Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 November 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 04 November 06 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 20:32, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don McEwen[edit]

Don McEwen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable collegiate athlete. Mostly dead sources or mere inclusion in athletic lists with no widely notable achievements. —Notorious4life talk 00:21, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Notorious4life: In the future, please make sure to notify article creators when you nominate an article for AfD. Cbl62 (talk) 10:50, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. —Notorious4life (talk) 00:21, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:23, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as live sources are not able to be found establishing notability. Balle010 (talk) 05:48, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "live sources"? For pre-Internet subjects, sources are typically not freely available by Internet. Our notability standards do not require that sources be available through free Internet searches. Such a practice, if adopted, would set a horrible precedent in favoring only current topics over historic ones. Cbl62 (talk) 10:41, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable college athlete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:42, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Subject won multiple national collegiate titles including a championship record and set a world record in the distance medley relay. The 2009 article giving coverage of his long-standing record indicates lasting notability. SFB 23:03, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes both WP:NCOLLATH (as a two-time US national champion in the two-mile run) and WP:GNG (with significant coverage in multiple reliable sources). Cbl62 (talk) 10:39, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A quick search of Newspapers.com turns up literally hundreds of examples of significant coverage. Examples includ: (1) McEwen Tops Standard In 5,000 Meters, The Ottawa Citizen, 7/21/48; (2) "More About Don McEwen", The Gazette (Montreal), 7/11/52; (3) Don McEwen Keeps Big 10 Harrier Title, Chicago Tribune, 11/18/50; (4) Don McEwen Romps To Win In Michigan AAU 2-Mile Run, The Ottawa Citizen, 1/30/50; (5) McEwen Sets NCAA Mark for 2-Mile Run: U-M Star Runs It in 9:01.9, Detroit Free Press, 6/18/50; (6) McEwen Tries Mile -- More Records Fall, The Windsor Star, 2/18/50. Cbl62 (talk) 11:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:COLLATH as record holder and WP:GNG per Cbl62. Pichpich (talk) 16:25, 13 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:19, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Naira Seyidova[edit]

Naira Seyidova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are multiple problems with this article about a non-notable singer. There are now one-and-one-half pages, one in draft space, and this fragmentary page in article space. (The lede is missing from the page in article space, as are the discography and filmography. With no discography or filmography, the subject cannot possibly satisfy musical notability or general notability. The draft has been declined twice, and has been rejected, but its originator has now copied a portion of it into article space. The current fragmentary version should be deleted, and the complete draft is not ready either for article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:18, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:18, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:18, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:18, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These are certainly reliable sources. Unfortunately, the latter few are very brief articles. Are there any more lengthy ones? Spiderone 08:59, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, couldn't find anything longer. I'm not sure if Azerbaijani sources exist. Will try to find some. But the Turkish sources are enough for a weak keep. ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 12:34, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Styyx, did you actually check the content of those references? One of the links took me to a page which doesn't even so much as mention Naira Seyidova. The amount of coverage of her in others varies from one to three sentences, or from two to four sentences if you include statements not about her but about matters indirectly linked to her, such as who wrote the song she has recorded. The things they tell us about her are such things as that she has released a single, that she says that she has played in a film. The amount of content in those references doesn't come within a thousand miles of being enough to show notability, even if we assume that they are all independent sources, which I doubt, because some of them look to me like different paraphrases of the same press release. If those are the best sources that anyone can provide then she really doesn't satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. However, I also did my own searching for sources, and I found nothing better at all, in any language. I checked the article on her on Azeri Wikipedia, where there is virtually no sourcing at all. The article on her on Turkish Wikipedia contains almost exactly the same references as the English one, so that was no help. If she satisfied our notability criteria then with the amount of searching I have done I would have managed to come up with some sources coming at least somewhere near to satisfying the necessary standards, but I found not a single one. (Incidentally, the Turkish Wikipedia article is also currently at a deletion discussion.) JBW (talk) 22:26, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case anyone is interested, since posting the above message I have discovered that the Turkish Wikipedia article about her is at its second deletion discussion, following a discussion in June which resulted in deletion because of lack of notability, and subsequent re-creation of the article. JBW (talk) 22:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to point out similarities between this AfD and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fuat Ergin. Styyx listed a bunch of brief media notices in reliable Turkish publications but with no comment on how robust they were, and some other voters concurred with what Styyx said. But neither Styyx nor the other voters (nor the Admin, disappointingly) acknowledged that a person's coverage in a reliable publication also has to be significant and beyond brief mentions. I have also noticed a lot of recent new articles on Turkish entertainers of dubious notability, in which Styyx and friends will probably do the same if/when those get nominated for deletion. DOOMSDAYER520 | TALK | CONTRIBS 03:30, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Most of those new articles are made by Xəyal Haşımov, including this one. For some reason he made articles about 4-5 people in Az, Tr and En wiki at the same time. Some of them are notable, some not. There are a lot of AfD's in Tr wiki right now. Based on those results I will nominate them here, you can always nominate it yourself if you want to. Also a side note: I don't have friends on Wikipedia. ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 09:38, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mean this one. Its a compilation of news, so you need to scroll down. I made a Gyazo of it. And I'm pretty aware of the content of the sources. ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 09:24, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:54, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The sources listed by Styyx are in publications that may well be reliable in themselves, but every single one of those mentions are reprints of brief PR notices. Per WP:SIGCOV, notability requires coverage that is reliable and significant. The singer is not covered in the media in any other fashion, indicating that so far she is merely the beneficiary of a promotional blitz by management. Good luck to her as she gets started but she is not yet eligible for a Wikipedia article. DOOMSDAYER520 | TALK | CONTRIBS 03:34, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. In essance the keep arguments about the significance of the list has not overcome the the fact that there is a dearth of sources that discuss heights of buildings in Augusta, Georgia. Spartaz Humbug! 23:36, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Augusta, Georgia[edit]

List of tallest buildings in Augusta, Georgia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Yet another list of tallest buildings in a city where nothing is all that tall, and as usual sourced almost entirely from Emporis. I see not the notability. Mangoe (talk) 14:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Mangoe (talk) 16:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Mangoe (talk) 16:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Mangoe (talk) 16:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in Kansas City.... Seriously, I'd be happy with a selective merge into the article on Augusta, though I would also remark that it's pretty likely a lot of the building articles wouldn't survive a serious challenge to their notability in any case. Mangoe (talk) 16:18, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Noting a flurry of keep votes from ARS after it has been listed on their page does not a consensus make. Wider community input is always welcome
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 22:04, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Having a double digit number of linked inclusions implies that Augusta has enough significant buildings that this list meets the notability threshold, in contrast with the Montgomery list. Dralwik|Have a Chat 22:40, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability is valid. Balle010 (talk) 05:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As PMC said, per WP:LISTN and the reasons discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Montgomery, Alabama. I'll quote the close of that AFD: In theory, of course, editors with an interest in doing so could create a list of the tallest buildings in every state, county, city, town, village, and neighborhood. While this seems natural for cities known for the height of their buildings like Chicago, and New York, at some point, there must be a cutoff. The difference between cities like Chicago and NYC, on one hand, and Augusta and Montgomery, on the other, is sources. There is no lack of reliable sources entirely about "the tallest buildings in Chicago" and "the tallest buildings in NYC", including full length books. TMK there are no books about the tallest buildings in Augusta, and you don't even find coverage of the topic outside of local sources or catalogues like Emporis. (Arguing that a topic is notable based on Emporis is like arguing that an athlete is notable because they're listed in a sports statistics website.) That said, having a list of, or mentioning in prose, the tallest buildings in Augusta, would be appropriate as a part of the article Augusta, Georgia, or a spinout article (if it were created) about its architecture or notable buildings, as PMC mentioned. Lev!vich 00:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment:The closing statement is a closer making policy, which not neutral POV and is not their job, and cannot/should be not cited as reasoning.Djflem (talk) 07:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless/until overturned at DRV, the closing statement is summarizing consensus, and consensus IS policy. Lev!vich 15:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you provide some sort of link that backs up that claim? (Incientally the closer did not summarize the consensus, did s/he?, but rather added statements which not made in the discussion.) Djflem (talk) 19:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CONSENSUS, WP:CLOSE. Lev!vich 20:19, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither link supports your claim, but only refers to function of the closer & the need to base the decision to close as presented in arguments.Djflem (talk) 20:58, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    My claim: Unless/until overturned at DRV, the closing statement is summarizing consensus...; WP:CLOSE: "The closing editor or administrator will determine if consensus exists, and if so, what it is...Sometimes, it is helpful for an editor to provide a summary statement of the outcome, if any, when closing the discussion. This optional statement may include both points of consensus and points that are not yet resolved...In general, deletions are discussed at WP:Deletion review...". My claim: ...and consensus IS policy.; WP:CONSENSUS: "This page documents an English Wikipedia policy.". Lev!vich 21:30, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The closer mentioned the "points of consensus" regarding Wikipedia:LISTN. They then proceeded to draw conclusions not discussed it the AFD arguments. So you are suggesting a closer's statements/opinions/conclusions which do not reflect the discussion & are not based on AFD are consensus and therefore policy? Since when?Djflem (talk) 19:41, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Lev!vich 19:47, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:LISTN does not have WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS discussing this as a group. The city is not notable for tall buildings and the buildings on the list are not notably tall. The list does not meet WP:CLN, it does not assist in navigation, and does not serve any purpose under WP:AOAL.   // Timothy :: talk  14:49, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which part of Wikipedia:LISTN are you referring to? LISTN states "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists." Your claim appears to be incorrectly citing a different, non-applicable part of LISTN since their is NO requirement to provide RS to discuss as group, is there? Which parts of Wikipedia:SALAT, Wikipedia:LISTPURP, Wikipedia:CSC, Wikipedia:LISTCRITERIA does it not fulfill?Djflem (talk) 19:14, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Levivich et al. True, the closer's comment doesn't summarize the discussion as I see it, but it's an excellent argument. We need a reliable source or two to write about the tallest buildings in Augusta Georgia as a class, or group, or contest, or something, before we make a list of them, otherwise we go down the path of writing about anything we find sources casually touching on, whether anyone else uses them for this purpose or not. We document the world's knowledge, we don't create it. The contests for the tallest buildings in New York City and Chicago are well known, the articles Empire State Building and Willis Tower go into great detail. Augusta, Georgia - not so much. --GRuban (talk) 13:37, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 10:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Today's Railways UK[edit]

Today's Railways UK (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NN magazine, fails WP:GNG; WP:NMEDIA. Also nominating its sister magazine for the same reason.

Today's Railways Europe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nightfury 13:41, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 13:41, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 13:41, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 13:41, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 13:45, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep: Seems to me an obvious WP:BEFORE failure to preserve by considering merge opportunties and targets and failure to WP:BUNDLE to I'll have to write the same stuff twice.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:29, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Djm-leighpark: Please do enlighten me, where do you propose these be merged to? And did you look at the above policies I mentioned in the nomination? Nightfury 10:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nightfury: I'm not proposing these are merged I'm proposing these are kept. As it happened I did look at WP:NMEDIA. Don't believe I looked at WP:GNG but my time is limited; I do look at that from time to time. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:48, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep would be my preference, although a merge if the two magazines may be ideal. (They were originally a single article, but were split a year or two ago.) It is, however, virtually impossible to find references for anything to do with the magazines (which I suppose is the whole point of this discussion!); a few years ago I tried to add lots of detail, such as typical contents, about TRUK, but it was removed due to no references despite the fact that anyone who picked up a copy would be able to see it was all accurate.ABB125 (talk) 08:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ABB125; ideally secondary sources are also needed if any content would be kept, just having sources from the subject may come over as being biased, or even advertising, which is discouraged on WP. Nightfury 10:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nightfury; I appreciate that, but secondary sources are practically non-existent for smaller (niche?) magazines like this. By the same logic, the pages for Modern Railways, RAIL and The Railway Magazine should all be deleted, as all the sources (bar one or two for The RM) are links to the publisher's website or articles within the magazines etc. (These are the only three pages I looked at, no doubt there's a similar situation for most other UK railway magazines.)
There's plenty of stuff that could be written about all these magazines which a glance through a copy would confirm as correct, but no way of sourcing it. ABB125 (talk) 11:25, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources are fine for verification of things like contents; relevant and neutral facts about the magazine cited to the magazine itself should not be removed. However, they don't count for notability — we need secondary sources to say that the article should be kept. — Toughpigs (talk) 12:38, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah right, that makes sense. Unfortunately I'm not aware of any secondary sources for this magazine.ABB125 (talk) 12:44, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article could do with being expanded but it includes references, including an independent reference. Rillington (talk) 13:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: WP:NMEDIA says that notability is presumed for magazines "are significant publications in ethnic and other non-trivial niche markets". UK railway enthusiasts are a niche market. Is there anything that can verify that this is a significant publication for that market? — Toughpigs (talk) 16:44, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, in terms ot notability, is on par with other magazines in the UK rail transport magazine category. Like most magazines it does tend to rely on primary sources, but given that it is rare for other publications to make mention of their competitors (at least in a neutral tone) not surprising. Primary sources are ok to use as long as they are used with caution in a non-promotional way per WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. Bratjoggs (talk) 21:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 22:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notability is here, shortness of an article doesn't mean not notable. Balle010 (talk) 05:54, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - with the RS references now added (sadly all obituaries), just gets over the line for WP:GNG. I think a merge discussion with Today's Railway UK and Today's Railway Europe may well be justified though. FOARP (talk) 10:05, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep thanks to added sources. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:42, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 17:41, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Costa Rica Skies[edit]

Costa Rica Skies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable airline. Rodney Araujo Tell me - My contributions 20:59, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Costa Rica-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:24, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:24, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:24, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 10:26, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sahib ul-Makam al-Rafi[edit]

Sahib ul-Makam al-Rafi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This seems like Wiktionary material, not Wikipedia material. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 21:12, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete in absence of sourcing. This may well be a suitably covered subject, but unless someone demonstrates so, we can't have an article on it. And that someone would have to be able to do a rather discerning web search of Arabic sources. I'll drop a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Egypt. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:27, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:25, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RS and WP:MILL. It's not even a phrase that would have its own article in Wiktionary. Bearian (talk) 19:52, 12 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) 10:28, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aminu Musa Audu[edit]

Aminu Musa Audu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of any notability. The award from Liverpool is not notable and many of the other refs are interviews given by the subject. Nothing here is both a reliable source and independent of the subject. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   20:50, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  Velella  Velella Talk   20:50, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions.  Velella  Velella Talk   20:50, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:06, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 20:25, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hussam Mahdi[edit]

