Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 November 27

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< November 26	November 28 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 01:55, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Satya Aditya Waiba[edit]

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

Seems to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. She produced few songs in collaboration with hiser sister and sources are all about release of their songs. I could not locate in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 18:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 18:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 18:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

WP:GNG-If the producer has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the producer, it is presumed that the producer is suitable for a stand-alone article or list.
Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.
WP:ANYBIO- The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field.
And the subject is 'he' not 'she! The very fact that the 'deletion nominator' has presumed the subject to be a female proves how shallow his/her research on the subject is. Despite the following publications readily available clearly stating the gender and contribution of the subject. I am citing English publications only for the benefit for my fellow editors, Nepali publications are numerous too. Unfortunately, there aren't just enough English publications in Nepal nor the Nepali diaspora big enough to sustain such publications in other countries.

Thank You--Tabletop123 (talk) 20:41, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tabletop123: If I've mistakenly addressed him as her, it does not mean that I have not done the research well. Now lets get back to the point, as I've clearly stated above that the sources cited in the article do not have in-depth significant coverage and the ones you posted above are mere mentions in passing and do not add up to SIGCOV and it fails WP:GNG. He is the son of a famous folk singer. However, notability is not inherited by a relationship to notable people and there should be enough independent, non trivial coverage to have a standalone article.

You stated it meets WP:BIO, could you explain how? All i can see is his elder sister re-recorded an album consisting of seven songs, originally sung by her mother, which the subject has produced and there is some coverage concerning release of the album.

If you believe he's got more coverage in Nepali language newspapers, post them below, and I or someone else will analyze them.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 10:27, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pamzeis (talk) 05:15, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~- Subject received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the producer.1 2 Tabletop123 (talk) 09:43, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tabletop123: You can't vote more than once, please remove one of them. And the sources you pointed to above are the same ones and I have already explained above as to why these sources do not demonstrate notability.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 11:32, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The process here is not a 'vote'. One can voice his/her opinion as many times as willing.Tabletop123 (talk) 19:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tabletop123 while you can make multiple comments you should only make 1 formal (bolded) "not vote". Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:34, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:33, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Music producers haven't given much credit in Wikipedia, especially from the Nepali music industry. Subject has been covered impartially. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Tabletop123 (talk) 18:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Under the most charitable interpretation of these sources possible, these are mere passing mentions. Every single article presented so far is actually about this person's relatives -- their mother or sister. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED and notability requires WP:SIGCOV, which these references do not demonstrate. The other arguments for keep amount to WP:ITSIMPORTANT or WP:ILIKEIT. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

Subject has been covered in reliable sources with editorial integrity independent of the subject and has verifiable evidence.
Has received attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability.
Subject’s work is encyclopaedic and knowledge about this subject is useful and it has a realistic potential for expansion.
Mentions of subject is true, verifiable and neutral point of view.

Tabletop123 (talk) 18:57, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tabletop123:, the points above have already been made twice before and making them multiple times does not mean that the editor who closes this discussion will weigh them more heavily. In point of fact, it often results in exactly the opposite effect. The one vital point of notability that you gloss over in the above, however, is significant coverage. Multiple passing mentions are still passing mentions. Every source presented is not about this subject, but about their relatives. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:04, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Without the producer (subject), this music genre wouldn't exist. Thanks.Tabletop123 (talk) 22:34, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: In my opinion, this is leaning towards being deleted, but there have only been 3 editors who have contributed to this discussion. I'd like to see if giving it one more week can solicit opinions from other editors to form a clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | [confer] || 23:52, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough in relisting. Having said that there are various and non-partial evidence of the subject and his work being encyclopedic. I would lean towards keep. Remember, Nepal does not have as many media houses, print or otherwise as other more developed or populous countries, nor are Nepali music producers ever covered. It's only always the singer who is covered or written about. The subject would be the first Nepali music producer listed in Wiki if the article is approved and rightly so.--Tabletop123 (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As you have been told before, posting multiple times with bolded !votes is not acceptable behavior in an AfD. Please, for the love of sanity, ready, understand, and follow WP:BLUDGEON. This is coming very close to WP:DISRUPT. Also, at the risk of stating the obvious, this is the English language Wikipedia, not the most important Wikipedia. There is a Nepali-language Wikipedia and a Nepali subject may be better covered there. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:24, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you are getting a bit personal with your choice of words aren't you? The first time you did it I passed it as a free one. Do I also detect a hint of prejudice and almost a suggestion that Nepali articles are not good enough for English wiki? Steer clear of such intentions.--Tabletop123 (talk) 08:20, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT. Promotion of a subject who is not yet notable. Eric Carr (talk) 18:00, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject has not attained independent notability. I can't find anything other than contributions on one album with his sister three years ago. Harland Q Pitt 05:48, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it seems to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. , No evidence of Notability on the few sources , Samat lib (talk) 22:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It needs more significant sources.--Blurz (talk) 00:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Missvain (talk) 01:56, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stella Rigon[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG since the coverage is trivial, played lots of amateur football and the pinnacle of her career was playing 9 games in a non-fully-professional league not listed at WP:FPL, failing WP:NFOOTBALL. Geschichte (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 17:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~Keep - I'm not sure that this one is a straight forward GNG fail. There is some in-depth coverage in the sources linked in the article although the one that looks like it might be the best is hidden behind a paywall. Is anyone able to access this and confirm if it contains in-depth coverage? I also found this which is more than just a trivial mention. Spiderone 19:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Number 5 7 20:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. Further, the W-League is the top women's league in Australia for those new to the subject. The vast majority of top women's leagues around the world are excluded from the WP:FPL essay. A look at the contribution history will indicate why that is. See also WP:SPORTCRIT. Hmlarson (talk) 22:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thousands of men's top league players are excluded as well. This is not an argument to keep. Geschichte (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You keep saying this, but you have yet to provide an argument based in policy that supports this supposed exception. WP:NFOOTY details notability for footballers, and part of that criteria is playing in a fully-professional league. I see no exemption for women footballers. If the policy exists, it has not yet been provided. Nothing in WP:SPORTCRIT is any more relevant here than WP:GNG. Jay eyem (talk) 16:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to meet you, Jay. N:FOOTY and its essay N:FPL fail the vast majority of top women's football leagues around the world and is not reliable. See also WP:WOSO. We're always looking for more editors to actually contribute to the articles, not mass delete them. Hmlarson (talk) 23:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you need to take this up at WT:NSPORT instead of making assertions without a basis in policy. You have yet to demonstrate that women's football is granted an exception beyond "because it is" as an argument. Take this conversation to a more appropriate venue. Jay eyem (talk) 02:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Been there; done that - but I suppose it's been a few years. See also WP:WOSO. Hmlarson (talk)

