sources that provide significant coverage of these subjects. I think the onus is on those who believe that such sources do exist - and, of course, the easiest way to do that is to explicitly name those sources. (I'm not picking on these specific colleges or Purdue; this is the case for most colleges, departments, and offices at U.S. universities.) ElKevbo (talk) 05:32, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Souman Bose[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Checking the 2 pages of Google News hits for this subject, I find nothing of substance about the subject. All passing mentions. I even searched Google News using the Indic script of the subject's name found in the article (সৌমন বোস) and got zero hits. This is potentially the best reference in the article, but it doesn't tell us anything about Bose, and I'm not sure ebela.in is even considered a reliable source.

The article has been around for five years, largely maintained by editor Asiljohn, who has virtually no editing interests beyond Souman Bose. The article also contains inappropriately drooling tone found in the article: unsubstantiated claims of critical and audience acclaim, rave reviews, etc. This is all consistent with promotional/vanity article creation and maintenance, and likely COI. This was the edit that got me looking deeper, (as I was investigating mxplayer.in spam) and you can see it lavishes more unfounded praise on the subject, and when I challenged the content and flagged the article for cleanup, Asiljohn sprung into action, restored the content, deleted the template and called me a sockpuppet. Twice. Lol. The article was previously nominated for deletion, with the result being deletion. Asiljohn recreated the article a few months after it was pulled.

Anyhow, it's been a good run, but it's time to pull the plug on this non-notable vanity article subject. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MILL and WP:SIGCOV. Cinematographers and film producers tend to be run of the mill. There's too little coverage online to make a decent bio. This was deleted five years ago. Please ping me if you find more coverage. Bearian (talk) 20:34, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ he fails notability as a cinematographer but I'm not so sure as an actor. He receives more than passing mentions in several articles although their status as reliable sources is unclear. This might be a question again of WP:TOOSOON as he seems to have gotten more attention in the last two or three years. Curiocurio (talk) 15:33, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble seeing the "more than passing mentions" of which you speak, that also satisfy the other requirements of the GNG, reliability and independence. Here are my opinions on the various sources:

Extended content

This is a blog, so it doesn't count, per WP:UGC.
This is a slideshow.
This is a non-independent press release advertising the network's own show.
This is ebela.in. Not sure if it would be considered reliable, but this speaks more about one of Bose's films.
This is a press release.
This is a very brief interview, i.e. not independent.
This is a passing mention. "...Subholina Sen, who plays a Christian girl, Ana Marlo, in Souman Bose’s film Kash (Puff)."
This is a blog, so it doesn't count.
This is a blog.
~~This doesn't mention Bose.~~ I was incorrect, this does does mention him, and does talk very briefly about the subject's popularity. But does it qualify as in-depth?
This is an interview of a film director, who says, "Souman Bose plays Souvik". Passing mention. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:38, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is a film review. The total mention of Bose: "Souman Bose as Sayantika’s friend and colleague pulls it off well."
This is a blog.
I've never heard of this outlet, and have a good deal of familiarity with Indian entertainment articles. The totality of their independent coverage is (Google translated) "Souman is a newcomer to the world of acting However, if you watch his performance, you will not feel a drop, this is the first time he has come in front of the camera"
This is ebela.in again. Totality: "Souman Bose's sharp acting and Payal Dev's spontaneous simplicity keep the viewer's eyes and mind on the screen, not moving."
This is a streaming site. Does not provide any information about Bose.
This is ebela.in again. It looks like a press release to me. Contains large interview chunks from Bose and doesn't feel independent.
This is a passing mention. "Souman Bose and Poulomi Das will be seen in pivotal roles."
This feels like an interview-slash-press-release.

Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:38, 24 October 2020 (UTC) Made a change to above, I struck through an incorrect statement that a source didn't mention Bose. I did a page search for "Bose", but the Google Translator had converted his name to Basu. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:52, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to agree with Cyphoidbomb's thorough analysis above. Therefore, delete. Curiocurio (talk) 23:08, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what @cyphoidbomb meant by "This doesn't mention Bose" when the article revolves around Bose. Also it mentions his native name সৌমন , which @cyphoidbomb was quick to find out while bashing this article in the very first place stating that he tried to search for sources citing the subject's name but could hardly find any "reliable source". If Indian Express isn't a reliable source, then I am not sure what is. On another full pledged article about Bose's journey from being an experimental underground filmmaker to being able to bring his experimental films into the mainstream has been called off as a mere "interview".This feels like an interview These should be looked at from a more objective point of view instead, in my humble opinion.Deletion of this article would not cause me any harm. Neither am I attached to it because I put my time into creating and updating it alongside some very fine fellow users. But deleting this article would simply mean less people would get to be aware of people like Bose who despite having a respectable body of work and an inspiring journey stay away from the limelight.Also,dear @cyphoidbomb , my intention to post this on the subject's article deletion discussion page isn't to "sway" or challenge anybody as you asked me to do on the talk page. I simply am trying to see this beyond false sense pride or any futile ownership. Thank You. Regards, Asiljohn —Preceding undated comment added 22:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've appended the list to acknowledge my error. The "This doesn't mention Bose" statement was the result of doing a CTRL-F search for "Bose", which was not successful, as Google Translate had converted his name to "Basu". I still don't consider the text about him to be in-depth, but perhaps others might.
In this version of the article, the name present in the infobox is সৌমন বোস. When doing a Google News search for this string, there were no hits. Now I find one search result, with a link that I've addressed in the collapsed box above. So if you have an issue with my ability to search, take it up with whomever added that name to the infobox.

Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:03, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:NACTOR, mainly he has not been in or involved with any major movies or TV shows/series. If he is not in Indian Wiki, someone should add him there, but as a worldwide actorehis insignificant. Expertwikiguy (talk) 06:29, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyphoidbomb বোস is commonly referred to as "Basu" as well, as a mark of respect or a formal way of addressing the surname Bose in Bengali; Bose's native language. @Expertwikiguy Not doing an English show, doesn't mean that Bose hasn't been part of 'major shows' or films.He has done shows for reputed platforms like Amazon, Zee and such which have been critically acclaimed and popular as well. I'm not sure if this is counted as a 'blog' or a proper source, but on the list of 31 most popular shows from around the world on MX Player, it mentions one of Bose's shows as well. [42] There are numerous other examples as well but I am not getting into that, lest I am accused of "drooling" about the subject. There are plenty of articles on Wikipedia which don't deserve to even have a Wikipedia page, but still continue to thrive and misguide it's readers using poorly cited vanity sources. Such as this one Tridha Choudhury It would be nice, if you turned your attention to these articles instead. Also, if Bose's article needs to be deleted, then it should be deleted soon, instead of marking it with a deletion template for so long. If not,then the template should be removed soon enough. Regards,Asiljohn —Preceding undated comment added 18:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"It would be nice, if you turned your attention to these articles instead." The existence of problems elsewhere at Wikipedia does not mean that we stop scrutinising one article to address those other issues. If we did, nothing would ever get done, since there are always problems somewhere else. If that Choudhury article is so troubling to you, nobody's preventing you from fixing it. You've made no contributions outside of the scope of Souman Bose, yet you're telling people where they should be focussing their attention? C'mon. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:04, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is precisely my point.What is bothering me is hoax articles exist and nothing is being done about them. But an article that has much reason to exist is undergoing so much of scrutiny.I am merely pointing at the irony of it all.Also, I have edited or suggested changes to other articles as well & will intend to create or add justifiable info to more articles in the recent future, hopefully. But my intent isn't to "pull the plug" on existing articles. I intend to create novel articles on subjects that deserve a place on Wikipedia. Hope,I have been able to elucidate better.Cheers. Also, I would like to hear from you and the others, why is the deletion template on Bose's article not been reconsidered after I have provided more than ample sources to counter the prior apprehensions regarding the existence of the subject and also clearly pointed out how "This article doesn't mention Bose" was such an inapt allegation. Despite all this, if the article needs to be deleted, then it should happen immediately. Asiljohn —Preceding undated comment added 22:48, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"That is precisely my point." No, my response was the exact opposite of your point: This isn't the place to discuss other problematic articles, nor is the existence of problematic articles a legitimate counter-argument to justify this article to exist. As for the rest of your comment, the community does quite a deal to identify and remove hoax articles, so your oversimplified complaint that nothing is being done about hoax articles is totally unfounded and ignorant. As for the deletion nomination template, it always remains atop the article until a deletion discussion resolves one way or another, and that usually lasts 7 or more days, depending on participation. Lastly, please sign your posts with four tildes like ~~~~ This will append a signature and time stamp like this → Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:39, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh! It seems like a futile argument. No one was 'oversimplifying' anything. An example of a hoax article was to merely state that there are articles aplenty that are not being dealt with & it seems like a deletion template was added to this article just because you were called a sockpuppet and your previous template was removed.I thought that miscommunication was sorted on the talk page. But clearly not. I am well aware of the fact that once a deletion template is added to an article, it is usually deleted within 7 days and it's been well over 7 days but no conclusion has been reached. That is what was implied. Also, I understand the article may also be relisted. Nevertheless, I don't think this debate is going anywhere. Whatever I could contribute to prove the 'worthiness' of this article, I already have. Anyone seeing this from a neutral point of view would concur/agree. I am done here because I think it is now becoming counter productive to debate about the existence of this article as you are refusing to accept or understand things that are quite self explanatory. Therefore, I rest my case. May you & the other experienced users handle the fate of this article and decide if it deserves to exist or not. ThanksAsiljohn (talk) 15:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:23, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this doesn't meet the usual requirements for the field. We probably have tens of thousands of equally weak older articles in this area that need to be treated similarly. The least wecan do is not add more of them. DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charles E. O. Carter[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability.One ref is unreliable and the other is an own web-site. Searches reveal other Charles Carters but nothing of any note for this individual. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 00:42, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE: no independent coverage. The Ace in Spades (talk) 01:34, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 00:42, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:46, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to the level of coverage we would need to show an astrologer was notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:17, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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