Hussam Mahdi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A biographical article on a footballer that does not appear to satisfy either WP:NFOOTY or WP:GNG; there are no reliable sources showing anything that amounts to WP:SIGCOV Spiderone 19:58, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:58, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:59, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:59, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 20:03, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep Madison Seminary; no consensus to delete Sheboygan County Asylum; and draftify all others. BD2412 T 01:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fairfield County Infirmary[edit]

Fairfield County Infirmary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Multiple articles have been created in both draft space and article space at approximately the same time on haunted hospitals and schools. The drafts are being declined as already in article space, but noting that the articles may be nominated for deletion. Some of the drafts were already declined once or twice previously. This appears to be an effort to game the system and to submit articles that have not been reviewed as to verifiability or notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:48, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:48, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:48, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:48, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all (modified Nov 7 to add) except keep Madison Seminary as its been listed on NRHP; and weak keep on Sheboygan County Asylum which has WP:SIGCOV in local press. Non-notable properties, articles are based on non-reliable sources (paranormal ghost-hunting sites, an "asylum project" wiki) and cannot find reliable sources to support notability. Schazjmd (talk) 20:07, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Non-notable on their own, and the paranormal/ghost-hunting commentary pushes them into borderline G3 territory. Nathan2055talk - contribs 23:20, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the lot, and block or do whatever is necessary to prevent this editor creating more unsourced, borderline-hoax articles, removing delete/maintenance tags, and generally causing extra work to others with their disruptive behaviour. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:03, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Clearly non-notable every single one and also like others have said borderline-hoaxish. I'm going to assume good faith on the part of the editor though and just go with delete. Although, a stern warning on their talk page might be good if it hasn't been done already. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:33, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per all of the above Spiderone 10:45, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bigger problem here is the editor: Bunnyrabbitbunny just won't listen (or communicate). They never responded to any of the messages left for them. Their only talk page edit is this one, and certainly this edit strikes me as an example of incompetence (resubmitting a draft without doing anything to solve the problems). And they just did this. I'm wondering if we are headed for an indefinite block per WP:CIR: the editor's work is a time sink. Drmies (talk) 16:31, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The WP:CIR issue can be handled separately by a namespace ban for article-space until the "C" is demonstrated. Drafts on clearly non-notable topics can be left to G13 or be MFD'd away, or hopefully in some cases, merged into an existing page by another editor. This will hopefully give a currently-problematic editor a path to becoming a highly respected editor someday. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:59, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - See also Hill View Manor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) , which has been proposed for deletion. If the PROD is removed, it can be bundled in. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:55, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incubate It looks like some or all of these may have been featured in Destination Fear (2019 TV series). The editor who created most of these pages wikilinked them from the episode list with this set of edits from 23:23, 4 November 2020 to 16:37, 6 November 2020 (other editors also edited in time span). Being featured on only one TV show is WP:ONEEVENT but it suggests that there may be other reliable, independent sources that will demonstrate WP:Notability. Now, it's been said that AFD is not cleanup, so if these are in fact notable but if "incubate" is not the outcome, "keep and improve," "soft-delete, with or without a topic-ban or page-ban for the editor in question" or "WP:Blow it up and start over, with or without a topic/page ban for the editor in question" are all acceptable by me. I say "with or without a topic or page ban" - AFD discussions don't have outcomes that include editor sanctions, but the editor's lack of communications, if continued, may result in sanctions being issued through other venues sooner or later. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:22, 6 November 2020 (UTC) UPDATE - Keep those that pass WP:NBUILDING which pretty much includes any building on the National Register of Historic Places including Madison Seminary.[7] davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:38, 7 November 2020 (UTC) Update: I checked the NRHP web site and could not find the other places listed, so I assume they are not. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:02, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Madison Seminary [Edit: and Sheboygan County Asylum] - I've worked on that one to the point where I think it deserves to be kept. Will look at the other ones later. If nothing else, there's obviously a competency issue here that needs to be looked at. The creator's talk page is a litany of failures. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 17:37, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding on to the above - Weak Keep and Move Fairfield County Infirmary - it's actually currently called the Clarence E. Miller building and it should be on the NRHP when the next batch is announced. Might need to be saved before then but there is WP:SIGCOV in local press. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 13:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Information The primary author may have retired.[8] To the extent that I have been WP:BITEY I apologize. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:57, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Madison Seminary (thanks to Panyd for the rescue!) and Sheboygan County Asylum, which I've rewritten from sources. On the others I agree with davidwr that they are likely to also have enough local history to be rescuable and so the best solution would be to incubate in draft space any that no one has time to work on this week. Yngvadottir (talk) 11:16, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Madison Seminary and Sheboygan County Asylum, which have been rewritten to establish notability and not entirely be about the paranormal stuff. Incubate the rest; they're in terrible shape now, but a lot of these haunted buildings are historically significant and it's worth trying to save what we can. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 18:01, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The supposed "improvements" to Madison Seminary are references to local Ohio news outlets and IMDB. Sheboygan County Asylum isn't much better. Which really doesn't really help for the notability of either one. So can someone who thinks they pass WP:GNG now point out how that's the case? --Adamant1 (talk) 19:22, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The significant coverage by the television show Destination Fear (2019 TV series) counts towards WP:SIGCOV. Granted, one major source by itself is not enough by itself, but added to the other references, it might be. More likely, the fact that it was covered by this TV show at all probably indicates that there is other coverage out there, perhaps not found by Wikipedia editors, that combined with known sources makes WP:Notability at least high enough to cause this AFD to end as "no consensus to delete" with respect to that article. I expect the same may be true for the rest which were given an episode of their own in that television series. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:30, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd have to disagree. I don't think a television show like Destination Fear (2019 TV series), which covers pseudoscientific paranormal claims, contributes to notability. That show would not be considered a WP:RS for content. WP:SIGCOV by that show is as useful as coverage by a tabloid. Schazjmd (talk) 19:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Destination Fear isn't RS but I would argue that the house being featured in two major television shows, *and also* a significant local news coverage *and also* the fact that Madison Seminary is on the National Register of Historic Places *and also* Ohio Memory which is published by the State Library of Ohio (so not just a random website), pushes it over the edge. It's very much an edge case but to me all those combined tip it into notable territory. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 20:08, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Schazjmd: Getting off topic here, but when it comes to pseudoscience [un]-reliable sources, I would say context is everything. If the topic was "do ghosts exist" then no, this would not be a reliable source. If the context is "is such and such a place considered haunted by those who believe in such things and who have taken the time to 'investigate'?" then the answer is yes, it is a reliable source. It's at least as reliable as, say, an independent-source, respected-within-the-fan-community, "non-fiction" book about the engineering of the Starship Enterprise from the Star Trek fictional universe. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:13, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • NRHP puts it over for me, amended my !vote. Schazjmd (talk) 20:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peace by Chocolate[edit]

Peace by Chocolate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable organization that doesn’t satisfy WP:ORG & invariably do not possess WP:ORGDEPTH. This source almost looks good but overall doesn’t do much for WP:ORGCRIT. A before search links me to primary sources not independent of the organization hence we can’t consider reliable. Celestina007 (talk) 19:47, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:47, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:47, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:47, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:47, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:47, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Google news search brought up at least 10 other sources. Here are a few:

huddle.today/ halifaxtoday.ca/ barrons.com thechronicleherald.ca/ As a nominator it's your job to do better research before you nominate, per the Wiki policies. The founder has also written and book and won awards. I will add some of these sources. You may say they are not from any Tier 1 publications, but as local Canadian company, I think it's got enough coverage to make it notable. Expertwikiguy (talk) 19:03, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added 9 more sources and removed some promotional parts. Expertwikiguy (talk) 19:31, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Notable company with good coverage in third party references, satisfies WP:ORG. Bretalins (talk) 21:05, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for spamming, likely WP:UPE. MER-C 15:23, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: multiple independent sources. Rathfelder (talk) 08:54, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arbol[edit]

Arbol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a pseudo-disambiguation page. If topics were notable they would have at the very least an infra-stub here. Per Wikipedia:MOSDAB, entries must have at least a blue link, and sending readers to external Wikipedias is as helpful as sending them back to do a Google search. (CC) Tbhotch™ 19:45, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. (CC) Tbhotch™ 19:45, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Creator here. Alas, it's not the case that all notable topics already have articles on Wikipedia (if there were, the encyclopedia wouldn't be growing any more). Both topics are notable (WP:GEOLAND), and interlanguage links are acceptable on dab pages (see this discussion). If you would like to apply a stricter criterion, you could requite WP:DABMENTION: currently, only of the two entries meets it; for the second one to meet it, the linked English article will need to be expanded appropriately. That's a problem with the linked article, not with the dab page. – Uanfala (talk) 19:57, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There are: 3 albums, 8 songs, and 1 record label titled "Arbol"/"Árbol". Out of those 11 topics, only 3 authors have articles here (Luis Eduardo Aute, Kinto Sol and Atahualpa Yupanqui). In any way they should be included because their own article never mention the existence of those songs. Equally, in any way we should send readers to read the (inexistent) article of La Sarita to (let's say) Chabacano Wikipedia just because the article exists there (if existed). Disambiguation pages are not a way to tell people topics exist. As said by WP:Disambiguation itself "[dab pages exist because] there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead". The only article mentioning the word "Arbol" is Antas de Ulla. Not being included in a disambiguation is not an indicator the topic doesn't exist, it is an indicator that the English Wikipedia cannot offer information about such topic because it is not mentioned in our website. Sending people to other places is not our job either, it's Wikidata's, and per MOS:DABNOLINK "Never include external links, either as entries or in descriptions [and] A disambiguation page should not be made up completely of red links." (CC) Tbhotch™ 20:16, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Both entries have blue links, and as obvious from the discussion I've linked above, these types of links are widely accepted. The only actual bone of contention is whether the entries should also meet DABMENTION. – Uanfala (talk) 20:23, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Both entries have blue links, but only one mentions a parish called Arbol. Instead of taking it personal, just go and fix the problem you are creating. (CC) Tbhotch™ 04:27, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There were two problems. One was that neither of the two notable encyclopedic topics with the name "Arbol" was accessible via the search results (which got swamped by partial title matches). I've tried to solve this by creating this dab page. The other problem is editors rushing to delete stuff based on mechanistic misapplication of style guidelines. This, I'm afraid, I'm not able to fix. – Uanfala (talk) 14:54, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 20:03, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, the second problem is that one editor rushed to include stuff that wasn't ambiguous on English Wikipedia; other editors attempted to fix it (and fixing quickly is not the same as "rushed to") but were reverted. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:07, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the just-finished Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 28#Árbol (disambiguation) discussion. If the topics are English-Wikipedia-notable, just write the article first. If not, future Wikipedia can handle future Wikipedia navigation needs. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:18, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep. Not in agreement with the page's creator in regard to interlanguage links (ILLs). WP:DAB#Interlanguage links does not just mean those found in the left sidebar. They also include ILLs like those found in entries on the Arbor dab page. ILLs should not be used to point to articles in other-language Wikipedias on disambiguation pages, even if there are valid blue links to enwiki articles. And speaking of valid blue links, WP:DABMENTION does not need a rewrite. It makes good sense that a red linked entry on a dab page should be mentioned in a referenced blue linked article. Above, mention is made that the linked article, Vilalba, could be "expanded appropriately". So why hasn't Vilalba been expanded yet to include mention of the parish at Arbol? That's probably because if one parish is mentioned, then all the parishes would have to be found and mentioned as is done in the other entry on the dab page, Antas de Ulla. The Arbol parish in Antas de Ulla is the only entry on this dab page that is valid in accord with the guideline. So this adds up to a one entry disambiguation page that is not helpful to readers. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 07:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC) Page creator has met the guideline's requirement for mention of Árbol in blue linked references, The other guideline that disallows ILLs to other-language articles has not yet been met; however, that for me is not a deal breaker, so I've changed my !vote to "keep". P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 16:07, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've expanded Vilalba with a list of parishes, so as far as I can see, now both entries on the dab page meet WP:DABMENTION. – Uanfala (talk) 15:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with the additions to the encyclopedia. That's not a "crazy idea", that's what was suggested be done in the first place, put content you felt was needed in the encyclopedia in the encyclopedia. Striking my !vote above. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:55, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Both entries meet WP:DABMENTION, and there doesn't seem to be a clear primary topic, so this is okay per WP:TWODABS. Hog Farm Bacon 20:29, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notwithstanding the history (TL;DR), right now this disambiguation page is perfectly valid. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:34, 13 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) 10:31, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ali-Han Ibragimov[edit]

Ali-Han Ibragimov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Aside from the very blatant COI issues here, the subject does not appear to be notable enough for WP:GNG and WP:BIO. If we completely ignore Twitter, YouTube, IMDb and Ali-Han's primary sources, we have:

  • [9] - appears to be a promo interview
  • [10] - again, looks like promo
  • [11] - is this website reliable?
  • [12] - promo interview
  • [13] - Rashan Allen is the author and is connected to Ibragimov
  • [14] - doesn't even mention Ibragimov
  • [15] - very brief Spiderone 19:38, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:39, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:39, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:39, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:25, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ESentire[edit]

ESentire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. Looking to get it salted. scope_creepTalk 19:31, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:40, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:40, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:40, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Company meets WP:Run-of-the-mill. Sig by User:TH1980 on 1:12 11 November 2020. Sig added by scope_creepTalk 08:31, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Does not meet WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Coverage is either not significant or not independent. Since this has now been created thrice, twice as copyright violations, create-protection seems prudent. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:04, 13 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:26, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

China Uncensored[edit]