Keep Passes WP:GNG with around 40 articles on a simple Google News search and per articles mentioned above by Spiderone. Article itself is also more fleshed out and better referenced than quite a few one-line stubs on footballers who scrape by WP:NFOOTY. --SuperJew (talk) 16:38, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. The adelaidenow articles are about a round table discussion and the Football Federation SA’s Celebration of Women’s Sport not Ripon. Dougal18 (talk) 17:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Although the player fails WP:NFOOTY, they appear to pass WP:GNG through this and this (and possibly another behind a paywall). I have my concerns about The Advertiser as a source, but the consensus seems to be that it is reliable for sports news. I would say that this scrapes by on significant coverage. Jay eyem (talk) 16:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - can you please give up on your hobby horse about The Advertiser? For news article it is a reliable source. Deus et lex (talk) 12:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is a tabloid, and tabloid journalism is generally not reliable. There's a reason why so many of the tabloids discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources are considered unreliable. If you're really that concerned about this topic of conversation, take it elsewhere. Jay eyem (talk) 18:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not going to "take it elsewhere" because you're trying to justify it as a means for not a full support for keeping this particular article and it's an argument that is a complete nonsense. As I have already told you elsewhere, a tabloid in Australia is different from a tabloid elsewhere - the Advertiser is not the equivalent of the Daily Mail or something like that. It is South Australia's main newspaper and has generally not had concerns raised about its reliability other than in relation to the concerns generally about News Corp, and those relate generally to political issues (and things like climate change, etc.) Sports articles do not fall in that category. Deus et lex (talk) 23:55, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Which is precisely why I said that "the consensus seems to be that it is reliable for sports news". I did some research on the publication and, yes, it is akin to the Daily Mail. But again, this is NOT the place to discuss this. If you seriously have issues with this, you need to take it to another venue, because a deletion article for a footballer with nine appearances is NOT the place for it. Jay eyem (talk) 16:38, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm going to call you out on your claim of "research", again, it is nonsense. The Advertiser is NOT akin to the Daily Mail, it's a State-based paper with a long history. The fact you make baseless statements like that shows that you know nothing about the source or the article. Please stop making such nonsense claims. Deus et lex (talk) 06:35, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        It is well time for you to drop the stick and take this conversation elsewhere. Jay eyem (talk) 08:07, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm entitled to call out ridiculous arguments like the one you are raising. It should not be relied on as a means for deletion and you know it. That's all I'm saying. And you can't just tell people to take arguments elsewhere (I'm not the only one you have said that to) when you don't agree with something. Deus et lex (talk) 12:13, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        @Jay eyem: If you don't want people commenting on your thoughts on the status of The Advertiser and you don't think they are relevant to the deletion discussion, you shouldn't have mentioned it in the first place :) --SuperJew (talk) 21:55, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        BIG difference between one comment and four of, essentially, the exact same response. That is the definition of WP:BADGER. I have opened up a discussion at WP:RS/N to discuss the source further. This entire conversation has absolutely nothing to do with the AfD at hand, and should have taken place in its entirety elsewhere. Jay eyem (talk) 22:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I am also not obligated to answer you. I have started the conversation at WP:RS/N so if you still feel so compelled to continue the conversation, do it there and not here. Jay eyem (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank you for listing the conversation at WP:RS/N. Deus et lex (talk) 02:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looks like there might be some coverage, but claims to GNG which are behind pay walls without any clarity on what they might contain and a gnews search aren't really good enough. No clear consensus though so needs .ore discussion on what the sources noted actually say to support gng.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 23:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Fenix down, isn't your role to assess consensus, not comment on what you think is or isn't notable? Deus et lex (talk) 06:35, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its to assess the strength of arguments. I haven't made any comments on whether or not the subject is notable or not. What I have done is note a lack of consensus, acknowledge an attempt by editors to show sources but highlight weaknesses in the positioning of their arguments which makes it difficult (and in the instances where sources are behind payrolls and presented without any summary of their contents, impossible) to adequately assess the strength of those arguments and therefore to accurately assess consensus one way or the other as it develops. Fenix down (talk) 09:24, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Fenix down, appreciate the clarification. Deus et lex (talk) 02:25, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fenix down - I notice you don't do much commenting at all on any of the women's football AFDs anymore and seem to focus on closing them -- sometimes even when the consensus is not clear per WP:CLOSEAFD. Hope we don't see that again here. Hmlarson (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if Fenix down is after what is in the paywalled article in the Advertiser, the article Jay eyem links to above is a comprehensive and lengthy article that is only about Stella Rigon (it is not just a casual mention in an article on a game or something like that, nor is it a press release or anything like that). That article also indicates that she was the captain of Adelaide United, something which the article does not currently say. In my mind both of those things strengthens a claim to notability. Deus et lex (talk) 12:31, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, would be best if someone else closes now i have made comments outside of the relist template. Feels like a keep to me given what people are saying about the articles behind the paywall. Fenix down (talk) 21:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep WP:GNG is met here - the Adelaide newspaper is printed in tabloid format, like most newspapers in Australia - it doesn't mean it's not a reliable source as Adelaide's local daily newspaper for most things. Probably would be best if someone other than Fenix down closed this now, too, per their marginal involvement. SportingFlyer T·C 13:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep border line this one.... yes she fails WP:NFOOTY but I think she has just enough coverage for WP:GNG. KylieTastic (talk) 17:44, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I hadn't actually given a !vote until now. For the reasons, the paywalled content and other sources provided shows there is substantial independent coverage that meets GNG. Deus et lex (talk) 02:44, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG through fails WP:NFOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:25, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Narrowly satisfies WP:GNG, but satisfies it nonetheless. Elms^super 05:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Missvain (talk) 02:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Festival Singers of Atlanta[edit]

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

No indication of notability. A7 was declined awhile back because singing at festivals is apparently a claim to significance. Zero independent sources located on a search. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:15, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:15, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:15, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:15, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn’t find anything either. Mccapra (talk) 03:23, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after verification search on google , i couldnt find any Wikipedia independent relieble sources Samat lib (talk) 08:58, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing even close to being a reliable source. Not every group of people who get together and sing for an audience are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 16:59, 30 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 delete as a recreation. The content is effectively the same, I'll also protect this from being recreated prior to it passing NFF. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Luca (2021 film)[edit]

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

Not enough coverage for a standalone article yet, per WP:NFF. Topic already has a working draft at Draft:Luca (2021 film) BOVINEBOY2008 23:08, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn’t this technically pass as a Speedy Delete since it is just a recreation of an article deleted per an AfD? Foxnpichu (talk) 23:32, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:03, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:03, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; lack of coverage; if it is almost exactly the same as the previous incarnation then please speedy delete and maybe even SALT for now Spiderone 09:05, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- For note, I have tried speedying recreations of drafts in the past and they are almost always declined and taken to AfD. I just took out the middle man this time. I imagine if this snows that we can close early. BOVINEBOY2008 11:06, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I think people have worked out that it's a bit of a loophole in the system unfortunately. Spiderone 16:18, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFF, just a case of WP:TOOSOON. KylieTastic (talk) 17:47, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Speedy Delete - The production of this film is still not notable, and it looks about the same as it did the last time. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:34, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's effectively the same, so I'm going to speedy and close this. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Missvain (talk) 01:56, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sound Credit[edit]

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

not yet notable , and primarily a catalog entry DGG ( talk ) 22:35, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:00, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:00, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We should Keep — reviewed references for notability and entry is clearly notable with coverage on television, in magazines and blogs, with 25 references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DMWare (talk • contribs) 03:31, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' There are not 25 reliable sources. I don't think there's a single one
Ref 1 2, 3, 12 ,13, 14, 15, 16 was written by the president of the company, the firm , or industry partners or based upon press releases from them.
Ref 4. is a mention in lists of various tools for the same purpose, withthe blurb for each written by the company
Ref 5 does not work, 21 I cannot see
Ref 6 is a very brief review in a trade publciation
Ref 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 17 , 19 are interviews where the founder or designer says whatever he wants to.
Ref 9 , 14 , 18, 26 are general articles which mention the company or inclusion in a a listing of companies funded by a start-up investment fund. or inclusion in a list
Ref 25 is an advertisement inserted in an article, DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' the article has No significant coverege on independent relieble sources , Samat lib (talk) 08:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' No Evidence of Notability Samat lib (talk) 08:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The sources for this entry include:

Please review these for determining source reliability and/or significance — they really are high-integrity sources. In addition, please consider the following:

The TapeOp article was a cover feature, meaning that Sound Credit was on the front cover of a magazine at physical bookstores last year. I also note that the interview appears to have been conducted by the magazine's founder himself, rather than a staff writer.

For the 7 references that contain interviews or quotes from the company, this would seem to contribute to notability rather than take away from it. Wikipedia:Interviews says:

"An independent interviewer represents the "world at large" giving attention to the subject, and as such, interviews as a whole contribute to the basic concept of notability."

Wikipedia:Interviews

The prior comment references 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 17 and 19 as interviews, however only 11 is an interview. The others are full, lengthy editorials with some that contain quotes from an interview portion of the editorial. Please read the Memphis Flyer editorials for 7 and 17. Also, see the editorial for #10 which was on the cover of the print version of that magazine.

I truly think DGG is an amazing Wikipedia editor, however I think he simply missed the "Read More" button below the tutorial video when he commented that #25, the GRAMMY.com article, was just an ad. Super-easy to miss those Read More buttons, especially when you're doing as much great work on Wikipedia as DGG. The impact there was that there was a GRAMMY event that featured Sound Credit that was discussed in the article. In fact there were two such events referenced in this entry. This isn't typical stuff, and demonstrates high notability, especially for music software.

For the comment about 9, 14 and 18 (26 was listed but there is no 26), these actually do have some pretty big significance — 18 for instance is showing that Jeff Bezos is one of the funders of the Revolution Fund that is backing the company in this entry. While it is a list of those investments, the list is a very notable list of companies.

Front-covers on book store magazine shelves, two GRAMMY events, backing from the richest person in the world — the entry far exceeds the majority of Wikipedia entries for music software for notability, countless deserving entries would need to be deleted if this doesn't meet the bar.

In light of this additional clarity, info, and the major edits based on this discussion, I would like to invite reconsideration of the AfD nomination itself. For anyone that is not familiar with the music industry, some of these sources could seem small, but I think if you further review the links above, you'll see that these represent connection, interviews, coverage, and events with some of the largest entities in music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DMWare (talk • contribs) 20:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Additionally, I have prepared the WP:COMPANY recommended table analysis for all references. .

Source	Significant?	Independent?	Reliable?	Secondary?	Pass/Fail	Notes
1. Avid Technology	Y	N	N	Y	N	Guest post
2. SC Blog	Y	N	N	N	N	Company's blog post
3. ISNI	Y	N	N	N	N	Blog posts are often sponsored and self-published sources are generally not reliable
4. DDEX	N	Y	Y	N	N	Appears more as a primary source
5. Music 3.0	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Draws from other primary sources
6. Pro Tools Expert	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Well established, strong on significance
7. Memphis Flyer	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Print magazine coverage
8. Mix (magazine) (Print and Online)	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Clearly secondary
9. Pitchfork	N	Y	Y	Y	N	Coverage is brief
10. Memphis Business	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Contains some interview quotes but also author's own interpretation and synthesis
11. TapeOp	Y	N	Y	Y	N	Notability according to Wikipedia:Interviews but not WP:COMPANY
12. MusicWeek (print and online)	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Music Week has been around since 1959 as an established secondary source
13. PPL	Y	Y	Y	N	N	This seems more like a primary source than secondary
14. Musically	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Short, but the full focus is on the subject, meets significance requirements.
15. Digital Music News	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Long established and appears on Wikipedia
16. Warner Music Group	Y	Y	Y	N	N	Appears more as a primary source
17. Memphis Flyer	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Print magazine coverage
18. Revolution LLC	Y	Y	Y	N	N	Appears more as a primary source
19. WMC-TV	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Television coverage with associated post
20. StartCo	N	Y	Y	N	N	Brief coverage, appears more as a primary source
21. 60 Minutes	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Founder appeared in famous 60 Minutes placard in episode intro
22. TEC Awards	N	Y	Y	N	N	TEC Awards press release of official nominees
23. Sonicscoop	N	Y	Y	Y	N	Brief, used to support a specific point
24. Recording Academy	Y	Y	Y	N	N	Appears more as a primary source, supporting a specific point
25. Recording Academy 2	Y	Y	Y	N	N	Appears more as a primary source, supporting a specific point
Total qualifying sources					11	There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements

Keep — plenty of references with significant coverage from reliable independent sources including Music Week, Phonographic Performance Limited, and Warner Music clearly show general and subject notability. Interviews seem fine by Wikipedia:Interviews recommendations. Rise of the Rest award and TEC nomination at least supplement the other sources for displaying notability, the latter saying at the source "final nominees are those products and projects that, in the opinion of the nominating panel, represent superior accomplishment in their respective fields". The article concisely represents the references in a style befitting the subject matter. -Nooneofnote (talk) 17:33, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Chiming in here after seeing this in one of the alerts I set up for things I follow. I was the original author of the Memphis Flyer references and I can personally attest to their significance, reliability and independence. They were not paid articles and the Memphis Flyer is long established with a reputation for independence and journalistic integrity. I investigated these two stories, which alone put it over the general inclusion threshold, they are secondary sources, and this company is more than notable — these folks made history, which is why I chose to cover them. The thoroughness of this process is appreciated, however in the end, this one is a "keep". Nebraskahistory (talk) 22:54, 3 December 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nebraskahistory (talk • contribs) 22:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was : Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. 4thfile4thrank (talk) 00:23, 29 November 2020 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Richard E. Bjork[edit]

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

Educator does not meet notability guidelines, with no reliable sources found. Tinton5 (talk) 22:20, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:27, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:27, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:27, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The subject of the article served as the President of two of New Jersey's public colleges, for one of which he was the first president and responsible for the site selection and design of the school. The library at the University now bears his name. In addition, he was the Vice Chancellor of the New Jersey Board of Higher Education, as well as the Chancellor of Vermont State College. Even clicking on the links included above brings up several items. The Scholar link above reveals several scholarly articles written by Richard E. Bjork on education in New Jersey. The Book link produces several books which talk about Richard E. Bjork's role in the inception of Stockton College. The News link comes back with several results on the dedication of the library and Richard E. Bjork's role at Stockton, covered by The Atlantic City Press, The Courier Post, and The Cape May County Herald, all major news outlets in the state of New Jersey. The article certainly could be improved upon, and considering that the subject died in 1984, a search of newspaper archives or the papers he has housed at his namesake library will greatly help to expand upon the article, but as a starting point, he absolutely meets the criteria for notability. Harland Q Pitt 00:57, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per meeting WP:PROF as explained above. Bjork was president of Stockton University. TJMSmith (talk) 01:23, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, even aside from Stockton University, being an interim president would also qualify.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:09, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per meeting WP:PROF as explained above. Bjork was former president of Stockton University.Eric Carr (talk) 20:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 01:57, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2 Ekre[edit]

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

Non-notable film, not enough significant coverage to meet WP:GNG, only coverage is entries in databases BOVINEBOY2008 21:21, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:29, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:29, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unless any reliable Tulu-language sources are found, the film is not likely to be notable. -- Ab207 (talk) 13:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete SALT per nom; technically only has one source Eric Carr (talk) 20:29, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not seem to meet WP:N Jeepday (talk) 19:19, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Missvain (talk) 02:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deribb[edit]

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

Already deleted once last month at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deribb, and should be salted this time. This version of the article has eight sources and seven of them have the exact same text, starting with "Fast-rising artiste" and then introducing the song "Where" a few lines later. (The eighth source is behind a paywall.) Every single one of those sources are reprints of the same press release from the singer's management, and no reliable media outlet would reprint from a different outlet while using unsubstantiated puffery. Nothing else can be found on the singer except the usual retail and streaming sites. An obvious and pretty desperate attempt at promotion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note - This version of the article may have originated from a previous duplicate article that was called Deribigbe Benson (the singer's birth name), and revamped after the first AfD. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:20, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT per nom; technically only has one source Spiderone 21:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT. Promotion of a subject who is not yet notable. Mccapra (talk) 03:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT I agree with the other delete voters that this is promotional, badly sourced, and should be salted. Really, the article shouldn't have been recreated in the first place. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT. Subject who is not yet notable and is a promotional page. Eric Carr (talk) 16:45, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing demonstates that this singer is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:21, 30 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 Deleted as WP:G12 - violation of the copyright policy. — Diannaa (talk) 16:14, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy, Theory, and Practice in Biology[edit]

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

Previously deleted by PROD due to lack of indexing in selective databases, and I am afraid that is still the case, going by the list given in the article. "Following its relaunch, the journal is now pursuing inclusion in other indexes" does us no good at the current point in time. Possibly WP:TOOSOON, but not meeting WP:NJOURNAL right now. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:03, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:03, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't aware that it had been created before, so sorry about the potential WP:TOOSOON. So being listed ("The journal is also listed in EBSCO Open Access Journals, EBSCO Complementary Index, OCLC OAIster, and Ulrichsweb Global Serials Directory.") is not sufficient? FlybellFly (talk) 21:06, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding demonstrating a journal's impact on or recognition in the field, what we are looking for is listing in selective databases. The ones named are either overtly all-inclusive (e.g., Google Scholar) or make no statements about selectivity (e.g., Philosopher's Index). - Also, I see you copied the "Abstracting and Indexing" paragraph directly from the journal's website; please don't do that - it's copyrighted. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:07, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Understood! Thank you on all counts. I'm ok with the page being deleted and will not copy-and-paste text from official sites in the future. FlybellFly (talk) 00:10, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:16, 27 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 List of compositions by Robert Schumann#Symphonies. (non-admin closure) Reywas92^Talk 03:45, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of symphonies by Robert Schumann[edit]