China Uncensored (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsure whether the show is notable by Wikipedia standards. The program seems notable from the common use of the term, but it could use discussion on whether it meets WP's definition. From a quick google news search there doesn't seem to be significant and multiple coverage by secondary RS. Subscription counts don't make the subject notable per WP:Youtube/Notability. Other than a high school newspaper, the page has 3 non primary sources (daily dot, rsf, and global voices advocacy). RSF is an advocacy organization, so unsure whether it could establish notability or whether it would be like a lawyer writing a press release on behalf of their client. Swil999 (talk) 00:34, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Swil999 (talk) 00:34, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Swil999 (talk) 00:34, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Swil999 (talk) 00:34, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Swil999 (talk) 00:34, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Swil999 (talk) 00:34, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete: Most of the notability seems to be from getting blocked in China/HK/Taiwan, which isn't unusual considering the subject matter. Other than the sources provided by nom, all I've found is some passing mentions in Taiwan News where this show is cited for interviews they've done. The notability seems borderline, I think there needs to be another good RS other than daily dot to keep this. Jumpytoo Talk 02:25, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looks to me to pass WP:GNG. This is a good article for notability as well as the ones mentioned: [16] AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 03:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I know that this is strictly not a criteria for keeping the article (it has little to do with notability), but just publicizinh association with Falun Gong is very valuable information the show does not itself disclose. The article is thus very useful in it's current state, so even if it never grows (for lack of independent references) it will still be a valuable article. Qsdd (talk) 09:46, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Qsdd: sources don't show an association with Falun Gong for this show, but rather that it's produced by NTD (which already has a page) which is associated with Falun Gong. So it's not really a direct association, or at least the RSF source doesn't mention it. I didn't check whether it mentions Falun Gong in the NTD page, but it seems sourced so you could add it in there. If the NTD page doesn't mention this show, you could add it too, that they produced it. Swil999 (talk) 07:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:28, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Superastig: TW News and SCMP seem to be opinion. It does not seem to be about the channel but rather citing/mentioning the channel for their analysis. Daily dot seems to be about the channel, so that one could count towards keep, but it seems pretty borderline.
  • Comment: At personal level, I strongly feel the channel is for counter-propaganda activities, especially involved in sensationalized reporting. Though, it's true that... it has been quoted by many notable media portals, but even if we do accept this page... please think about adding a disclaimer. If the channel had a editorial lineup and affiliations like 38 North, I would have definitely voted for it. -Hatchens (talk) 16:52, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Daily Dot profile and Hong Kong Free Press report of censorship are sufficient to meet GNG. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to West Bletchley#Education. There is fairly clear consensus that this subject should not exist as a separate article, but some support for the alternative of merging it elsewhere. West Bletchley#Education happens to provide a reasonable target for the latter purpose. The subject can be broken out into a separate article again if, in the future, additional reliable sources are found providing substantial coverage of the subject. BD2412 T 00:49, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

White Spire School[edit]

White Spire School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I could not find any evidence to show that this can pass WP:NSCHOOL or WP:GNG. Best source looks to be this which is not sufficient. Spiderone 19:21, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:21, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:21, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All I could find was some brief mentions in books about special education that seem to just be directory listing type stuff. Outside of that I couldn't find anything though. Not even the usual run of the news stories. So, this doesn't seem to have the multiple in-depth reliable sources it needs to pass either WP:GNG or WP:NORG. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:28, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait You could say that about all public secondary schools. This school is more notable than average locally only in the disabilities of its pupils. I can't see how anyone can justify deleting this school without also deleting every school in {{Schools in Milton Keynes}} and then {{Schools in Buckinghamshire}} and {{Schools in England}} while the iron is hot. I advise thinking carefully about where this could end up before you start. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:48, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please can you provide sources to prove that this school is more notable than average? Spiderone 19:51, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, sloppy use of words. I didn't mean wp:notable. "Noticeable" might be a better way of putting it. But this is beside the point, which is that the average secondary school (high school) is not wp:notable, anywhere in the UK. What I am saying is that we either delete all secondary schools or we delete none: what we don't do is start with a special school unless we want to be especially lacking in political nous. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:29, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
From my recolection this isn't the first AfD about a secondary in the UK. I'm pretty sure some have been kept to, or not even sent to AfD in the first place because they are clearly notable. The state of an article at AfD does not represent the state of every article in Wikipedia on that topic. Adamant1 (talk) 00:16, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My main issue is that I'm struggling to even find routine coverage on this school, which isn't helped by its small size I suppose. At least schools like Denbigh School and Shenley Brook End School will get a lot of local coverage and the odd mention in national media [20] [21] Spiderone 08:51, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be happy to agree that except that we don't have a the concept of School Districts in the UK. We had Local Education Authority but that's mostly gone now. In other contexts, I have argued for trivial articles about districts, villages and hamlets to be upmerged to their respective civil parish, so I would have proposed exactly your compromise had I seen a way to do it. This has to be the way forward, if anyone can think of a way to do it? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 01:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 06:37, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rashan Allen[edit]

Rashan Allen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly sourced (close sources, social media, etc.) article about a businessperson; fails WP:GNG / WP:BIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:15, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:23, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:23, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I completely agree with the reasons for deletion; please note that the creator has also made an article about himself and their company Spiderone 19:43, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:43, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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. North America1000 06:39, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EInvest[edit]

EInvest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creepTalk 19:15, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:27, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:28, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:28, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer for soft deletion:? This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Logs: 2020-10 ✍️ create
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Parex Bank. Spartaz Humbug! 00:17, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Christmas (banker)[edit]

John Christmas (banker) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD with the rationale Self-Promotion of Non-Notable Person was contested by Aspects, contestion was undone but the article is now not eligible for soft deletion. I'm inclined to think coverage as a whistleblower in 2008 makes him a WP:BIO1E, but A) cannot read Latvian and B) it's a really borderline case, because he comes up fairly often in news articles on the crisis. I found passing mentions of his roles in lots of places, but would argue that doesn't substantiate his stand-alone notability. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:05, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:28, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:29, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:29, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Redirect to Parex Bank. Since that seems to be what he is mostly attached to when it comes to coverage and there isn't enough at this point to substantiate a separate article on him IMO. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Parex as suggested. The sourcing is terrible, and the only claims to notability are via WP:NOTINHERITED. Bearian (talk) 20:13, 12 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. Nomination withdrawn. User:Nsk92 presented clear evidence that the subject is a full professor. (non-admin closure) scope_creepTalk 12:25, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Franklin[edit]

Donna Franklin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPROF. No indication of being notable. scope_creepTalk 19:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:15, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:15, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:15, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article mentions American Sociological Association's William J. Goode Distinguished Book Award, and the reference given checks out. Here is a link to a short bio blurb about her at the Council on Contemporary Families[22], which has additional info. I did not have time to investigate further, but my initial impression is that the subject is likely notable, perhpas under WP:AUTHOR and possibly WP:GNG/WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 19:44, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here is a link[23] to the 1997 WaPo review of the book that received the above mentioned award. Interestingly, in this review Donna Franklin is mentioned as "the John Milner Professor of Social Work at the University of Southern California." This indicates that she also may satisfy WP:PROF#C5. Nsk92 (talk) 19:53, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Nsk92: I wasn't sure, but if I get another keep that confirms it, I will withdraw the nomination immediately. scope_creepTalk 08:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
scope_creep: I found a couple of other sources on this point. A NYT article refers to her as "Donna Franklin, John Milner Professor of Child Welfare at the University of Southern California". Also, an article African Americans Who Hold Endowed University Chairs (which I downloaded from JSTOR) lists her on p. 106 as "Donna Franklin, John Milner Professor of Child Welfare, School of Social Work, University of Southern California." Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 12:01, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Nsk92: I think that confirms it. Can you please update the article using the references you have discovered. scope_creepTalk 12:23, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, done. Nsk92 (talk) 12:25, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nomination Withdrawn The lady is eminently notable. scope_creepTalk 12:24, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:01, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of people whose parent died by suicide[edit]

List of people whose parent died by suicide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Arbitrary list criterion. While there are many sources about the general topic of losing a parent or other family member to suicide (see Suicide survivor), I think that it's trivial to list specific people who have had that experience and are Wikipedia-notable for various other reasons. (We also don't and shouldn't have lists of "Spouses of alcoholics", "Relatives of cancer patients" or "People with intellectually disabled siblings", despite the plenitude of sources about these general situations.) Please note that the page creator was blocked as a sockpuppet, and a parallel list of fictional characters he created was deleted at AfD in 2017. Cheers, gnu57 18:50, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. gnu57 18:50, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - on its face. We do not create arbitrary lists just because there is an identifiable characteristic shared by a number of people. Notice that every category does not have a corresponding list; and this does not even have a category as far as I know. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 18:59, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Suicide survivor covers the topic, and the list is inappropriate and arbitrary (fairly clearly it is far from comprehensive). power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:10, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly this is an arbitrary list that is inappropriate. Plus, like Power~enwiki says, it's covered in another article perfectly fine anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:30, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's an arbitrary list that is not comprehensive. It would have to be "List of people notable by Wikipedia standards whose parent died by suicide" which is a nonstarter. Spudlace (talk) 05:40, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • More like "list of people notable by Wikipedia standards whose parents died by suicide who people took note enough to record this fact". If you look at the list, it in parts more clealry approaches "list of children of notable people who committed suicide".John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:22, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is just plain a horrible list. This is not really a shared group, especially since some were very old when it applied. In fact, in theory, people could qualify for this list if the parent committed suicide after the person's death, which makes it even less defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:17, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I completely agree with JPL here Spiderone 16:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, this list is silly, it would be like having a list on US presidents with facial hair ("psssst, excuse me coola, but we have one of those."), oh. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, that's a pretty legit list. 28 references and all. That said, I think Martin Van Buren with his half mutton chops is a questionable edition. No offense to anyone out there sporting mutton chops. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep per WP:SNOW and WP:SKCRIT #1. An argument for deletion was not advanced and no other parties have recommended that the article be deleted or redirected, thus qualifying for the latter. TheSandDoctor Talk 07:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Astrid Beckmann[edit]

Astrid Beckmann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A german language page exists for this person which reads like a long cv. The long cv has been transposed into English with no verifiable 3rd party sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hangulrover69 (talk • contribs) 13:03, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:48, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:48, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:48, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:48, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I did not find significant research contributions but as head of a university she passes WP:PROF#C6. Looking like a cv is a reason for cleanup, not deletion, and in any case this looks more like an encyclopedia article than a cv to me (it is neutrally written, in prose rather than merely being a bulleted list of postings and accomplishments). —David Eppstein (talk) 18:50, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Before nominating it for deletion, the nominator also removed a lot of content from the article including a photo of its subject and eight of its footnotes. The pre-removal version can be found here. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:56, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - subject meets the notability criteria for an academic. If the style of writing is an issue ("reads like a CV" for example) then that's an issue of editing/writing style, not an issue of whether the article belongs in the encyclopedia. MurielMary (talk) 08:54, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: cleanup may be needed, but the subject passes WP:NACADEMIC as the former rector of a major institution. — MarkH21talk 09:25, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - article needs improving not deleting Spiderone 23:14, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as WP:DINC. Noted that nom seems to be a fairly new account, but doesn't affect my !vote. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:46, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:PROF#C6. The prose could use editing for tone and flow, but it is prose, not a list like an actual CV would provide — and that's a matter for cleanup rather than deletion anyway. XOR'easter (talk) 20:53, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 00:13, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

POSaBIT[edit]

POSaBIT (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

notability not established, cannabis media cannot be used for notability, businesswire is churnalist, POSaBIT is not the primary focus of the remaining sources, there is not sufficient independent content for an article Ysangkok (talk) 17:49, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 17:49, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 17:49, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 17:49, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 17:49, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 17:49, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with nom. Sources are mostly press releases. Did a google news search as well and its mostly press releases. Expertwikiguy (talk) 18:10, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:07, 13 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 18:52, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Mt. Shasta[edit]

Peter Mt. Shasta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Probably insufficiently notable for an article of his own. Much of the article appears to be a bibliography of his own works. GPinkerton (talk) 17:15, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. GPinkerton (talk) 17:15, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GPinkerton (talk) 17:15, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. GPinkerton (talk) 17:15, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can find no sources to indicate that this person passes WP:GNG, and the article is currently sourced to an interview, a bibliography and a mention in a book. The article appears to have been written as an autobiography, the article's main editor describes the photo used in the article as having been previously "published on my website: www.I-AM-Teachings.com". The other significant contributor to the article, GeorgeSanders1008 appears to be an alternate account or sockpuppet of the article's creator DharmaMountain, given that they are correcting unsourced statements with more unsourced statements and have only edited in the same subject area. 192.76.8.82 (talk) 18:53, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think he's notable enough for an article due to lacking multiple in-depth reliable sources about him. Unfortunately that's hard to do in the "new age" movement, but the guidelines are the guidelines. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Because of lack of reliable independent sources. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:15, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:53, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Duel: A Story Where Truth Is Mere Detail[edit]

The Duel: A Story Where Truth Is Mere Detail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable film with only 1 review found, but WP:NFILM requires 2 reviews. No others found. Tagged for notability since January 2020. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:21, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:21, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:21, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If coverage exists for this film, it may only be in Portuguese. See Portuguese Wikipedia's article on the film here. May help to ask an editor who knows Portuguese to look for results. This seems like a good source in support of notability. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:45, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Easily passes WP:NFILM. I do speak Portuguese (actually, it's my native language). The film was widely covered by press in Brazil mainly because it was José Wilker's last movie. Wilker was a very respected actor in Brazil. See here, here, here, here, here, here.--SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 22:32, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. SirEdimon's sources establish notability per WP:NFILM. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:23, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per SirEdimon. Exactly what I was hoping for. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 00:33, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The new sources found establish notability. Passes NFILM.TheRedDomitor (talk) 02:45, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 00:12, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sailing for Madagascar[edit]

Sailing for Madagascar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Short film, tagged for notability since August 2020. Claims of award winner, but couldn't find any citations to support. Can someone else establish notability for this short film, or should it be deleted? Donaldd23 (talk) 14:20, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:20, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:20, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Couldn't turn anything up on Google or newspapers.com. A lot of noise on the Internet Archive, but not finding anything there. Gonna have to say that this fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG based on my failed search and the nom's. Hog Farm Bacon 20:56, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above and WP:MILL. Short films in particular are not automatically notable. Bearian (talk) 20:22, 12 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 Materialscientist (talk) 10:16, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BY.SHIVAM[edit]

BY.SHIVAM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Biography article of musician that fails to meet WP:NMUSIC, WP:NBIO, and WP:GNG. Several (most) edits by User:Byshivam, which appears to be a conflict of interest. Mikeblas (talk) 13:51, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:20, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:20, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 00:06, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Our Lady of Lourdes College Mankon[edit]