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

Granted that he only wrote 4 (5 if you count the earlier one) symphonies, such a list is utterly useless. Making a symphony list for Haydn or Mozart (which do exist) is far more helpful since the two wrote a substantial amount of symphonies. I mean what's next, "List of symphonies by Sergei Rachmaninoff"? (3) "List of operas by Maurice Ravel"? (2) "List of piano concertos by Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky?" (3). In short, I can't see how this list could ever benefit a reader. Aza24 (talk) 21:02, 27 November 2020 (UTC) Aza24 (talk) 21:02, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Aza24 (talk) 21:02, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Aza24 (talk) 21:02, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have notified WP Classical Music Aza24 (talk) 21:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of compositions by Robert Schumann. Mccapra (talk) 21:15, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to List of compositions by Robert Schumann. Editors more knowledgeable in this area should determine what value this table adds but that's clearly where the information should go either way. postdlf (talk) 21:18, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- A redirect/merge would make sense to me as well now that I think about it... Aza24 (talk) 21:20, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Table is now merged to List_of_compositions_by_Robert_Schumann#Symphonies; I believe a speedy close is appropriate. Reywas92^Talk 23:15, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

agreed. Mccapra (talk) 03:26, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed as well. Thanks everyone for their input/action here. Aza24 (talk) 03:48, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to List of compositions by Robert Schumann. As I agree with the merge analysis of everyone else and don't otherwise see why merging or redirecting would not be a good option. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge of redirect to List of compositions by Robert Schumann. The article List of compositions by Johannes Brahms is analogous. The same kind of article List of symphonies by Johannes Brahms was created[1] and subsequently redirected/merged to List of compositions by Johannes Brahms. (In that case the incipits were not particularly useful, unlike the notes on Brahms' own arrangements for piano duet.) Mathsci (talk) 18:33, 28 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. Missvain (talk) 01:57, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Himo[edit]

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

This is a chain of jewellery shops in Lebanon/Beirut. The refs are directory listings. Having checked google news I don't think it has much/any coverage, so I don't think the topic is notable. Most of the article is discussing the foreign language origins of the word "himo". Desertarun (talk) 19:38, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:49, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:49, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG Spiderone 16:19, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG Eric Carr (talk) 20:30, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Raw branding. Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 12:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources don't demonstrate notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.Faizal batliwala (talk) 14:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT, WP:MILL, and WP:SPAM. Terribly laid out and written. Plainly a run of the mill chain of less than half a dozen shops. Based on what I can see, it's spam. Bearian (talk) 00:08, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn’t come close to meeting WP:NCORP, let alone WP:GNG. Elms^super 06:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:06, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shraddha Sonkar[edit]

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

Aside from the paid editing issues already highlighted, this also fails WP:GNG. Although this article looks well referenced, every single one of the references except this one provides only a passing mention to Sonkar. I am not convinced that the Jagran article is lengthy enough to enable Sonkar to pass GNG on its own. With further digging, I found this source but I am not convinced that the source is reliable and it also looks to be by Sonkar rather than about Sonkar. Spiderone 19:03, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:04, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:04, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:04, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:04, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:06, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. She fails WP:GNG/WP:NBIO. In particular, see WP:SPORTSPERSON. She does not seem to have received any significant coverage.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:14, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:21, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTBALL failure. Number 5 7 12:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:18, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Huddersfield and District Works and Combination League[edit]

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

PROD contested as the league is 75 years old and so doesn't qualify as a non-controversial deletion.

My rationale was a non-notable league that existed outside the English football pyramid and does not have any WP:SIGCOV. All newspaper hits seem to relate to the much more notable Huddersfield and District Association Football League. This is something that I still stand by. Spiderone 18:27, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:28, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:28, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:28, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:47, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 09:20, 28 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:07, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cedric Bolima[edit]

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

His four minutes of professional football for Rotherham give a presumption of notability under WP:NFOOTBALL but I haven't found anything to suggest he can even come close to WP:GNG. There is growing consensus - see this Wayne Stark AfD - that these sorts of articles should at least demonstrate something towards GNG. Following his very short time at Rotherham, he played for non-league clubs across Europe and Asia. He even struggled to get playing time in the Spanish 4th division.

I also found this but it's clearly written by Bolima. Sometimes these footballers gain a level of fame (or infamy) as a result of their brief careers but I'm not seeing that evidenced here. Spiderone 17:48, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:48, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:48, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:48, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 17:56, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Rotherham United F.C. players as that is the sole claim to fame, and it is a possible search term. Giant Snowman 09:19, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He fails the criteria for List of Rotherham United F.C. players so I don't a redirect is needed. Govvy (talk) 11:57, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Except, of course, the current criteria does not match standard criteria... Giant Snowman 15:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The aim is for this list to include all players that have played 100 or more senior matches. Which Bolima is no where near at! Govvy (talk) 17:10, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reasonable inclusion criteria would make Bolima notable. It is time to tighten the ludicrously broad inclusion criteria that makes Bolima notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article about footballer who played as an amateur except for one appearance in the Football League. I can't find any French- or English-language sources online that demonstrate it could meet the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 15:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kearsarge (ghost town), California. Missvain (talk) 01:57, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kearsarge, California[edit]

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

This page has a series of photos that show this to be an isolated station and water stop, not a town. I was able to find a bit of ephemera showing Citrus as an address, but that was about it. Mangoe (talk) 16:15, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:39, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:39, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Kearsarge (ghost town), California. We already have a referenced article on the former mining town. Silver seren^C 18:45, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment If this article is deleted, I would recommend moving the ghost town to its place. Merger is not called for as they are two quite different sites. Mangoe (talk) 21:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is a really odd one since the former mine is close enough but still distant. A search for "Citrus, California" was not helpful. SportingFlyer T·C 00:09, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Kearsarge (ghost town), California, no reason to have two articles. KylieTastic (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested. Bearian (talk) 00:19, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Civil War (game). czar 00:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Civil War (1988 video game)[edit]

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

This article fails WP:SIGCOV as I was unable to find ANY sources discussing this game specifically. Based on some quick searching, I do not believe this article is sufficiently notable to warrant inclusion and also I do not think there are sufficient independent reliable sources to support it. I considered merging into the article about the board game it is based on (Civil War (game), but given how little information there seems to be about the video game itself and the lack of sources, I am not sure whether that is the right call (and tend to think not). So I am nominating to generate consensus on that. DocFreeman24 (talk) 22:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was able to find a couple of sources discussing the game—they're on the talk page now. Just want to note that this game's title (it's variously called "Civil War", "The Civil War" and "The Civil War 1861–1865") is nearly unsearchable on Google because of the number of false positives. Given the three sources already located, I have little doubt that more exist, but finding them would likely require someone more knowledgeable than I am about late-1980s game magazines. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding these! These are pretty minor mentions however? Like, the first source is two sentences of discussion in a fairly obscure magazine. And, while the second has slightly more content (two columns of text), it still seems fairly brief and one-off. I'm certainly open to being persuaded otherwise, but this just doesn't seem like "significant coverage" to me. And, just for context, I think I take a pretty liberal view towards notability in the video game context. I've reviewed quite a number of pages for relatively obscure video games from the 1980s and 1990s and this game stood out as being particularly obscure. Of course, the goal is to build consensus so, if others see it differently, we keep the page. But this one just seems like a hard one to justify to me.DocFreeman24 (talk) 02:00, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment would it make more sense to merge this with the article about the board game? Balle010 (talk) 01:38, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. I definitely agree that, as a general rule, merging is preferred to deleting. However, as I mentioned above, the lack of reliable sources is a bit of an issue. The second source that JimmyBlackwing found could be sufficient, but its a close call to me.DocFreeman24 (talk) 02:00, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:55, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:29, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge does't seem like it requires an independent page. Merge this content with page Civil War (Game) makes sense.10SFan (talk) 01:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:22, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Civil War (game). While there are some sources that discuss the adaptation, they are all pretty brief, and do not appear to be enough to warrant this being split from the main article. The article on the board game already has a section discussing the adaptation, so just merging over the brief reception on it should be sufficient coverage. Rorshacma (talk) 18:13, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Civil War (game) would be the best solution.TH1980 (talk) 04:05, 29 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 19:18, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GiftstoIndia24x7[edit]

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

It looks as if all sources are actually just press releases regurgitated by websites and newspapers, and no actual independent sourcing. The "Hindustan Times" articles are not written by the Hindustan Times, the Art Daily article reappears on tons of other websites (even with earlier dates), the Yahoo News article comes from BusinessWire, the Post-Gazette one is labeled a press release, the JustDial is also a press release...