Our Lady of Lourdes College Mankon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I deleted this following a G11 SD tag from @Adamant1:. However, @SportingFlyer: had edited the article and decided in GF that it was no longer G11, so I've restored and brought it here, since it stills reads as poorly sourced promo imho Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:25, 28 October 2020 (UTC) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:25, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep easily meets WP:GNG through press and a scholarly journal search and I've cleaned up the promotional material. Only the history section needs sourcing, will try to do that later. SportingFlyer T·C 09:38, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: despite being on the stricter side of the old WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES debate, I'd argue this school appears to meet WP:NORG through the coverage found by SportingFlyer. There may need to be a look at potential conflicts of interest in the article history due to the promotionalism but in its current state it poses no WP:ADVERT problems. SITH (talk) 10:38, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:01, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:01, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Coverage satisfies notability guidelines. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:11, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per SportingFlyer's improvements. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I had added the G11 tag due to the promo, which has nothing to do with notability per say IMO (I've seen plenty of extremely promotional articles with two sources deleted for being clear promo), because I felt what would be left after the promo was removed wouldn't be "substantial." Which is mentioned in the speedy delete banner. Unfortunately, "substantial" seems to be a vague term that no one has a definition for or idea of what constitutes "substantial" content. At least not when it comes to admins that I've asked about it and non-admins have just deflected from answering what it means. So, given that, if this passes the notability guidelines (which again, wasn't why I did the G11) then I'm fine with it being retained. That said, I would like to see an actual discussion of the quality of the sources and how they meet the guidelines if they do before this is closed. Because looking over them, they aren't particularly great.
For instance, I would question the neutrality of the second source due to it saying things like that the schools is known for it's "moral rectitude." The forth reference is a dead link. The fifth one is a news aggregator, which I'm pretty sure isn't "primary", and doesn't discuss the school anyway. The sixth is a personal blog. The 7th is a dead link. And that's pretty much it. Except for the first, which is just a "ranking" that I'm pretty sure doesn't work for notability. Things like top lists rarely do. That only leaves "Linguistic Identity in Postcolonial Multilingual Spaces." Which might have in-depth coverage, but likely doesn't. If someone has access to it maybe they could cite a quote to show it does. Outside of that though, this hardly seems like a clear keep. Otherwise, I'd like to see some solid guideline based, sourcing based, arguments as to why it is. For instance just saying it passes the GNG without stating why doesn't cut it. How exactly does it and what sources is it being determined to pass due to? Things do not pass the GNG "through press and a scholarly journal searchs." Give some solid clear reasons why it does. Don't just reference everyone else's non-arguments to justify your own votes either. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:53, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's been frequently referenced in the media in Cameroon, including being noted as one of the best schools based on student results, and been discussed in multiple academic articles. Your continued opposition to clearly notable African school articles is exhausting, and I'm not going to go through a source review just to satisfy you. Vote delete if you must. SportingFlyer T·C 17:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, that's usually how it is when you don't allow non-notable or promotional articles to be deleted through the simpler ways that Wikipedia gives us to delete them. Your the one that kept going off about how everything should go to AfD, no matter how mundane and clearly not notable it was, Because "consensus" or some crap. So, boohoo for you I guess? You really should have taken Steven's answer to your question in Wikiproject Schools about how much of a mess things are to heart by leaving the cleanup to people who actually know what they were doing. Like the admins. It's pretty mediocre for you to complain about a problem you caused. Honestly, I rather not spend my time on this either, but you and Necrothesp didn't really give me a choice about it. So cry me a river. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:31, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've searched for sources and there's nothing available that meets the criteria for establishing notability. There's some passing references, some articles written by ex-students or alumini and there's even an article that discusses the grades achieved by students in a survey, but these fall short of the criteria. I'm happy to revisit my !vote if any suitable references are linked to here but applying the relevant WP:NCORP guidelines, this topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing++ 18:15, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Out of curiosity, what do you define the criteria to be? SportingFlyer T·C 18:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per WP:NCORP but there are two sections in that guideline in particular which (in my opinion) are the reasons for most failures to meet the criteria. A summary I sometimes post sums it up as follows.
The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.
So how to apply the guidelines? For example, this from Cameroon Post is written by three journalism students on internship and discusses a study on school rankings including this school. The article does not provide any in-depth information on the school, only on grades. This fails WP:CORPDEPTH. In addition, the article is based on an analysis of the 2009 GCE results carried our by the Bakweri community in Great Britain. Looking for the source of this study is difficult but I believe the "study" is nothing more that this analysis posted on the "Fako News Centre" website and is unattributed with no methodology posted and is therefore unreliable. As such, that reference fails the criteria for establishing notability.
Another example. This reference from Dunia is written by Lilian Nukuna-Fomunung, a "contributor" to the magazine. It provides excellent detail of the school and the alumni organization (therefore would appear to meet CORPDEPTH) but towards the end, the contributor is identified as being of the "class of '83" and a member of LESA GA. This is also confirmed by the this magazine on page 32. The contributor is therefore a source affiliated with the subject, fails WP:ORGIND.
As I said, none of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 12:57, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't necessarily relevant to the discussion since WP:GNG is passed, but schools don't appear to be subject to WP:NORG: this was a unilateral change implemented here and edited. While there was discussion on the talk page, WP:NORG was not discussed in the applicable RfC on school notability. Instead, that close set out the rule to be: Because extant secondary schools often have reliable sources that are concentrated in print and/or local media, a deeper search than normal is needed to attempt to find these sources. At minimum, this search should include some local print media. If a deep search is conducted, and still comes up empty, then the school article should be deleted for not meeting the GNG - Editors are not expected to prove the negative that sources do not exist, but they should make a good-faith effort to find them. If a normal-depth search fails to find any evidence that the school exists, the article on the school should be deleted without the need for a deeper search.. There's plenty of coverage in local sources (most of these are trivial but they reflect the local level of coverage): [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29]. While those aren't great, the article passes WP:GNG as it stands, and along with various mentions in books and scholarly research articles, still seems to be a pretty clear keep to me. SportingFlyer T·C 21:19, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Schools not being covered by WP:NORG is directly contradicted by WP:NORG itself. Which says "All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must satisfy either this guideline (WP:ORG) or the general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria." WP:ORG is a redirect to the exact same page. Just because a specific guideline isn't directly discussed in an RfC doesn't mean that it becomes void. Really, the opposite should be true. No guideline should be able to be over turned unless there is specifically an RfC about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
either this guideline (WP:ORG) or the general notability guideline, or both. GNG is met. That's all you need. SportingFlyer T·C 21:33, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N explicitly states in WP:SNG: "Note that in addition to providing criteria for establishing notability, some SNGs also add additional restrictions on what types of coverage can be considered for notability purposes. For example, the SNG for companies and organizations specifies a very strict set of criteria for sources being considered". NCORP doesn't "add" any extra requirements over and above GNG either, btw, but it does emphasise that references must be strictly examined to meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 14:05, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I was under the impression that the specific notability guidelines semi superseded the GNG. Otherwise, there wouldn't be any point in them. Also, I'd assume that if something passed WP:NORG that it would also inherently also pass WP:GNG. Either way, WP:GNG still requires significant coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail. Which unless I'm mistaken was HighKing's point. Due to this lacking it. Unless you want to try and barnstorm this by nitpicking over what "significant coverage" means. I, and I'm sure everyone else here, rather you not though. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:42, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
HighKing's assertion that an article isn't independent because the writer went to the school more than thirty years ago is not credible. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:35, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, I do think he's stretching it a little bit maybe, but its not clear to me where WP:INDEPENDENT draws the line, unless I missed it, and it's always better to air on the side of caution. Since the author still technically has a vested interest in the school and likely isn't covering it from "a disinterested perspective." I know I wouldn't be able to write about the school I graduated from with a "disinterested perspective." Even thirty years later. School pride is deep man. Deep. Probably more importantly I don't think someone writing about their school shows that it is a notable topic. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:21, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You have misrepresented what I said and omitted an important points. In my post above, I pointed out the contributor is identified as being of the "class of '83" *and* a member of LESA GA (and I even provided a link). It isn't just the fact that the contributor went to the school 37 years ago but coupled with the fact that the contributor is an active member of the alumni organization and actively promotes both the school and its values (for example by organizing events, fund raising, contributing glowing articles on the school, etc) demonstrates that the reference fails because it is not clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. HighKing++ 14:05, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I looked pretty extensively through the sources in the article and search for others. None of them worked for notability due to being trivial, primary, or having other problems. So, unless someone can find the multiple in-depth reliable sources about this that the guidelines require then it's a clear delete for me. Sometimes, things just aren't notable. It's possible that I missed something, but at it currently stands this isn't. Also, thanks to Jimfbleak for doing the AfD. Even if it wasn't my preferred way to go about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete: Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG / WP:NSCHOOL. Sources in article and WP:BEFORE are not WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth. Two refs come close.   // Timothy :: talk  22:44, 29 October 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) 13:25, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 00:05, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pepe Abad[edit]

Pepe Abad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual failing WP:ANYBIO, WP:CREATIVE, and WP:GNG.

NJOURNALIST:

  1. "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." -- no evidence of this in RS
  2. "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique." -- no evidence
  3. "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." -- not the case
  4. "The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." -- not the case

ANYBIO:

  1. "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times." -- no evidence of this
  2. "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field." (note: "Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians.") -- this is not the case here
  3. "The person has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication." -- not evident

GNG:

  1. " significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."
  1. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. -- no evidence of this in reliable sources that is above routine coverage
  2. ""Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability." -- reliable sources not exactly available nor plentiful and don't cover him as an individual

TheSandDoctor Talk 07:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC); expanded rationale 04:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor Talk 07:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor Talk 07:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor Talk 07:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable TV presenter in Chile. In Alberto Fuguet's novel Mala onda, Abad is described as the "much known and cherished Televisión Nacional de Chile voice"[30] Sergio Campos writes in another book (a nonfiction one) that Abad premiered the Beatles' first single in Chile.[31] There is a Unidad Popular-era magazine which contains an interview with Abad. [32] Patricio Bañados describes Abad in his book El mirador.[33] There are several other Google Books results which contain either mentions or in-depth reports/interviews with/about Abad. --Kuatrero (talk) 03:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    1. mala onda appears to be a fiction book based on the description? For some reason, I cannot preview inside of it to verify this.
    2. Sergio -- mentioning that he premiered a song in a country, regardless of artist fame, seems like rather routine coverage given that that is conceivably something a television journalist would do by happening to having it air on their show. It does not convey any notability and is trivial. Was there anything else covered in there?
    3. Unidad -- interviews do not contribute towards notability as they are considered primary sources
    4. Patricio -- could you please provide a page reference for this?
    Mentions are generally considered trivial and more detail is needed about the individual themselves. Interviews do nothing for notability since they are considered primary sources. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately I have no time for searching other detailed eventual references for this article. As it occurs often with Latin American sources, they are mostly not digitized and it is troublesome to find books and other published materials that (could) mention Abad, contrary to what would have happened had Abad been a US journalist. I am fairly sure there must be sources out there. And also note I am only talking about books and printed materials: a simple Google Search provides several articles related to this person which prove they pass GNG. And there are at least three other references in Google Books which refer to Abad's work both in radio and TV in the 1960s and 1970s. Also, Chile's newspaper of record El Mercurio digitally compiles several news articles that relate to Abad [34] There is a University of Chile thesis that refers to Abad hosting Reporter Esso in 1964 and details some more of his career [35] Kind regards. --Kuatrero (talk) 22:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete articles follow us having good, indepth, quality sources, not the assertion that such "must exist". We live be verifiability, which means we only have articles that give adequate sourcing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I provided several sources which prove, at least, Abad was relevant in the context of Chilean news media back in the 60s-early 80s. That should be enough to keep it. --Kuatrero (talk) 00:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For instance, El Mercurio 's "Una generación en sintonía con la radio" 26 April 2009 article says "muchos chilenos se ponían al tanto de lo que ocurría a través de los diarios y, también, mediante este breve espacio informativo, preparado por la United Press International, que originalmente fue transmitido por radio Agricultura, luego por la Cooperativa Vitalicia y finalmente por Minería, cuando la inconfundible voz de Pepe Abad terminó por convertirlo en el noticiero más escuchado" (many Chileans would be informed by reading newspapers and also through this brief news programme prepared by the United Press International, originally broadcasted by radio Agricultura, later by Cooperativa Vitalicia and finally by Minería, when unmistakeable host's voice Pepe Abad converted it [Reporter Esso] into the most listened to news programme). subscription required --Kuatrero (talk) 16:00, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 07:41, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Though it is preferable for the article to have sources included in the article, the AfD process is not for cleaning up articles. It is incumbent upon every editor !voting here to do a search per WP:BEFORE to be well informed about the possible notability of a subject. Whether the article is well written, well sourced or not does not make a subject more or less notable. Would we love for every article to be a GA candidate? Sure, but that isn't realistic. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:38, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 11:01, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 10:35, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mahira Kakkar[edit]

Mahira Kakkar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No major works to pass WP:NACTOR or no significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. A probable case of WP:TOOSOON - The9Man (Talk) 10:51, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:28, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:28, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:28, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:28, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:30, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:30, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a bunch of very minor roles does not make one a notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:37, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep or Draftify or Redirect: There are some sources that discuss the subject's acting, like the New York Times article cited, this Deccan Chronicle article (here) and others, so she does appear to be moving towards the WP:GNG threshold. As for WP:NACTOR, again, she seems to be getting there—but I can appreciate the WP:TOOSOON arguments made above. I wouldn't have any problem with the article remaining, but perhaps dratifying it or redirecting it to the A Suitable Boy Wikipedia page could be considered instead of downright deletion. Dflaw4 (talk) 11:53, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Dflaw4, Redirect to where? ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the sources given from The New York Times and the Deccan Chronicle only give this actress passing mentions, not the SIGCOV that is required in order for her to pass WP:GNG, and she also fails WP:NACTOR. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete the argument provided by Dflaw4 is not enough to establish notability. —usernamekiran (talk) 03:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG and the SNG criteria as well. There isn't even borderline meet with the SNG. ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:01, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draft. Per request of the author Spartaz Humbug! 00:01, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Innovecs[edit]

Innovecs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability per WP:NCORP. A WP:BEFORE search turns up press releases but no significant coverage online per WP:CORPDEPTH, only passing mentions in reliable sources. Captain Calm (talk) 10:21, 5 November 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 10:21, 5 November 2020 (UTC) striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:49, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 10:21, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 10:21, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi,I'm just starting to create an article, I'm looking for reliable sources--OmInna (talk) 16:59, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree the page lacks reliable sources and fails to meet DEPTHCOV so please remove to the Draft if it's possible.--OmInna (talk) 12:37, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify as the article is too weak. I cannot find any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails NCORP/GNG. The author agrees with that too. --Mulage9 (talk) 15:16, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. None of the English language sources are significant, reliable, and independent. The foreign language sources do not appear to be any better, although that impression is admittedly based on machine translation of those sources. Small company going about its regular business and no evidence of meeting notability requirements. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:57, 13 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) 10:37, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Order of the Golden Fire Dog[edit]

Royal Order of the Golden Fire Dog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable, independent sources showing any notability for this order. Fram (talk) 10:20, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:20, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. None of the reliable sources cited mention this organisation (award? unclear), nor a Royal House of Sefwi Obeng-Mim, nor a Chief Oheneba Nana Kwame Obeng II. A search online (including GBooks) for all of the above turns up only blogs and primary sources. Captain Calm (talk) 10:25, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - I'd say this is a hoax of some sort. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:30, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as G3 Spiderone 12:34, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose/keep
I object to this article being deleted. "Captain Calm" stated, “None of the reliable sources cited mention this organisation (award? unclear), nor a Royal House of Sefwi Obeng-Mim, nor a Chief Oheneba Nana Kwame Obeng II.” This is nonfactual. The cites, that I listed about the article, do in fact, mention both of those two topics. In addition to these links, I also provided photos of the Royal Order of the Golden Fire Dog’s regalia and medals, that I photographed myself in-person, and added on the page.
Let me be more specific:
In Cite #1: "Royal Order of the Golden Fire Dog". Royal House Mim
- It is the official Royal House’s Website – tells everything about the Royal House of Sefwi Obeng-Mim, how the house was established, royal warrants, location, farming communities, an individual menu tab that lists 2 different pages (1 about the Royal Order of the Golden Fire Dog and 1 about the Royal Order of Obeng II), and more pertinent and in-depth information about the Royal House of Sefwi Obeng-Mim and Chief Oheneba Nana Kwame Obeng II.
- Explicitly states “Chief Oheneba Nana Kwame Obeng II” and all the Chiefs, that came before him:
On the Website Home Menu, Under the “About” tab, if you hit the “History” tab, it sends you to this page: https://www.royalhousemim.org/about_history (on this page it lists everything)
In Cite #2&#3: "Asafo System in Historical Perspective". Cambridge.org. Cambridge.
1. ^ "Asafo". vetter.sites.grinnell.edu. Grinnell College.
- These Cite links are listed in reference to who the “Asafo” were in Ghana, as it explains Chief Oheneba Nana Kwame Obeng II’s reasoning for creating his royal order
In Cites #4&#5: "1935 Native Authorities Ghana". countrystudies.us. Country Studies.
1. ^ "Colonial Era: British Rule of the Gold Coast". ghananation.com. Ghana Nation.
- These cites are used to explain what the 1935 Native Authorities in Ghana were and further explain, how the formation of the Sub-Kingdom of Ghana, the Kingdom of Obeng Sefwi-Mim was able to be formed in 1935
In Cites #6,#7, #8: "Kingdom of Sefwi Obeng Mim". uchterhous.org. uchterhous.
1. ^ "Cooperation between the Royal House Sefwi Obeng Mim of Ghana". Nazione Templare. Nazione Templare.
2. ^ "Kingdom of Sefwi-Obeng Mim". grevindeafmarkland.info. GrevindeafMarkland.
- They all specifically mention the Kingdom of Sefwi-Obeng Mim and Chief Oheneba Nana Kwame Obeng II
Also, in the Info Box of the Page I created, it lists a website link: https://royalhousemim.org/armsorders_goldenfiredog - This link takes you directly to the Royal Order of the Golden Fire Dog
In addition, on the previously created Wikipedia Page, that was already established months before I created my page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders,_decorations,_and_medals_of_Ghana
- There used to be a Heading called “Kingdom of Sefwi-Obeng Mim”, under the Heading “Other Orders”, which proves, that this sub-kingdom, was already previously established on Wikipedia. I was just creating a page for the Royal Orders that were already listed on Wikipedia.
- Since my Page “The Royal Order of the Golden Fire Dog” was incorrectly reported, this entry on the Orders, Decorations, and Medals of Ghana page has been subsequently removed. I am curious, as to why, the previously established evidence on Wikipedia, of this Sub-Kingdom of Ghana’s existence was removed?
Again, my citations are valid and correct, and do provide all the information, that “Captain Calm”, stated they did not. I provided verified news sources, a link to an article from Cambridge, an International Encyclopedia Listing website, a link to the official Royal House's Website, and even a photo of the actual Royal Regalia that I photographed myself in-person. The heraldic artist for the Royal Order of the Golden Fire Dog and the Royal Order of Obeng II, is Dr. Antonio Salmeron y Cabanas, certified herald, in Madrid Spain. He has a website called http://www.blason.es. The same herald also made heraldic designs for the other sub-kingdom of Ghana, the Kingdom of Gondenu.
If it is just a reason, of how I cited the sources in the biography section, then please tell me how to adjust and correct the reference cites, as I am new to Wikipedia. Thank you for your time and I am open to discussion, on how I may improve the article, if needed. However, please do not delete my valid article.
AmyMHollywoodNow (talk) 12:53, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • AmyMHollywoodNow, these are not acceptable sources; it's as simple as that. Even if a page like https://royalhousemim.org/armsorders_goldenfiredog was accepted as reliably reporting facts, it would be a primary, not a secondary source, and as such can add nothing to notability. Same with the photo: we cannot accept that kind of material, and again it is primary evidence at best. I don't know what you want the "The Asafo System in Historical Perspective" article to do for you: I looked it up in JSTOR and it simply does not mention this order. Who the Asafo are or were is of no importance to this article. There is nothing from Grinell college, and even if there were it might just be a student page, and is certainly not a peer-reviewed academic publication. I could go on, but all this is so poorly organized that I feel I'm wasting my time. Drmies (talk) 15:35, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sourcing is not there. Drmies (talk) 15:35, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose/keep I object to this article being deleted. I have updated source links and updated the page. Also, another contributor has added to the page as well and added another Wikipedia page reference, that also lists The Royal Order of the Golden Fire Dog and Chief Oheneba Nana Kwame Obeng II, further validating my page. AmyMHollywoodNow (talk) 17:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You should strike out your other vote. As you can't vote twice and it will screw up the bot if you do. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete subject lacks the necessary sourcing quality wise to be notable. Due to being trivial coverage and having other problems that I do not feel the need to go into obtuse detail about. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:RS is required to pass WP:V. Wikipedia has never published original research like this, and in 2020, everybody knpws that. Bearian (talk) 20:25, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Virtually nothing in terms of reliable sourcing. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:12, 12 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 13:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Priyanka Agarwal[edit]

Priyanka Agarwal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was previously CSDed and deleted as non notable actress. Has acted into only one film and has received some coverage for the same. She has been signed for a second film as a lead which is yet to be shot. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 09:18, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 09:18, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 09:18, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 09:18, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 09:18, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. For the significance of orders of battle in1989 not to be OR there needs to be sources provided to show this and, despute requesrs, sources have not been presented.Spartaz Humbug! 23:57, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1989 Portuguese Armed Forces order of battle[edit]

AfDs for this article:
1989 Portuguese Armed Forces order of battle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Basically per Fram's rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1989 Swiss Army order of battle (2nd nomination) (closed as delete). There is no indication that the order of battle for this specific year in this specific country was encyclopedically notable. Certainly not more so than any other particular year. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Structure of the Austrian Armed Forces in 1989, which was also recently closed as delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete largely unreferenced and lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS that satisfies WP:GNG. I do not believe that an order of battle serves any purposes without a battle and don't accept that 1989 is any more significant than any other year during to Cold War such as 1956, 1961, 1968 or 1983. Mztourist (talk) 03:04, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons outlined in the nom and as comparable to the other deleted articles. Fram (talk) 08:17, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - lack of evidence of WP:GNG and lack of sources available to verify the information are the main issues here Spiderone 08:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I must emphasize here that while the in-line citations for the Portuguese Army section do not specifically mention 1989, the sources for that section are (a) multiple, (b) independent - anyone who cares to look will see the websites are not official (take a look at the website authors at [36]!! they're military enthusiasts, "buffs") - and (c) reliable (Thomas & Volstad, NATO Armies Today, 1987). If the multiple, independent, and reliable threshold is met, it meets WP:GNG. Thus this nomination is perfectly valid for the naval and air force sections, but does not disprove the GNG for the army for the mid-1980s. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Without getting into the suitability of self-published sources produced by, basically, people in the military fandom, can you not see the issue with drilling down from "these sources mention the army in the mid-1980s" to "that proves the notability of the sub-topic of the army in 1989 specifically"? Notability is not inherited down the chain that way, especially when (as you specifically pointed out) the sources in question don't even mention the year in question. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:50, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not arguing against the deletion of the air force and navy information, nor the removal of any references to the year 1989. What I am saying is that as of 1987 - Thomas and Volstad is *not* a SPS!! - there is a reliable, independent, source which verifies the information in the army section, published by a entirely reputable publisher, Osprey Publishing. I am arguing for the retention of the army listings information, sourced to Thomas & Volstad, backed up by other sources, possibly at something like List of units and formations of the Portuguese Army 1987.
However, I am well aware of the WP:CFORK issue, and to avoid looking like I am trying to short-circuit an entirely legitimate AfD, I have to make the point at the AfD before any Army-focused text can be 'cordoned off' from the other Air Force & Navy text. If there is no further objection to Nigel Thomas & Ron Volstad (1987). NATO Armies Today, Oxford: Osprey Publishing, as backed up by other sources - military fandom is perfectly respectable!!, you would need to raise policy-based arguments against it because fandom, in its more respectable forms, produces great slabs of the corroborating data for many of our articles, Air Forces Monthly for a first source, off the top of my head - I will split off and create List of units and formations of the Portuguese Army 1987, which should satisfy you gentlemen's GNG issues with the Air Force and Navy, while the properly referenced Army information can go its own way. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:35, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Gentlemen"? I'm a woman, last I checked. In any case, I'm really not making a GNG argument so much as an argument on ROUTINEness of this information - there is nothing that I have seen so far to indicate that 1989, or 1987, or any other particular individual year in any decade is any more notable (ie unusual, special, worthy of notice) for the army's units and formations than any other year. In other words, what is so unique about the Portuguese army in 1987 or 1989 that it requires its own individual article just to discuss the order of battle for that year, separately from every other year? From what I can tell - nothing. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:08, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please accept my apologies for making an incorrect guess at your sex.
The argument regarding 1987 - or any year in the 1980s - is that it indicates the general organizational structure of the Portuguese Army at the end of the time when it might have faced combat, the Third World War perhaps, against the Warsaw Pact. There was a substantial difference in the organization of the Army from (a) after World War II; (b) when the troops were sent to try to hold Angola, Mozambique, Portuguese Guinea, and East Timor, and, after the Carnation Revolution, (c) to the re-concentration on combat perhaps involving nuclear weapons trying to hold Italy against the Soviets/WP. I don't have access to the libraries in Portugal for the prior periods; what we do have now here are these WP:RELIABLE sources for this period. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 01:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But you're conflating content about the changes brought by the period in general (which is what you seem to want the article to be) with a list of units from a particular year (what it is right now). The former is probably an interesting and sourceable piece of history - maybe for a long section at History of the Portuguese Army (which frankly a large part of Portuguese Army probably should be split off into). The latter is a routine list of the order of battle for one single year, with minute detail of individual regiments, boats, squadrons etc etc, but with very little prose that tells the reader what the actual context of the list is. The first is encyclopedic content, the second is just...contextless stats. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In military terms, both, rather than one or the other, matter. To take the Independent Mixed Brigade, for example. It was unique in the Portuguese Army for being based on battalions, rather than regiments; that history stemmed from its shinkage from the Division "Nun´Álvares"; each of its units has its own history, reasons for being in the places they were, with the equipment they had. The placing of such-and-such a unit at such-and-such a place gives one an idea about the reaction time and likelihood of success if called upon for any specific mission - a unit in Viseu or Evora could move faster to Italy than a unit in Faro, for example. The lineage and history of the regiment gives an idea about its level of morale, especially if whether it's conscript or professional is noted. Myself and people who collect and collate such data believe that this kind of thing matters at a detailed level, and if that material is backed by independent, reliable sources, then that meets the GNG. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:06, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I hoped that after the previous two discussions, we didn't need to have the same arguments yet again. No, this doesn't meet the WP:GNG by a mile, since you have no reliable, independent sources about the actual subject of the article, the 1989 order of battle of the Portuguese army. None, nada, not a single one. You have one reliable sources (about two pages?) for 1987, then you have an enthusiasts website where the page used as a source doesn't even mention 1989; then there is a page of badges, and a primary source. Even if this article was about the 1987 order of battle, it wouldn't meet the GNG, which requires multiple sources. For 1989 though, you have so far nothing at all. The remainder of your explanations has no bearing on the actual article or the sources, but are WP:OR claims. Fram (talk) 07:54, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding 1987 and the 1980s, in general, for army units, I have provided multiple, independent, reliable sources, as you have seen above, I am not trying to keep 1989. Your somewhat pointed comments about the sources I have provided aside, they meet the GNG, in conjunction with Thomas & Volstad. They prove the existence of the unit where they cited. If you have problem with those specific sources, take then to WP:RSN. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:14, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You still don't get the difference between WP:V and WP:GNG? Really? Sources which aren't independent can be perfectly acceptable to verify uncontroversial stuff and have no place at all at WP:RSN. But they are worthless for meeting the WP:GNG. It is very clear in the first line you read when you follow that shortcut: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Sources which are not independent of the subject don't count towards the GNG. Sources which don't provide significant cocverage (like that page of badges) don't count towards the GNG either. Sources which are not about 1989, like the "operacional" page, also don't provide significant coverage of the actual subject of the article, as they cover, well, something else, not the 1989 order of battle (nor for that matter a 1987 order of battle). These commente aren't "pointed", they are very much "to the point", the essence of what is under discussion here, and the essence of what is expected as sourcing. I had hoped that the two previous discussions, and the "delete" results, would have given you an indication of this, but apparently you just continue with the same mistakes again and again. Fram (talk) 08:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak Keep Given all the comments, I propose keep and try to clean up. If not possible to find reliable sources back to 1989, delete it. BlueD954 (talk) 03:04, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This and similar articles provide a comprehensive picture of the NATO-Warsaw Pact military balance in the final years of the Cold War. Similar "snapshots" of other significant years of the Cold War do not exist in a free encyclopedia form, though some wargaming databases purport to provide one. WP:NOTPAPER, WP:5P1. From what I observed, the Austrian and Swiss orders of battle (yes, the US and NATO use the term for force structure whether or not a country is at war) were deleted for poor referencing, and those countries were neutral. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 06:32, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's basically "it's useful" then, not "it's notable", which is what is being discussed. Just like with the two that were deleted, there are no reliable, independent sources which discuss the 1989 structure specifically. Fram (talk) 07:40, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Article meets WP:CLN and WP:AOAL for keeping a list. 1989 is a major milestone year in the Cold War.   // Timothy :: talk  13:50, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment firstly its not a List. You need to explain why 1989 was a "milestone year in the Cold War" any more than multiple other years were. If it was so important where are the multiple RS providing SIGCOV about the Portuguese armed forces in 1989? Mztourist (talk) 03:12, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neither of these are arguments for or against deletion of a list, they are arguments why a list may be a better format than a category, a regular text article... No one has argued that this should be deleted because it is a list or that it should be turned into a category or ..., so your keep is basically a strawman argument. Fram (talk) 08:10, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: I think this is a list, and in the same way an outline is a list, showing hierarchy. 1989 is significant because it was the year the Eastern bloc dissolved Revolutions of 1989. It is a significant year in Cold War history. Being unsourced by itself is not a reason for deleting a list, especially one that could function as part of WP:CLN. Given the level of activity of the military history editors, this could become an excellent building block - "Deleting these rudimentary lists is a waste of these building blocks, and unnecessarily pressures list builders into providing a larger initial commitment of effort whenever they wish to create a new list, which may be felt as a disincentive."   // Timothy :: talk  06:45, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Being unsourced by itself is not a reason for deleting a list" is yet another strawman. The deletion nomination is not for being unsourced, but for lacking notability. A list topic still needs to be a notable topic, even though not every entry in the list needs to be individually notable. No one disputes that 1989 is an important year, but that doesn't automatically make the order or battle of different armies in that year notable. The fact that no reliable sources have considered this an important enough topic to spend some significant attention on it, makes that this list is not a suitable subject. Fram (talk) 08:27, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: via WP:CLN and WP:AOAL, sources exist. Year is relevant. Detailed list need an immense amount of work, so deletion is the wrong course of action. Help to expand and source is the way to go as Timothy also noted. noclador (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Detailed list need an immense amount of work, so deletion is the wrong course of action. " That makes no sense at all. We don't decide to keep or delete an article based on the amount of work that has crept into it. We decide to keep or delete based on the notability of the subject (the exact subject, not one aspect only like the year). As indicated above, neither CLN nor AOAL are arguments to keep or delete a list where the subject simply isn't notable. Oh, and presenting CLN and AOAL as two arguments, when one is a paragraph of the other, is a bit bizarre. Anyway, AOAL could be an argument if the deletion was based on "better as a category" or "better as a navigation template", neither of which are the case here. Which leaves you with "sources exist": then please show them? Reliable, independent sources with significant attention for the actual subject, the structure of the Portuguese Army in 1989. Provide them and it's a keep; don't, and it's a delete. It's not more complicated than this. Fram (talk) 09:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Fram, don't you have other things to do? As in every deletion discussion you find fault with and belittle every editor not agreeing with your plan to delete a whole category of articles. You expect everyone not arguing for delete to argue his opinion with you, which is neither helpful, nor justified, especially as earlier deletion discussion have shown that you're impervious to anything but your viewpoint. I have better things to do. noclador (talk) 10:48, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You mean those "earlier deletion discussion"s which ended in delete, despite the keeps you and others posted there as well, but sadly there as well without a good reason? I don't find fault with editors, I find fault with the arguments they present when these aren't relevant or correct (like your "sources exist"). No one is actually stopping you from doing those "better things" you have to do; replying here to attack me, without actually adressing any of the arguments, will not increase the chances of this article getting kept. Fram (talk) 11:19, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 08:41, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Based on my review, this isn't a notable enough subject for an article. None of the sourcing in the article specifically talks about 1989, and this appears to fail WP:GNG and possibly WP:OR as well. Note I found out about this article from DRV and took a look at it from a neutral point of view, and will not be watching this discussion, and if on topic sources are found, a request to the closer to downweight my vote properly. SportingFlyer T·C 20:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per PMC, WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE, and WP:MILL. Of course 1989 is a significant year in the history of the Cold War; that is not in dispute. However, notability is not inherited: not everything that happened in 1989, even if directly related to the Cold War, is notable as a result. We aren't seeing publishers single out 1989 as a particularly notable year to release orders of battle; unfortunately a passing mention in a almanac-type publication and a self-published website, even one by a few military buffs, are not enough evidence that this particular armed forces in this particular year deserves an article. CThomas3 (talk) 01:14, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge into another article about Portuguese military history. It is true that "sources exist", and we could write an article about the structure of the Portuguese military in 1989, or 1990, or any other year in modern history, but that doesn't mean we should. Wikipedia is not simply a collection of verifiable information, it's an encyclopedia, and we write about encyclopedic topics. Articles like this aren't encyclopedic. The topic of Portuguese military history is definitely encyclopedic, as is Portuguese military history during the Cold War, and I suggest writing about one of those topics instead. Hut 8.5 19:06, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NNC: "The notability guidelines do not apply to contents of articles or lists" (updating my !vote above regarding a new reason, no intention to double vote). This is a list of components of a notable organisation. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The topic still has to be notable even if individual content doesn't, and no one yet has demonstrated that the Portuguese army's order of battle in 1989 was, in fact, notable. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:35, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have demonstrated that in regard to 1987, referring to Thomas & Volstad, and laid out an entire argument, above, for splitting the Army section, again, for 1987. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:14, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And Fram demolished that argument by pointing out that none of the sources mentioned actually have substantial coverage which indicates the notability of the Portuguese army's order of battle in 1989, which is the actual topic of the article under discussion, not the army in 1987, not 1989 in the Cold War in general, and not any other hypothetical article on any other slightly-related topic. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:29, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To repeat myself again, I thought I had to make the point at the AfD before any Army-focused text can be 'cordoned off' from the other Air Force & Navy text. I am now doing so again, and nobody has raised any valid issues against it. If nobody has any issues with the 1987 Army text, I will happily take that text and separate it. Regards to all, Buckshot06 (talk) 09:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please no! Like I said above, "Even if this article was about the 1987 order of battle, it wouldn't meet the GNG, which requires multiple sources." You have one 2-page source about the 1987 structure, which, while better than the zero you have for 1989, still isn't sufficient. Creating new articles to avoid this deletion is not helpful at all, and will only lead to new AfDs for the same material. Fram (talk) 11:04, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am somewhat unready to react with alacrity to any pleas you might make. You're trying to delete helpful, sourced, information. I have met the requirements, as exhaustively discussed here. If this AfD is closed as delete, you are of course at liberty to try and mount new AfDs, as is your right for any page. But the requirements have been met. It backs up the notability of the army in detail in 1987. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So your "If nobody has any issues with the 1987 Army text, I will happily take that text and separate it. " was just empty talk? Okay, I'll start the AfD then. Fram (talk) 11:18, 13 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. Compelling source analysis not challenged Spartaz Humbug! 23:53, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nagarro[edit]