At best this needs a complete rewrite to base it on independent, reliable sources: at worst it needs deletion. Fram (talk) 15:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:39, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough significant sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blurz (talk • contribs) 00:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Lakhani[edit]

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

Being appointed as a pastor in a school is not enough achievement for an article. None of his books are popular. Walrus Ji (talk) 14:29, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:38, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:38, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:38, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being on the staff of a school, even one as notable as Eton, is not enough for default notability, and we have nothing else here that adds up to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:31, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough significant sources.--Blurz (talk) 00:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GEMS World Academy Model United Nations[edit]

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

Non-notable high school conference. Fails WP:GNG. Searches turned up literally zero in-depth references from independent sources. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:53, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:35, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:36, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GNG fail in spades; borderline hoax. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conference is very notable, ambassador is Ban Ki-Moon. Aisa2aisa3 (talk) 04:56, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of meeting WP:GNG; no matter how notable Ban Ki-moon may be, the conference does not inherit notability from him. Reads very promotionally. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Triest[edit]

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

Vincent Triest fails WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST. The references found in the article are deadlinks, and the only reference I could find online was Villa Media. You don't need to speak Dutch to see that this person is not relevant enough for this encyclopedia. Mikalagrand (talk) 13:17, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:37, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:37, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:37, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough significant sources.--Blurz (talk) 00:54, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Karan Bajaj. Merge and redirect away. Missvain (talk) 01:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Gone Down[edit]

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

Nothing notable about the book itself. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BKCRIT. The author of the novel is notorious for paid online fake reviews and silencing critics no wonder the novel has an article! Eatcha 13:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Eatcha 13:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Eatcha 13:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Eatcha 13:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Eatcha 13:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eatcha 13:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some citations are blogposts and personal websites. Eatcha 13:44, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and comment It might be the case that the citations used for the book are not the best but I oppose to deletion as there are too many sources and reviews online discussing the book in detail and this fact is easily verifiable just by typing the name of the book in google search. There ae literally tens of them. I'm also very concerned with the editor who nominated the page for deletion as I'm afraid it might be COI or bias involved here. The editor nominated the page for deletion before and after I upgraded and tried t improved I offered to bring it to this discussion for consensus. However, Eatcha personally attacked me on the Book's Talk Page also suggesting that the author of the book (Karan Bajaj) paid for all his reviews. Here is the citation of our conversation: Eatcha

"It looks like the page was significant;y cut before proposed deletion and I don't think it is the best way tp just eraze articles from Wikipedia. i think this page has been improved and deserves for at least a proper discussion instead of just disappearing. In case my upgrade of the page is not sufficient, I propose to submit a discussion deletion in more standard way and bring other editors to share their opinion.--50.209.48.53 (talk) 01:38, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

An you call adding blogposts and personal websites as citations an upgrade? LMAO. I hope that you aren't Karan. I've never met you but I'm here from CZ and I know what kinda person you are and your OP in NYC. Don't try to silence critics. And Who murdered your smart "wolf"? Eatcha 13:43, 27 November 2020 (UTC)"

First of all, I'm not Karan Bajaj and I do not have COI. Second, I didn't ry to silence anyone - I did improvement of the page and offered in the most civilized form to bring the discussion further in case of dispute. Third, based on Eatcha attack on me, I believe he might have COI or personal antipathy to the author of the book and this might prevent him from any further neutral editing and discussions. --50.209.48.53 (talk) 23:29, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey IP, If you are not Karan why are you offended? I criticized the business practices of Karan, not Karan himself. So even if you are Karan these can't be classified as "personal attacks". Let's assume I have beef with him, then what? Facts don't care about your feelings and the subject of this DR(the novel) is not notable. I'm not an admin so I can't delete the Article, I haven't made any significant edits to this article and I'm just making sure that this article gets deleted cuz the novel is not notable at all and I believe it was created by Karan or some close to him. Thanks, Eatcha 06:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely off topic and disruptive. You used the word "you" in your 'criticism', that definitely makes it a personal attack. Retswerb (talk) 06:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can keep saying that but it doesn't help anybody. -- Eatcha 05:19, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For those who don't have any clue about the Business practices, see Draft:WhiteHat_Jr#Controversies -- Eatcha 06:06, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant coverage already sourced from India Today, the Hindu, Zee News, Deccan Herald. Easily meets WP:BKCRIT criteria 1. Retswerb (talk) 06:07, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This excludes media reprints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
— Criteria 1 of WP:BKCRIT

I guess some of your stated links don't qualify for Criteria 1 -- Eatcha 06:16, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you disregard the interviews there's still plenty here. Not sure what axe you're grinding, you seem pretty committed to this cause. I'm stepping away from this one for now. Retswerb (talk) 07:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect To Karan Bajaj. What this comes down to for me is that all the "reviews" seem to from personal WordPress type blogs. Which don't meet the notability guidelines. Everything else is interviews with the author and only mention the book in passing. So, there's nothing about this that meets the notability guidelines. I'd be fine with it being in the authors articles though. It's already mentioned there anyway, but nothing about it at this point warrants a stand alone article. Plus, his could probably use the boast in references and content anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:48, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's analyze the references
URLs	Meets WP:BKCRIT?	Reason for accepting or declining
https://www.outlookindia.com/newswire/story/johnny-gone...	NO	Fails Criteria 1 of WP:BKCRIT as the author themselves is speaking about the book and openly promoting it.
https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/cover-story/story/20101004...	NO	Fails Criteria 1 of WP:BKCRIT as the article is about the author and not the novel. Kinda interview-ish.
https://www.thehindu.com/books/Drawing-from-life/article16372032.ece	NO	Fails Criteria 1 of WP:BKCRIT as it's about the author (interview-ish) and the author boasts about his novel.
https://talkingtails.wordpress.com/2010/04/26/johnny-gone-down-karan-bajaj/	NO	JOKE RIGHT? A personal wordpress website.
https://zeenews.india.com/entertainment/bookworm/between-the-lines/comparing...	NO	Article's about the author and not the novel itself. And they are themselves talking about the book. UNRELATED:zeenews == Indian Fox News always evaluates to true on any language
https://sayedkhadri.wordpress.com/2010/05/26/johnny-gone-down/	NO	YET ANOTHER PERSONAL wordpress BLOG!!!
https://web.archive.org/web/20101224222150/http://www.johnnygonedown.in/	NO	Archive of the novels website
http://books-life-n-more.blogspot.com/2010/06/johnny-gone-down.html	NO	TOO MANY BLOGS AS CITATIONS? books-life-n-more.blogspot.com is unreliable
https://aamilsyed.wordpress.com/2014/04/03/johnny-gone-down-by-karan-bajaj-a-review/	NO	BLOG
https://mumbaimirror.indiatimes.com/entertainment/bollywood/ronnie-screwala...	NO	The article is about a "Bollywood" movie that might be based on the novel. BUT it's based on the Author's interview. NOT allowed per criteria one.
http://harimohanparuvu.blogspot.com/2010/08/johnny-gone-down-karan-bajaj-book.html	NO	BLOGPOST
https://www.deccanherald.com/content/80546/fast-paced-gripping.html	YES	Review of the Novel, from Deccan Herald
http://veiledlife.blogspot.com/2014/12/johnny-gone-down-book-review.html	NO	BLOG AGAIN!!!
http://dfuse.in/books/review-johnny-gone-down/	NO	dfuse.in is not reliable.

SUMMARY :

6 blogs (3 on WordPress and 3 on google Blogspot)
1 archive of the website for the novel
1 unreliable review website
1 reliable review from Deccan Herald
5 articles on Indian mainstream media that don't pass the Criteria because they are not about the novel or are the author's interview.
Total links 14, acceptable link 1. Which is 7.1% of all the refs are reliable and the rest(~93%) are just blogs or marketing/interviews on the mainstream media.

-- Eatcha 05:14, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect into Karan Bajaj. I was the one who removed the non RS blogs and copyvio'd synopsis a couple of days ago. Just removed the synopsis again, as apart from the last line, it was copy pasted from review sites. I haven't checked the lead. The only notable thing about this book was the apparently massive PR campaign surrounding it (alluded to in almost every source, RS or not) The Deccan Herald article seems to be the only genuine RS review; you could possibly cobble something together with the interview type articles, but you would have to rewrite it completely, and even then, it wouldn't meet notability with only one decent RS. I did find this [2] not convinced its enough though. Curdle (talk) 13:22, 30 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sweety Kapoor[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:NBUSINESSPERSON, WP:ARTIST. The article has been existing since 2007, but could not find any significant coverage in any reliable sources conferring her the notability required here. Only name drops and one line interviews could be found. She seems to have collaborated with Talvin Singh, but the notability is not inherited by association. Roller26 (talk) 11:07, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 11:07, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 11:07, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 11:07, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 11:07, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 11:07, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Zero evidence of notability.Ruqayya ansari (talk) 11:37, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable individual. Melmann 14:20, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication that this person is notable per WP:GNG nor WP:CREATIVE. The article is based on namedropping, and the citations are simply mentions, or don't mention them at all. Netherzone (talk) 00:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet the notability standards to have her own article. Harland Q Pitt 23:04, 29 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 19:10, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Menu Group[edit]