Nagarro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCOMPANY with virtually all source being industry adjacent, and potentially non-independent. No claim of notability. Article has little encyclopedic value, with promo wordings and focus on company defined milestones which may fail WP:UNDUE. Melmann 15:59, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Melmann 15:59, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Needs to be less promotional and more encyclopediac. It belongs in a larger article about Allgeier SE. Omniscientmoose42 (talk) 18:05, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This company is notable due to the work this organization does in Gurugram - all of those sources are independent and not industry adjacent. However, I can see how the first half of the article may seem promotional (when I worked on this article, I looked at other companies to see how they define their page structures). Regarding the merge recommendation, I did some quick search on the company and it has announced in the press that it is carving out from Allgeier SE. So, merging it now may be counterproductive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amiwikieditor (talk • contribs) 09:18, 27 October 2020 (UTC) . Sorry, forgot to sign it. Amiwikieditor (talk) 10:33, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please post links to references you believe meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 19:17, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 19:17, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the article has significant coverage for its initiatives to establish notability and all the references on the page are independent, third-party sources. The article seems neutral enough to me; some scope of improvement exists but not enough to support deletion. Westminster88 (talk) 08:27, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The applicable guideline is WP:NCORP. Please post links to the WP:THREE references that you believe meet the criteria for establishing notability, especially WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Note that PR, announcements, mentions-in-passing fail the criteria. HighKing++ 17:07, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per HighKing. --KartikeyaS (talk) 19:19, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion is leaning delete but a bit more input would be helpful
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 08:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The amount of badgering and non-productive commentary in this discussion is disappointing Spartaz Humbug! 23:51, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Global Association of Risk Professionals[edit]

Global Association of Risk Professionals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I think this article has been deleted four times. Rather than deleting it a fifth time, I think we finally need a discussion to definitively determine whether we should have an article on it or not. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:46, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:49, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:49, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I'm trying to find coverage that is both intellectually independent and substantive, and have so far been unable. I do not see how the sources in the article qualify; this looks like a database, the editors of this are associated with the group, and the business wire article reads like a press release. The others in the article are all a combination of unreliable, not independent, or insubstantial, and a search through books and news found nothing else. Perhaps there's industry sources that are genuinely independent. I'm saying "weak" because there's a considerable number of passing mentions, which is often an indicator that something more substantive is available. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt as a WP:NORG fail. I tagged it as a WP:G11 the other day, and it was deleted, and now it's back. Per Vanamonde and my own searches, there are no independent sources available to establish notability. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @AleatoryPonderings: I have completely re-written the article and cited solely with secondary sources. All sources are independently verified and please see below why. Please, next time, read the article before you form your judgement.
      • @Jjj84206: Please clearly identify WP:THREE sources that are independent of the organization and constitute significant coverage of it. Please also assume good faith with respect to my assessment of the article. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • @AleatoryPonderings: Thank you for your reply. I absolutely appreciate everything you have done. We're all great Wikipedia editors that are trying to make this a better encyclopedia. Please also understand I've spent significant amount of time on this article already and I've never encountered so much resistance and scrutiny on a page I created. This was a very frustrating experience for me and I think I may want to take a break after this. That being said, please see:
          1. Philippe, Jorion (9 November 2006). Value at Risk: The New Benchmark for Managing Financial Risk (3rd ed.). McGraw Hill Professional. p. 43. ISBN 9780071736923. Retrieved 16 October 2020. -> this evidences what GARP is
          2. Porter, Tony; Heather, McKeen-Edwards (11 February 2013). Transnational Financial Associations and the Governance of Global Finance: Assembling Wealth and Power. Routledge. p. 71. ISBN 9780415659741. Retrieved 16 October 2020. -> evidences what GARP is
          3. "2019 Annual Report". Annual Report 2019. Global Association of Risk Professionals. Retrieved 12 October 2020. -> financial information on GARP which is independently audited by a 3rd party accounting firm.
          4. "Global Association of Risk Professionals Inc". Bloomberg. Bloomberg Inc. Retrieved 16 October 2020. -> company profile from reliable source Bloomberg.
          5. Lore, Marc; Borodovsky, Lev (4 April 2000). Professional's Handbook of Financial Risk Management. Butterworth-Heinemann. p. 14. ISBN 978-0750641111. Retrieved 15 October 2020. -> evidences on GARP, reviewed by 27 risk professionals/experts plus KPMG.
          6. Chen, James. "Financial Risk Manager (FRM)". Corporate Finance & Accounting. Investopedia. Retrieved 12 October 2020. -> explains what FRM is.
          7. Reed, Eric. "What Does A Financial Risk Manager Do?". Yahoo. Yahoo Finance. Retrieved 16 October 2020. -> explains what FRM is.

          The fact that you and others can't find good sources could be due to a lack of experiences/knowledge on risk management. I am a CFA with a master's in finance so I'm very experienced and knowledgeable and was able to easily extract these reliable sources. If you want, I can go on and on and add even more sources to this article. I have invested so much work and time on this article and I'm adamant to see it represent the best Wikipedia standards.Jjj84206 (talk) 18:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jjj84206: None of the sources you provided (with the possible exception of the first, which I cannot access) are sufficient for notability, either separately or in tandem. Please review WP:GNG and WP:NORG for guidelines about what constitute appropriate sources. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Cannot access, so cannot evaluate.
  2. Not WP:SIGCOV. The mention is "The Global Association of Risk Professionals provides a Code of Conduct and the Financial Risk Manager (FRM®) and Energy Risk Professional (ERP®) designations, as does the Professional Risk Managers’ International Association (PRIMA), with close to 80,000 members in 200 countries, offering the Professional Risk Manager (PRM) designation."
  3. Not independent. It is, moreover, irrelevant for notability purposes that GARP is audited by a third party.
  4. Not WP:SIGCOV.
  5. Not independent; published by GARP.
  6. Not clearly reliable, and not WP:SIGCOV.
  7. Not WP:SIGCOV.
@AleatoryPonderings: I have reviewed WP:GNG and WP:NORG and the sources I've listed meet the reliability/notability:
  1. Macon, Sophie. "FRM (Financial Risk Manager): A Beginner's Guide". 300 Hours. 300 hours. Retrieved 12 October 2020. -> as per WP:SIGCOV, an extensive how-to guide written by people wholly independent of the company or product.
  2. "FRM® Certification vs. CFA® Charter: Make an Informed Decision". Kaplan Schweser. Kaplan, Inc. Retrieved 12 October 2020. -> per WP:SIGCOV, an extensive how-to guide written by people wholly independent of the company or product.
  3. "2019 Annual Report". Annual Report 2019. Global Association of Risk Professionals. Retrieved 12 October 2020. -> please review WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD, and WP:PRIMARYCARE. It says, "...although it will be acceptable for some simple, objective descriptions of the organization including annual revenue, number of staff, physical location of headquarters, and status as a parent or subsidiary organization to another." This is reliable, notable and independent and accepted by Wikipedia policies.
  4. Lore, Marc; Borodovsky, Lev (4 April 2000). Professional's Handbook of Financial Risk Management. Butterworth-Heinemann. p. 14. ISBN 978-0750641111. Retrieved 15 October 2020. -> No. This is NOT published by GARP. The publisher is Butterworth-Heinemann. Furthermore, as mentioned, it is reviewed by 27 professionals consisting of industry experts, professors and KPMG. This meets WP:SIGCOV, an extensive how-to guide written by people wholly independent of the company or product.
  5. Chen, James. "Financial Risk Manager (FRM)". Corporate Finance & Accounting. Investopedia. Retrieved 12 October 2020. -> This is reliable as Investopedia, unlike Wikipedia, only allows editors who are industry experts to create articles. If you click on the profile for James Chen, [37], you can see that he's not affiliated with GARP and is a Chartered Market Technician with 20 years of industry experience. Please further see the reviewer of the article, Peggy James, [38], she's also not affiliated with GARP and has experience with non-profit accounting and a CPA designation. This source is clearly reliable.
  6. Reed, Eric. "What Does A Financial Risk Manager Do?". Yahoo. Yahoo Finance. Retrieved 16 October 2020. -> WP:SIGCOV is also met since it's an extensive how-to guide written by people wholly independent of the company or product.
    I have provided you with way more than 3 reliable sources and strong evidence that this article is in compliance with Wikipedia. However, I would encourage you to hold the same standards on citations on existing Wikipedia pages, not just on this article. Thank you.Jjj84206 (talk) 19:33, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Suffice it to say that my opinion is unchanged. We need more than mere mentions of a company or organization to satisfy notability standards—we need WP:SIGCOV. As for the Butterworth-Heinemann point, technically yes—but the GARP logo is on the first page (see [39]), so it's clear that the book is not independent of GARP. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@AleatoryPonderings: The sources I provided were more than just "mentions". Like I said, the annual report 2019 and the FRM Guide are two such sources. And also, the article I've written is only a brief overview of the organization. There doesn't need to be a whole book or article dedicating to the organization such as history, life, accolades...etc. No one cares and it won't meet WP:Notability. All I'm doing here is create an entry in Wikipedia that shows what GARP is because it's frequently cited in the financial world. I used the most neutral and brief language to avoid any promotion or advertising. This article is the most neutral, most cited, and most reliable one amongst all Wikipedia articles that talk about professional organizations because I made sure of it. You're entitled to your own opinion of course but if you're not familiar with this topic please let me help you.
Finally, just because a book cover has GARP means it's published by GARP? How did you come to that conclusion? That book cover also has KPMG on it - are you suggesting it's written by KPMG (it's not). That was such an inaccurate statement and I'm shocked that you wrote this. This also tells me you didn't take the time to read or even preview the book. How can you form an opinion without doing that? To give you an example, if a book is titled, "CFA Exam Preparation" and it has a logo of CFA Institute (because they have to under licensing agreement), then it automatically makes it a CFA book? If a professor makes a lecture and he shows a logo of GARP then he's automatically a GARP employee? It seems to me that your opinion is quite biased here and although I assumed you had good faith in your edits, I can't help to think you may have some motivations here to not see this go through. Finally, to give you a last example why your argument is extremely flawed, you're editing on Wikipedia, does that mean you're a Wikipedia employee and that this is published by Wikipedia? No, Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia. Please think about that. The book had GARP logo likely due to licensing requirements. If you want to talk about GARP and its FRM materials, you'll usually need to obtain Licensing Agreement or you'd be sued for copyright issues. On top of that, the authors likely wanted to show it's approved by GARP and KPMG since it adds credibility. It's like if you want to talk about Harvard University's courses as an official guide, you'll likely have to obtain permission from the institution or you risk getting sued. Jjj84206 (talk) 23:49, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Um, according to the book itself, in the one-page chapter titled "About GARP", it states that it was written/edited by Lev Borodovsky and Marc Lore—the founders of GARP. Hence, not independent. This will be my last comment. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that GARP is governed by a Board of Trustees, which aligns itself with shareholders, preventing conflict of interests from arising. This is not some small business or tech start up where the founder can do whatever he wants. This book is not about GARP, it's about Financial Risk Management. Your argument is severely flawed. Just because Steve Jobs is the founder of Apple, does that mean he cannot write a book about Apple or he cannot write about what he thinks about the smart phone market? According to your logic, the founder of Wikipedia (Larry and Jimmy) are not allowed to be cited on Wikipedia because they are obviously biased/not independent? These people are cited because of their background, industry expertise and experiences. The book is scrutinized by countless industry experts that are independent of GARP and the book itself isn't even about GARP. Like I mentioned, the book is audited/edited by 27 professionals and sponsored by KPMG (credible independent big 4 accounting firm, please search it up) and any of them have more knowledge about this topic than you and me. To conclude, given you cannot form a coherent/convincing assertion that the sources I used are not reliable, it seems like you can agree that I have produced ample amount of citations, including the acceptable use of the 2019 Annual Report (which is independently audited by a 3rd party accounting firm producing an unqualified opinion) meeting Wikipedia standards. Thank you for your contributions.Jjj84206 (talk) 04:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Please let me help you understand why this article meets all criteria of WP:Notability. Your argument that the editors of this are unreliable is not true. Just because someone has membership in GARP does not mean they are biased when writing content. Did you take some time to read that book? You'll realize the entire book is talking about financial risk management (it's like a textbook), whether the contributors/editors have membership in GARP or not has nothing to do with the book. The book is about risk management, it's NOT about GARP. The only GARP part I cited is where they introduced the authors and talked about what GARP is. Your argument that just because the authors have GARP membership means everything they write is biased is strongly incorrect. That's like saying if someone is an editor on Wikipedia, then they are automatically biased to edit ANY article because everything will be biased. It makes no sense. Someone's expertise in a topic is not going to be influenced by whatever membership they hold. The GARP membership reinforces these authors expertise as a risk management professional. Their expertise is evidenced by their PhD, and like mentioned, the book was reviewed by 27 industry experts from major banks and KPMG Risk. In fact, if you're a risk professional, you most likely will have the FRM offered by GARP or PRM offered by PRMIA. FRM is like the CPA of accounting professionals, and the CFA of finance professionals. Therefore, this book is reliable and to be fair, that's all the source you needed to substantiate the content of this article. There's no promotional language (which I have taken a long time to audit and remove). I am not affiliated with this group and I'm not a FRM. I just find it very odd that this article has attracted such scrutiny from admins and editors and the moment it appears people want it deleted. To me the notability of this article is clear and the sources cited met all Wikipedia standards. Your focus here should be to improve the articles, not to prevent good and neutral articles such as GARP to be deleted. It's quite discouraging for Wikipedia editors and it demotivates people from creating good articles. There's no question that this article should be on Wikipedia.

To respond your other claims that there are other unreliable sources:

  • The business wire article is solely used to cite the CEO being Richard Apostolik, if you were to delete this source, the other sources still substantiate this claim. Notice none of the business wire content was used in the Wikipedia article.
  • Owler, CauseIQ, Open Yearbook and other pages with company profile shows the basic company information, such as the CEO name, financials...etc. This is reliable because it's only showing basic information. It produces no statement nor any information such as FRM designation or company history. These are only showing that this company is a non-profit and it meets the existence assertion. Please understand that GARP is a non-profit. That means you're not going to find public filing documents on EDGAR.
  • Christopher Donohue, finance professional with Depaul University, needless to say, this is a reliable source.
  • Investopedia: unlike Wikipedia, the authors are all finance professionals who are knowledgeable and experts. The article here by James Chen was also independently reviewed by Margaret James. For any languages that may seem promotional, I have completely removed them as per Wikipedia policies.
  • Kaplan Schweser, Top Finance, 300 hours: reliable sources for the FRM exam and designation. These are reliable sources that are often utilized and cited for exam preparation and risk management professionals. All promotional languages have been removed but only content regarding the exam was retained. To be very honest with you, the most reliable source here would be directly from GARP website. When it comes to these situations, primary sources are the most reliable because they set the rules. To give you an example, if I want to cite IFRS 9, the best source would be directly from IFRS Foundation itself. But like I said many times over, the moment editors see "oh it's from a primary source so it must be unreliable" people start panicking and deleting. I really think the admins should have some training, otherwise they shouldn't be touching articles they have not much knowledge about. If you know admins with business/risk management background, please invite them over to contribute to this article.

Here are more reasons why this article should be kept and why it's notable/substantial:

  • many Wikipedia pages related to finance/business and people link to this page. An indicator that this is substantial.
  • the organization's revenue/expenses are in the millions USD. Do remember this is a non-profit organization, so this is even stronger indicator that this organization is notable.
  • Cited by reliable sources, such as 2019 Annual Report, audited by independent 3rd party accounting firm. Also cited books that are peer-reviewed by KPMG, major industry firms, risk management professors (PhD), and experts with years of industry experiences.
  • Notability is NOT temporary. Over the years, many editors have tried to create this article. The organization is continuously growing, both financially and in membership base.

Jjj84206 (talk) 17:34, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep A significant trade association with more independent references than many similar organizations. Rathfelder (talk) 21:53, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a well know profession organisation Devokewater (talk) 11:11, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete due to lacking multiple in-depth independent sources. I looked through the ones that have been covered and they are clearly lacking. I'm not what else there is that wouldn't be. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:07, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would encourage you to review the above discussions and why the sources all met Wikipedia policies prior to forming your opinion. If you do not understand risk management topics please also ask me and I'll be more than happy to help you understand. This article has more than enough (if not one of the best sourced article out there on similar organizations). It's cited entirely using significant independent sources such as books, guides, and annual report audited by accounting firm.Jjj84206 (talk) 20:12, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that only people who understand risk management can have a valid opinion or that people who don't have to consult you first before having one is completely ludicrous. Adamant1 (talk) 20:40, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand, but it seems to me that you do not have sufficient knowledge in what constitutes as reliable sources and if you have even some basic sense of business, you would know that audited financial statements are considered reliable and trustworthy. I also have a long discussion above that indicates why every single source provided have completely met the standards which seems to have made consensus that this article was well-sourced. You do not have to go through me prior to commenting your opinion. But it's to be expected that editors should at least do some due diligence into the article they'd like to edit. Like I said, this is probably the best article out there in Wikipedia space of any "professional organization" that is free of bias, and completely written in neutral languages with no advertisement involved. Everyone should take this article as an example of what constitutes as a well-sourced, free-of-bias article and apply to other professional organization pages such as CFA Institute.Jjj84206 (talk) 20:51, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Everything you said is drivel. Ypu should go find other things to do instead of badgering delete voters with utter nonsense, because its not helpful. Adamant1 (talk) 21:06, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith with respect to my opinion. That was really disrespectful and you're not adding anything constructive in your statements. Your unprofessional remarks not only does not help us reach consensus of this article, but also creates a toxic and harmful atmosphere on Wikipedia. This discussion, as you know, is for us to debate, discuss and form a consensus. You did not provide any credible/reliable arguments and produced a biased statement saying all sources were unreliable when in fact they are, and then went ahead to attack editors with insults. This was a very disappointing turnout that further enforces my point of view that this article must be kept because of editors that blindly just want articles deleted without any significant and helpful comments.Jjj84206 (talk) 22:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. You going off repeatedly about how people don't have sufficient knowledge to have opinions is not assuming good faith, is disrespectful, and doesn't add anything. Responding every single vote with long commentary about what the voter has or hasn't done Etc. Etc. is what doesn't help us reach a consensus. Your know it all attitude about this is what creates a toxic and harmful atmosphere. No article "must be kept", they are only kept if they are notable. Period. And that's for the voters to decide on their own, without your judgement or interference. Like I said, let the AfD play out and go find something else to do in the meantime. It will go how it goes, and without you mouthing off everywhere. Everyone knows what your opinion is at this point. There's zero reason to repeat. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. I'd invite you to read WP:CON where it states: "Here editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense", under WP:AFD it further states: "Articles listed are normally discussed for at least seven days, after which the deletion process proceeds based on community consensus." At the very top of this page, you can also see that he said, "I think we finally need a discussion to definitively determine whether we should have an article on it or not." The purpose here is for us to reach a consensus through debate and discussion. By telling me that I should not try to convince you to form a consensus is a suppression of everything that Wikipedia stands for. Please also take a look here at WP:AFDEQ:
  • The debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations on the course of action to be taken that are not sustained by arguments. I was merely pointing out that you made a statement without any back up.
  • Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments.
Contrary to everything you said, this is NOT a vote. We are building consensus here. You're supposed to convince me rather than using assertive languages to "leave you alone" and "stop badgering". As policy indicates, I should be engaging in a thoughtful debate but if you refuse to, and only want a unilateral conversation where you post things that are one-sided with absolutely no supporting details, then went ahead to attack other users out of embarrassment, most likely it will turn this article to "no consensus" then result it being kept.Jjj84206 (talk) 17:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: a significant organization / designation in finance (e.g. [40][41][42], and certainly more so than numerous others not up for deletion); rather clean-up the issues, than delete the article. Fintor (talk) 08:53, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The analysis of the sources leans delete but keep votes by assertion or that are just statements are weak. It would be helpful for further discussion to establish the policy based argument that the sourcing is sufficient
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 08:22, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: definitely seeing strong admin bias here. This article was well-sourced with notable experts and reliable materials. Based on the discussion and consensus above, leaning more towards keep. At most the results are leaning towards "no consensus" which is still "keep", there's no indication that it's leaning delete. I'm hoping the editors with more financial background, please step up and help either contribute to the discussion here or to the article. There's a strong bias here on Wikipedia (and I suspect some politically motivated or from rival professional organizations) to delete this article no matter how well-written it is.Jjj84206 (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You shouldn't make un-substantiated claims about the admins, or anyone else, being politically motivated or involved with "rival organizations." It's really not OK. Especially when it comes to the admins. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:07, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
based on our conversation above, and your personal attacks towards me, I really think you're the least suitable person to tell what's ok or not.Jjj84206 (talk) 21:19, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which personal attacks would those be? The ones where you said repeatedly that my opinion shouldn't count because supposedly I didn't know what I was talking about and didn't review the article? Because, those where the only personal attacks I saw in our conversation. Anyway, "it's cool if I say admins are paid shills because past conversations with random user" is a really weak defense and there's really nothing else to say about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:24, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Everything you say is drivel", "Stop badgering others", and telling me to not engage in conversation/debate in accordance with WP:CON was totally inappropriate. Like I said this place here serves as a platform to engage in lively discussions and where editors try to persuade others. Yet the moment I try to give you evidence of why this article should be kept. You got super defensive then proceeded to say no we're not supposed to engage in discussion, and you further refused to listen any well-justified reasonings and claimed that I have no basis in my statements. Your unsubstantiated claims above is equally, if not more, inappropriate.Jjj84206 (talk) 22:24, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your the one that refused to listen by saying my opinion wasn't valid because I didn't know anything and because I'm not in the industry. I listened perfectly well to you repeat it 7 times. I just disagreed with you that me being in the industry or not matters, and I know for sure that I know what I'm doing. Also, both of those claims were exactly what I referring to when I said what you were saying was drivel. And I 100% think it's drivel to say that only people in the industry can have valid opinions in an AfD. Especially when done in the personal, dismissive way you went about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:13, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you read above, I have never said only people who are in the industry can edit. I'm not a FRM myself so I have no rights to say that about you. I said, "If you don't understand risk management, please let me help you". Notice the word "if", and that's because you merely provided one sentence saying that you don't find the sources reliable. With little amount of information and the 1 sentence you provided, I surmised that you likely did not understand some accounting or risk management concepts (and no, you do not have to be in the industry at all), because if you do, you'll realize that things like audited financial statements with unqualified opinion is considered reliable along with the aforementioned book sources written by people that have PhD or CFAs. This has nothing to do with whether someone can edit because they are in risk management or not (such as myself, not in risk management), it's a matter of whether you know if something is reliable. If you have read my comments above 7 times, then you should know that many users here, the moment they see "primary source" they automatically label it as "unreliable" which is why I explained to you with WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD, and WP:PRIMARYCARE. My initial comments was out of kindness where I am trying to ask you, if you don't understand something, let me help you understand why the sources are justified. Perhaps you took it the wrong way and it's very hard to convey one's true tone on the internet, but my initial comments were not malicious but you clearly took it as "only people who understand risk management can edit", which is not true. Now, if you really think the sources aren't reliable, tell us why, and help make this article better. I removed all advertising languages, added way more sources than this article needed using countless reliable sources. I've seen way more discussions and tons of Wiki articles that are in way worse state resulting in clear "keep". GARP is a very significant organization that even people outside of risk management knows, almost second to CFA, and I'm quite surprised that such notable organization gets deleted 5 times in the past. You can also observe that every time it gets created, no matter the state of the article, it gets immediately speedy tag to delete. I've never seen anything like that happening to any other professional organizations. My opinion comes from the observation that this article, despite it being at a very good stage with more editors supporting "keep", seems to attract extremely high scrutiny that even when a "keep" consensus is formed, still gets re-listed. What's even more frustrating is that most editors aren't open to conversation or help substantiate the article. That being said, I've seen your other comments regarding article deletion nominations and you seem to be a good editor. Let's settle this and I do apologize if you initially took my words the wrong way. But do let me know how I can convince you to reach a consensus for "keep".Jjj84206 (talk)
That's fine. You should sign under the comment below this where you added the sources if your the one that added them. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:37, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: Thanks to Fintor, we now have 3 more reliable sources to the article:Jjj84206 (talk)