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

Promotional/vanity article with no encyclopaedic content. The notability and advertising tags have been there for almost two years with no improvement, so time to put this out of its misery? Despite the valiant refbombing, none of the sources cited are RS and the coverage isn't significant, hence fails WP:GNG / WP:CORP. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:27, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:26, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:26, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:26, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:27, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:27, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - although not sure as to how this falls under the Transportation category...?. In short a corporate probably paid for puff piece about a company with odd connections to the UK, despite not operating there. Nightfury 15:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 15:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 15:34, 30 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pi (first 100000 digits)[edit]

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

Doesn't fit a speedy deletion criterion technically, but really? A data dump of 100000 digits is not an encyclopedia article. Fram (talk) 10:25, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:25, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram: IMO it fits (just barely) into A7. Seem plez 11:36, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could well be. I try to interpret these rules quite strictly, but I will not complain about any admin who deletes this as A7, A3, A1, G6, ... Fram (talk) 11:38, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm literally wiping the tears from my eyes from laughing. Possibly the greatest (non) article I've ever seen on WP! Mercy! Yes, delete as non-encyclopedic. But if kept, then moved to Pi (first 100,000 digits)... Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:21, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pi is especially notable and there are many books about it and its digits. Our main article is too large at over 150K and so there is naturally a family of related spinoffs including whimsical topics like six nines in pi. The page in question seems to be a reasonable appendix too and if people don't want to read it, they don't have to. The nomination doesn't provide a satisfactory reason to delete – just the argument to avoid of WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC. Our policies such as WP:ATD; WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE indicate that deletion is not appropriate. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:59, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't expect anyone to actually need a fully spelled out policy reason on this one, but I underestimated some people. None of your usual alphabet soup indicates why this article should be kept, and thus aren't helpful. Policy: "Encyclopedic content" is the main aspect of WP:NOT, no matter what the essay ATA says: "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject". WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE makes it clear that articles should be contextualized summaries, not data dumps. And of course WP:N: you are arguing that pi is notable, which is a "sky is blue" argument. There is nothing though that makes the first 100,000 digits especially notable and inclusion-worthy, they don't get special attention, have no mathematical value the first 90,000 or 125,000 don't share... A database dump with a nice round number is not something worth preserving on enwiki. Fram (talk) 13:18, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is a summary as pi has been calculated to 10 trillion digits. The first 100K are both manageable and notable; I have added a source which demonstrates this. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:42, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, a summary is not "taking the first 100,000 characters of something and dropping the remainder". Fram (talk) 13:54, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - The source/factoid of one person recalling the first 100k digits can go in the main Pi article. It doesn't need a stand-alone page. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:04, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this can be speedy deleted G4 as it is 99% identical to the article deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First 100000 digits of pi. Fram (talk) 13:54, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- And see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pi to One Million Digits. Redirects from such articles have also been deleted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 14#Pi to (number) places. Fram (talk) 13:58, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- And Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First 100000 digits of pi/old. Another, very old one. Fram (talk) 13:59, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I am finding good sources for the topic, despite Fram's disruption, and so reasonable time should be permitted for such work. If Fram wanted to try to speedy this they should have thought of that before opening a deletion discussion. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:21, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please either provide evidence of my disruption or retract your personal attack. Removing blatantly wrong information from the article[3] isn't disruption, though adding such information might be considered disruptive (though AGF requires us to see it as a simple mistake). Fram (talk) 14:25, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTREPOSITORY and WP:RAWDATA, with no prejudice against creating an article on the digits of pi containing information on distribution etc as unearthed by Andrew. There's little reason to focus specifically on 100000 digits, however, and certainly the raw data dump of digits seems to fit under WP:NOT. I'll further comment that some of the information added to the article appears to already be in the main article on Pi. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:39, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The small bits of sourced information added by Andrew Davidson can, and in some cases already is, covered on the main Pi article. Even with those sources, this is not a reasonable WP:SPLIT from the main topic. Rorshacma (talk) 17:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not an encyclopedia article by any stretch of the imagination. Anything worth discussing about the statistical distribution of digits, people attempting to memorize them, etc., can go in the actual article Pi. In fact, Pi#Modern_quest_for_more_digits already says that the 100,000 mark was achieved in 1961, and Pi#Memorizing_digits already mentions Akira Haraguchi, who also appears in Piphilology. Moreover, the introduction to Pi mentions the conjecture that it is a normal number, so the topic of the digit distribution is already present as well. Everything in Pi (first 100000 digits) either violates policy or belongs somewhere else. XOR'easter (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- As pointed out above this article consists of a data dump, which isn't what Wikipedia is for, and a few trivial factoids that are already covered in the article on Pi. The title is also useless as a redirect. Reyk _YO! 23:52, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above, WP:NOTREPOSITORY. Just as we don't include lyrics in a song article, this doesn't belong. Retswerb (talk) 06:32, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and the fact that what wikipedia is not overrides any slight coverage it may have. Though I would like to note, seeing this article made me smile. Footlessmouse (talk) 08:45, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Speedy Delete as G4. Any speedy deletion criterion is also a valid reason for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:19, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Besides G4, Wikipedia is not a raw-data repository for non-encyclopedia calculations. — MarkH₂₁^talk 06:46, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the first 100,000 denary digits are of no particular significance on maths academia, so this is a pop maths topic. As such we'd need a lot of good GNG coverage of this particular range of digits and we don't have it. Surprised this wasn't speedied as even if the topic were notable, a list of 100,000 pseudorandom (more formally, hypothesised to be normal) characters of anything is never appropriate in any article. — Bilorv (talk) 03:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Classic WP:NOTSTATS. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 17:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Needs sections, too many run-on sentences~~ snicker Well, delete I mean. Paradigmatic example of an unsuitable data dump. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Atelier Wen[edit]

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

No indication of being notable. Fails WP:NPRODUCT and WP:NCORP and WP:DEL14 scope_creep^Talk 09:15, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 09:19, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 09:19, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At best couldld merit a mention on some lists. No evidence this company / brand pass WP:NORG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NCORP not met. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 09:39, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough significant sources.--Blurz (talk) 00:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One-handed solitaire[edit]

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

Fails notability requirements. Additionally, the only sources provided are to a personal blog. Gregorytopov (talk) 08:48, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is non-notable (WP:GNG and WP:NRVE). As the article indicates, it's just a variation of Decade and Accordion. There are literally hundreds and hundreds of solitaire card games in existence, and only the most notable ones are included in Wikipedia; including this ahead of the far more common ones that have been excluded can't be justified based on the evidence provided. Gregorytopov (talk) 08:57, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 09:20, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 09:20, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My BEFORE only found few mentions in passing, and not a single clear definition of this type of game. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:54, 28 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 Draftify. Per Tremeny's request, I have moved the page to Draft:2021 California’s 34th congressional district special election. (non-admin closure) Reywas92^Talk 01:36, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2021 California’s 34th congressional district special election[edit]

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

Unsourced speculation about whether there will be an election and who would participate if there were. —teb728 t c 07:54, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —teb728 t c 07:54, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:04, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete This election is not known to be occurring. Reywas92^Talk 18:03, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was actually intending to have this as a draft. If Gomez is named for Trade Rep, we can get an article up and going quickly. If there were to be anyway to make this article not public, I would be all for it. And I would certainly appreciate help adding to it.Tremeny (talk) 18:30, 27 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

S M Irfan[edit]

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

Subject does not meet criteria for inclusion in encyclopedia as it lacks significant media media coverage Northern Escapee (talk) 06:58, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Northern Escapee (talk) 06:58, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northern Escapee (talk) 06:58, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't see how this can pass WP:BASIC Spiderone 14:53, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kunal Singh Kushwaha[edit]

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

This BLP about a YouTuber was put up for speedy deletion but moved into draft space by its creator. Here it is again, with a set of references that is entirely bogus. Refs 1 and 4 are search results pages on the Times of India site which don’t actually bring up any results for the article subject. Ref 2 is another web search results page with no results. Ref 3 is some YouTube stats. Ref 5 is another search results page with nothing about the subject. So zero sources. Mccapra (talk) 06:00, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:00, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:00, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Blatant non-notable WP:AUTOBIO. Jumpytoo Talk 07:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a place for people to post autobiographies. Things like this is why over and over again I say we should go to requiring all article to go through the articles for creation process.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources at all. There should really be a speedy deletion criterion for cases like this. Spiderone 10:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 04:49, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry[edit]

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

Seems to lack significant coverage. AviationFreak💬 05:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AviationFreak💬 05:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. AviationFreak💬 05:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. AviationFreak💬 05:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep needs trimming down with less 'according to the founder' stuff but the reception section shows coverage in multiple reliable sources so it passes WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:08, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep significant number of secondary sources Avemaria81 (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Avemaria81. It is desirable to keep the article because CARM is a prominent website giving explanations of Christian doctrines, so it is useful to be able to look up where they are coming from. – Fayenatic London 10:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: lots of significant results in GNews and GBooks (e.g. [4]) St Anselm (talk) 01:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:49, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Central (Call Center)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Tagged for notability since 2009. Can't really find anything on this, although the common title and the fact that I only speak English may be limiting my ability to find things. An old revision gives some more detail, suggesting that none of the actors are notable and that the film was shot on a camcorder. The arwikipedia article is slightly more fleshed out, but not by much, and the sources there don't really look like the add up to enough to get past the WP:GNG or WP:NFILM bars. Also doubting the reliability of at least one of the arwikipedia sources. I'm not seeing notability here, although editors who can speak Arabic might be able to turn up something. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:34, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:34, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:34, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 12:11, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact that an unsourced article like this has survived for 13 years is a blight upon Wikipedia's record. The fact that I have found even older unsourced articles is even more disconcerting.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Errr... Why are we talking about this? The whole "article" is one sentence. It is unsourced. How did this manage to stay here for 13 years...? The original version wasn't much better either, as it contained the short plot summary, the production companies and the people behind it. Then those parts of the article were deleted for some reason and so we are here, stuck with one sentence. Do we really need to talk about this? Should've been speedied, and if it's notable, it can be recreated. Most of the article creator's edits revolved around this, (his other edits are really minor) so COI is involved as well. The bland title also makes searching difficult (and btw, what kind of title is "Central (Call Center)" for a film? That must be the most bland, most uninteresting and also the strangest title for a film I've ever heard (I mean, why is "Call Center" in brackets?) but that's not the point here, just an opinion), and I can't read Arabic. I checked the sources on arwiki using Google translate. (Yeah, I know it sucks, but at least I have a grip on what the Arab sources talk about). They don't look too reliable. Still not convinced of notability. The article was taken for Afd back in 2011, and it was kept because sources were presented, although those sources are not even available by now, and one of them is just a literal Google search. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 12:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Missvain (talk) 02:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Severino Bredonia[edit]

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

I've been going through and referencing the articles in the unreferenced backlog for July 2007. I got to this one and...I can't find anything. Not even a single mention even. Unless there's some other spelling for this person's name/some other name in the Philippines for this person, I can't find any references at all to use, let alone reliable ones. I hope to be proven incorrect by someone more knowledgeable than me on the subject matter. Otherwise, deletion time due to failure of WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Silver seren^C 04:26, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 09:10, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete quite possibly a hoax, if not, still doesn't meet GNG. (t · c) buidhe 11:22, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can’t find anything. Mccapra (talk) 11:46, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally unverified article. BlueD954 (talk) 14:29, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about him, not even in the books. Perhaps a WP:HOAX. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 05:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the fact that this article stood for over 13 years without references is a blemish upon Wikipedia. It is a key reason why I think we need to go to requiring all articles to go through the articles for creation process.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:14, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - complete and utter failure of WP:BASIC. Does this qualify for WP:SNOW yet? Mind you, it's been on Wikipedia for 13 years, I'm sure another 4 days won't hurt... Spiderone 20:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above. We don't even know when was he born, when did he die, we don't even know if he EXISTED, as there are absolutely zero sources and I couldn't find anything about him. The fact that this has been sitting on WP for 13 freaking years shocked me. Also, the article creator only edited this before he vanished, never to be seen again. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. It seems there are enough sources to pass notability requirements, (non-admin closure) Donaldd23 (talk) 12:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kiera Allen[edit]

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

Starred in one film that just came out. Seems to fail WP:ENT Donaldd23 (talk) 04:00, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 04:00, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 04:00, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 04:00, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep besides starring in a prominent Hollywood film, she meets the notability requirement by being the first wheelchair using actor to star in a mainstream Hollywood production in over 70 years. The sources quoted in the article include the New York Times and Variety. Prussian-Hussar (talk) 04:20, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: A quick search shows extremely deep coverage in reliable sources, including dozens of full-length reported articles about her in major outlets. Trivially passes WP:GNG. - Astrophobe (talk) 01:39, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: If you google her name, it's pretty evidently relevant; long articles in reliable news sources such as the NYT, Variety, Vulture (NY Mag), etc. Reflord (talk) 05:48, 29 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Patient Better[edit]

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

This appears to be a healthcare product or company [5] rather than a program; at any rate they are mostly interested in sales [6]. Either way, I can't find substantial independent coverage that would establish notability (not that this is the easiest term to search for). (Note, previously G11'd for promotional content, hence very stubby right now) -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy. No evidence this product meets GNG/NCOMPANY or related. At best, this WP:SUBSTUB/WP:DICTDEF can be userfied if the creator is willing to expand it in to something meaningful.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:47, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sigcov not found. It clearly fails WP:NCORP (as well as WP:NBOOK or WP:NPRODUCT). I can't see that its sole current source actually provides even passing coverage of it (nor the independent sources in the version pre-TNT). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 05:17, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:16, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitry Shkarin[edit]

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

Lacks RS indicating that he is personally notable, rather than works being notable. Swil999 (talk) 18:43, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Swil999 (talk) 18:43, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Swil999 (talk) 18:43, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Swil999 (talk) 18:43, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources are showing that this person would pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:22, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, he has some passing mentions in primary programming sources, but there simply is no coverage of him to be found in RS, neither in English nor Russian – Thjarkur (talk) 11:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:38, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:47, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject does appear to be notable but it needs more sources otherwise it is to be deleted.--Blurz (talk) 00:59, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bhikkhu Cintita[edit]

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

Non-notable religious figure. Does not appear to have received significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. Fails WP:BIO. VocalIndia (talk) 03:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:53, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:53, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:23, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He meets WP:NAUTHOR or not, I'm not sure. I only found this coverage from the major newspaper Austin American-Statesman. VocalIndia (talk) 14:07, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not appear to be notable. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:21, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the source above is not a relaible source. It is basically the personal reflection of a person who happens to have at one point been a member of the congregation that Cintita was the leader of, and it has other issues of local coverage that come up. That is not the type of article that we can use as a source to justify inclusion in Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:14, 30 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:27, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrofitting Building M: University of Reunion Island, France[edit]

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

I see no notability in the article and I found no notability. I'm not sure why the article isn't titled Building M instead. SL93 (talk) 02:51, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reads like a bizarre cross between a school project and an advert. Building seems to be an almost completely non-notable university building. Sources consist of a broken link to this article, all of science direct and a book that I have been unable to access online. It might be a good idea to add a sentence or two about this building and it's design to University of Reunion Island, but I think the content of the current article is a prime candidate for WP:TNT. 192.76.8.81 (talk) 04:01, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I found two more similar articles about the green credentials of buildings at the university of reunion island, ENERPOS and INNOVAL. Both created by SPAs. Seems to be the remnants of some school project? all are candidates for AfD in my opinion. 192.76.8.81 (talk) 04:08, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 09:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 09:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 09:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an essay/project plan about a non-notable building, which can be covered by a sentence or two in an expanded University of Reunion Island main article. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:11, 27 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. Keeping the family tree for Barb. Missvain (talk) 02:00, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Barbie's friends and family[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Most of the major characters that have been covered in reliable secondary sources already have articles. This is a collection of the rest of the characters, who do not meet the WP:GNG because they do not have any independent sourcing covering their reception. A few of them have trivial mentions as products that went on sale which isn't WP:SIGCOV. Compiling them into one list doesn't do anything to resolve the notability issue. Jontesta (talk) 01:48, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:26, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Toys-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 17:12, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jontesta: You say "This is a collection of the rest of the characters, who do not meet the WP:GNG because they do not have any independent sourcing covering their reception". Do you mean that the lack of a reception section and the lack of sources currently in the article is what makes it fail GNG? If so, you misunderstand what WP:GNG says. Per WP:Notability:

The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search. Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet.

Article content does not determine notability. Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability.

Additionally, a list can be notable even if the individual contents of the list are not. Per WP:LISTN:

Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. 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. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable.

Nominating multiple articles because the current structure, writing, or sourcing are lacklustre is not constructive editing. Bare in mind that not all problems are AfD problems. Dark knight 2149 10:27, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some of these have links to their own articles for these notable toys. The section Real-world celebrity and movie character doll friends is notable, it listing which famous people got made into Barbie dolls. Notable franchise. This doesn't just list every doll they ever created though, there are some characters on the list that were only on a digital series meant to advertise the products. Did they exist in any other media before then? Dream Focus 14:31, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. NavjotSR (talk) 16:12, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LISTN, which says that a list is notable "if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". There are many nonfiction books about the history of Barbie, including the subsidiary characters. A couple examples: Barbie Forever: Her Inspiration, History, and Legacy (2019) and The Story of Barbie Doll (1999). The article should certainly be improved, but WP:ARTN says that the current state of the article does not impact the notability of the subject. — Toughpigs (talk) 17:11, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A list of characters seems helpful - this could be either kept or merged with the main article, but it is long enough keeping a separate entry seems warranted, and there are some other lists like this out there - or at least I'd hope so, as frankly I couldn't find anything reliable. So I cannot honestly justify voting keep, since my argument is WP:ITSUSEFUL/WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. I can't get proper view of the sources Toughpigs listed, so I am unsure if they contain lists or some helpful coverage of the minor characters. But anyway, I'd rename this list to List of Barbie's characters. Friends and family is weird. No enemies, frenemies, acquaintances, really? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:17, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding on to that, it might be a good idea to split this out into different toy lines should the lines themselves be notable. The list of celebrities doesn't really belong in a general character list, but a different list of celebrity Barbie dolls might have the sources needed to stand alone. I'd say it should ultimately be trimmed down to the core characters to be included in the main article, but pure deletion is probably not the answer in this case. TTN (talk) 16:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, renaming is a good idea. Spudlace (talk) 05:15, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename - article does need to be rewritten but that can be done through editing and not AFD. There is a notable fictional lore around Barbie accumulated over decades if someone can be bothered to organize it. Archrogue (talk) 00:37, 30 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) 07:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Horus Heresy (fictional event)[edit]

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

Mostly unsourced or primary sourced information, failing WP:GNG. The 2008 AFD noted that third party sources don't exist or mostly re-tread plot details, but that there are no third party sources. Failing WP:NEXIST is absolutely a reason to delete material and there aren't secondary sources to make this into a standalone topic. There is already an article about The Horus Heresy (novels) that covers most of the same fiction, and has a proper third party reception section, and this article duplicates it while meeting none of our basic standards at WP:NOT or WP:N. Jontesta (talk) 01:43, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:49, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:49, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I identified this as a mess at WT:RPG#Pile of cruft. WP:TNT it (and/or subsequent redirect), especially since I had missed that there was an article for the book series. --Izno (talk) 12:56, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As stated by the nom, the actual real-world elements of this event already have their own articles, such as the novels and some of the games, like Horus Heresy (card game) and Horus Heresy (2010 board game). The sections on the fictional event itself in this article is just in-universe plot summaries that seem to be a mix of using primary sources and WP:OR. A summary of the event, as well as of the plots covered in the novels, is also already present in the article on the books, as well, making this a rather unnecessary WP:SPLIT. Even the lists of products are little more than directories, also just using primary sources. If anyone thinks that anything here is worth merging elsewhere, or that the article name would be a useful Redirect, I'm largely open to the idea. But, I'm not finding anything here that seems worth preserving. Rorshacma (talk) 17:35, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
TNT Delete Per Izno. Possibly userify if any useful information can be extracted._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Though it is a major event in Warhammer 40K universe, the summary of the event/plot has been covered well at the article about the novel.SunDawn (talk) 03:41, 28 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 Faerûn. The overall consensus is that this topic is not sufficiently notable for a stand-alone article and can be covered on the Faerûn article. The page history will still be accessible so any useful content may be merged as appropriate. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 03:05, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Waterdeep[edit]

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

Mostly unsourced or primary sourced information, failing WP:GNG. Nearly zero meaningful WP:NOT#PLOT information. Lacks the secondary sources to establish the notability for this topic to create a standalone article. This is Wikia material that lacks the secondary notability for a standalone article that doesn't duplicate the subject matter at Waterdeep: Dragon Heist and Waterdeep: Dungeon of the Mad Mage and others. Jontesta (talk) 01:35, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 01:35, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Faerûn as failing WP:GNG. Fancrufty with no critical reception or secondary notability to speak of._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:58, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing the WP:GNG. There are trivial mentions of this but nothing to establish its real world importance or provide WP:SIGCOV. I wouldn't object to a redirect per Zxcvbnm. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:31, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Faerûn - The bulk of this article is just plot summaries that are largely unsourced. The development section is comprised of information either using primary sources, or discussing the development of the Forgotten Realms setting as a whole rather than Waterdeep in specific, which is already covered on the main article for the setting. And the "Official Products" section is basically just a WP:DIRECTORY of products the city appeared in. Searching for sources turns up plenty of mentions of the city in discussions on specific books or products in which it appeared, which all have their own articles, but I'm not finding enough in the way of overall analysis or discussion of the city itself that would warrant this being split from the main article on the setting. A redirect would be appropriate, though, and would preserve the history in case anyone wanted to use anything here to beef up the information on Waterdeep in the main article. Though, again, as most of the plot information here is currently unsourced, I would be careful of what is actually used. Rorshacma (talk) 18:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above. I'll add that a few sentences may be merge-eable, I'd recommend soft deletion to preserve history for people who want to rescue a tidbit here or there. But there is no evidence this topic has stand-alone notability per WP:NFICTION/GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Forgotten Realms per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. BOZ (talk) 13:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge: In a first search I did not see large-scale discussion, but a number of shorter bits about Waterdeep in secondary sources, both present in and as yet absent from the article. I would like to search more, but that takes time, especially given the number of deletion discussions going on at the moment. Taking these sources together, especially when considering that Undermountain redirects here, and therefore any discussion of Untermountain in secondary sources directly pertains to the notability of this article, I think the article can be kept. If all that together is not seen as enough, the present information should still be preserved, both by merging (I guess to Faerûn), and by keeping the history available for future use and improvement. Daranios (talk) 15:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Faerûn. Not enough in-depth sourcing from reliable sources to show the notability of the setting itself. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:27, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inja (band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBAND, only sources are WP:UGC / WP:SPS / WP:SELFSOURCE that do not establish notability Leijurv (talk) 01:30, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:44, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:45, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it fails WP:MUSICBIO Samat lib (talk) 22:46, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agreed, fails standards all around. Hsplus (talk) 21:39, 28 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) 07:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DSPGaming[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. Known for single event. scope_creep^Talk 00:27, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:44, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:44, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:45, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not finding a lot of notability besides some articles about a recent Twitch ban._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:31, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom, promotional article. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 09:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about him aside from getting banned from twitch, an indication of WP:BLP1E. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 05:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sources cited are barely reliable and only cover isolated incidents. No indication of notability otherwise. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:47, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No notability is established. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 05:18, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:09, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ezra Olubi[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 00:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In all honesty do you think that a developer behind the biggest fintech service in Nigeria has not achieved a significant impact in the fintech field for WP:BIO?

05:51, 27 November 2020 (UTC)Opatachibueze (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:42, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:42, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not inherited from Paystack. "He is also known for his unusual dressing style" is... ahem... unusual content for a supposed encyclopedia article! MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 09:44, 29 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 F4 Argentina Championship. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 03:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 F4 Argentina Championship[edit]

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

Originally Speedied with rationale "Championship canceled. No updates from before the pandemic." Techie3 (talk) 00:15, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Techie3 (talk) 00:15, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Techie3 (talk) 00:15, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:43, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to F4 Argentina Championship with an explanation of why it got cancelled in that article. Then protect this article from being created again. Spiderone 08:27, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to F4 Argentina Championship, per user Spiderone---Darius (talk) 14:40, 27 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 delete. Lourdes 14:06, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cute Little Daring For Fairies[edit]

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

No such program Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:10, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:10, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G3 as a hoax. I literally cannot find any sign of this show existing online except a few mentions on Fandom which are carbon copies of this article, suggesting they were all written by the same person. It claims to have been funded through patreon, but I can find no evidence of the patreon actually existing, you would expect something as big as an animated tv show to have raised hundreds of thousands of dollars and attracted some routine coverage, but I can find nothing. 192.76.8.81 (talk) 01:12, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above, arguably this is just WP:G3 - Astrophobe (talk) 01:46, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Highly dubious content, created by an editor with all of his/her other contributions already reverted. History DMZ ^{(talk)+(ping)} 07:11, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - G3. No point in having this in the main space for 7 days. Spiderone 08:19, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as per G3. Roller26 (talk) 09:27, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete hoax, non-existing program, article is full of grammar and spelling mistakes, article creator is already problematic... Everything that is wrong is presented here. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 10:20, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above (t · c) buidhe 12:14, 27 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.