1. Global Alphabet Soup: Internationally Recognized Professional Designations in Finance, Journal of Financial Education 38 (3/4), Fall/Winter 2012, 18-32
Link: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2345545
Source Type: Academic
Institution: Brock University, Goodman School of Business
Author: Ernest N. Biktimirov, Ph.D., CFA (independent of GARP)

2. Risk Managers Get Certified: As Profession Grows, Demand Increases for Standards-Setting Examinations
Link: https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304370304575152212605720290
Source Type: Public
Institution: Wall Street Journal
Author: Jeremy Greenfield (independent of GARP)

3. The Rise of the Chief Risk Officer
Link: https://www.institutionalinvestor.com/article/b1505qj433jnpj/the-rise-of-the-chief-risk-officer
Source Type: Public
Institution: Institutional Investor (magazine)
Author: Leanna Orr (independent of GARP), experienced journalist (see her other articles: https://www.institutionalinvestor.com/topic?author=Leanna%20Orr)

  • Keep, because it Appears quite notable per the sources and argument folks have brought to this process, Sadads (talk) 20:03, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the sources in the article and the additional references identified since this AfD has started demonstrate that the topic meets the notability standard.
  • Weak Delete as per User:Vanamonde. I am not favorably impressed by the other arguments either for or against. The length of the walls of text in favor of keeping is typical of a weak case repeated. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:56, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Dear admins, this article has been listed for 3 weeks already. By now, most editors who would participate have likely participated. It seems like the result is leaning more towards Keep with 6 users commenting keep and 4 deleting (2 weak delete). Obviously, this is not a vote as per WP:Consensus, but at most you can clearly see that there’s WP:NOCON with one side not able to convince the other side. This article also provided way more than 3 best sources, including academic journals, university, and reliable finance press such as WSJ, Institutional Investor, Investopedia...etc. There were no advertising/promotion languages included. The discussion above were insightful and reflects proper Wikipedia discussion for deletion nomination. It seems clear to me that this article is “keep” or “no consensus”, at least for the time being. In the future, users are free to re-submit deletion request again or further improve the article.Jjj84206 (talk) 13:45, 13 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. Spartaz Humbug! 23:41, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lahore Confidential[edit]

Lahore Confidential (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Robert McClenon (talk) 07:15, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:15, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:15, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment, unless a rationale is added, I suggest this be closed as a Speedy Keep. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:14, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Non-notable unreleased film. See the guidelines on unreleased films within film notability guidelines. The guidelines state that an unreleased film is only notable if production itself has been notable. This article says nothing about production (and nothing about the film except to list the cast). A naïve Google search shows only teasers and advertising, indicating that the film is being planned for release; we knew that. The naïve Google search shows no third-party discussion of the movie, and the responsibility is on the author of the article to include the appropriate information to establish film notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:04, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Accidental error on part of nominator. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:04, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:01, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Robert McClenon's analysis. ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:04, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination Ngrewal1 (talk) 00:31, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify Is eventually going to be released in not so long from now. If the production requirement is only for unreleased films better draft the article for now rather than completely delete it. Gotitbro (talk) 19:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify per WP:HAMMER and Gotitbro. Bearian (talk) 20:31, 12 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 13:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mayank Pratap Singh[edit]

Mayank Pratap Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I think this article may qualify as an example of WP:1E. He fails WP:JUDGE. His only achievement is being the youngest judge in India. Nizil (talk) 05:11, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nizil (talk) 05:11, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nizil (talk) 05:11, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Gazal world (talk) 06:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a judge at the level he currently is is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:47, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E, he received coverage solely for a brief period in November 2019 for becoming India's youngest judge, there is also this:[43] but it is pretty much just an interview. Could certainly become notable in the future, but isn't yet. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:15, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:22, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Academy of the Arabic Language in Cairo[edit]

Academy of the Arabic Language in Cairo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find any source to verify this organization is notable, sources seem to contradict themselves on the founding year (1934 for [44]/[45] but [46] for example suggests it already had its 14th session then, and/or might have been created from a reorganization of something called the Royal Academy of the Arabic Language?), the article cites no sources. Maybe there are better sources in Arabic...? Anyway, even if it exists, we need better sources for notability. Can anyone help rescue this? Verifying the year of establishment is hardly enough for WP:NORG or WP:GNG. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:37, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:37, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:37, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:37, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Academy is covered in lots of sources including the Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, as one would expect. There are equivalent articles in 10 other language Wikipedias and the Arabic version is naturally more comprehensive explaining, for example, that it was founded in 1932 but started work in 1934. See WP:NEXIST and WP:NOTCLEANUP. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which volume and pages? I cannot find any discussion of the topic in that encyclopedia. Maybe I am looking at the wrong volume/edition but google book search for "Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics" "Academy of the Arabic Language" gives me no useful results. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:58, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 04:21, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pamzeis (talk) 04:53, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Unless this article can provide more reliable sources with more content, I do not see how it meets Wikipedia article standards.Jjj84206 (talk) 16:04, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The subject lacks multiple in-depth reliable sources about it. I couldn't find any myself. The only thing that might work is the encyclopedia that Andrew mentioned, but I couldn't find mention of the school in the two that I have access to. Maybe it's in one of the other volumes though, but it sounds like it's just a brief mention and there would have to be more then that anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:21, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRIT / WP:NSCHOOL. No sources in article and WP:BEFORE showed no WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth. The encyclopedia mentioned above fails WP:V (per Piotrus comment/question, unless someone has more info) and a single territary source would not show notability.   // Timothy :: talk  03:00, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:22, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SLT Human Capital Solutions[edit]

SLT Human Capital Solutions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. No major content improvements since 2014, stubbed since 2013. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 04:04, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Snowycats (talk) 04:46, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:21, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Clear consensus. Geschichte (talk) 10:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Mirandolese[edit]

U.S. Mirandolese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article possibly fails WP:GNG and also the club hasn't played in a cup competition during that particular time. HawkAussie (talk) 03:21, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 03:21, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 03:21, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 03:21, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep US Mirandolese played 3 years in Prima Divisione, from 1929/30 to 1931/32: at that time Prima Divisione was the 3rd level of italian championship. From 1945/46 to 1947/48 played in Serie C. --Holapaco77 (talk) 06:11, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - played in Serie C [47]. Sourcing is very hard to find, though, and the article desperately needs attention from an expert on the subject really Spiderone 10:18, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep historical club who had their peak 100 years ago, should pass WP:GNG in historical sources. SportingFlyer T·C 10:32, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 10:44, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above; notability is not temporary, so if they were notable back in the 1930s, they are still notable today. GiantSnowman 11:26, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passws WP:GNG Sliekid (talk) 05:33, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Spartaz Humbug! 23:39, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sami Kohen[edit]

Sami Kohen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only source is the website of the publication he wrote for. A search for additional sourcing did not turn up and significant independent 3rd-party coverage as far as I could see John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:32, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He has the Upper Service Award (very rough translation), reported by the Anadolu Agency: [48]. Coverage about him: [49] [50] [51] [52] [53]. Sources are not from the website he writes for (Milliyet). ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 19:38, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would be really helpful if people when they found the sources would add them to the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:59, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article on this notable journalist per sources listed above. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:23, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 03:19, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Person meets WP:JOURNALIST also Authority control depicting the significance of work, moreover additional source and links need to be added inside the article. - Roger editor (talk) 10:44, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for spamming, likely WP:UPE. MER-C 15:18, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets the notability guideline, but could benefit from more citations and content. Dswitz10734 (talk) 19:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've expanded the article by translating the Turkish page. Also added references. ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 13:06, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agreed on the discussions above, he's a notable journalist. Gundoganfa (talk) 19:03, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:53, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Gurudeva PU College[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Sri Gurudeva PU College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have done the required due diligence here. "PU College", in this context, would appear to mean Pre-University College - no current English language Wikipedia article - should there be? While "Pre-University College" may have a more global meaning, I note that the Government of Karnataka's National Informatics Centre branch does have "Dept. of Pre University Education" page here about the college. Before the 2017 RFC this may have retained, as an institution that awards tertiary education level degrees and diplomas. Other than that, and in 2020, with no mentions in independent third-party reliable sources, and with the only its own website and social media posts as purported references, I see no good reason to overturn the April 2020 deletion discussion. Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 11:32, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Degree-awarding institution, which we usually keep. Now has more than a Facebook page, which was the reason for deletion in the original AfD. The cited RfC, which was controversial in any case, did not refer to tertiary institutions at all, but only to secondary schools (the clue is in the title: RfC on secondary school notability!); it cannot be arbitrarily extended. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is not a school, where we need WP:SIGCOV etc to be met to establish notability. This is a degree awarding college. ─ The Aafī (talk) 10:02, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 03:12, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Usually" doesn't mean "always." --Adamant1 (talk) 04:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@TheAafi and Adamant1: Why are you guys wasting time on discussing something that has been long deprecated? It has also been recommended to avoid it in AfDs. Relevant RfC. —usernamekiran (talk) 10:16, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This fails the notability guidelines. While WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES might be a thing, it says "most" (not all) independently accredited degree-awarding institutions have enough coverage to be notable, and I don't think this one doesn't. Going by the date of establishment, 2006, it's highly un-likely that all the in-depth coverage, if there was any, would only be available offline. Maybe if it was established 50 years ago or something, but even then there would likely be some usable sources that we could access. In this case, if they were out there they should be readily available though. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete @Necrothesp and TheAafi: WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES begins with: The current notability guidelines for schools and other education institutions are Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N) and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) (WP:ORG). It also says WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES should be added to the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, as it is an accurate statement of the results but promotes circular reasoning. The subject here fails WP:NORG. Also per Adamant1. —usernamekiran (talk) 04:19, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I consider arguing for a non-notable subject to be kept is definitely not WP:COMMONSENSE —usernamekiran (talk) 13:31, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is most certainly common sense to keep an article on a degree-awarding tertiary institution and to consider all such to be notable. But as I said... -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:15, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Luckily for everyone here Wikipedia isn't a "common sense" based thing. Otherwise, it probably wouldn't exist in the first place. BTW, I'm just wondering but don't you think its a little ironic that your using the notability guidelines in your keep arguements, while your also saying on your talk page that said guidelines don't exist and your also calling anyone who uses them smug rule-obsessed trolls? Adamant1 (talk) 11:35, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL / (WP:ORGCRIT). Subject lacks WP:IS WP:RS WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. There is basic, run of the mill, routine, normal, coverage. Sources in article are not IS RS or are a directory listings. BEFORE revealed nothing.   // Timothy :: talk  01:38, 11 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 20:21, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IVC Telecom[edit]

AfDs for this article:
IVC Telecom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Sources in article and BEFORE showed nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in-depth, there is routine, run of the mill coverage.   // Timothy :: talk  00:12, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  00:12, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  00:12, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 2 announcements, 2 profile pages, a government policy page. Fails WP:NCORP, WP:SIRS. Absolute junk. scope_creepTalk 09:09, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt: The second instance of an article about this company by the same new editor. The article does no more than describe a company going about its business, with no indication of encyclopaedic notability, supported by announcements and listings that fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. Fails WP:NCORP; no reason to overturn the October 2020 AfD's decision to delete. AllyD (talk) 16:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was closed as wrong venue. The page has been blanked by the user. If you want to pursue this further, go to WP:MFD. Raymie (t • c) 23:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:MetropolisKnight[edit]

This user page contains inappropriate content, delete it - ВикиКрепость (talk) 07:03, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, but this is the wrong venue. Should be raised at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. Proposer's reason for deletion is weak. This user page seems to be mainly porn-related, but WP legitimately has tons of porn-related articles. Instead, I think it should be deleted for violating WP policy WP:NOTWEBHOST, as it just seems to be the user's notes ("my personal headquarter") on where to find porn, unrelated to building an encyclopedia. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:52, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but WP legitimately has tons of porn-related articles" Yes, i know it. But, i think Wikipedia user page is not a good place to post content like this. - 31.8.201.188 (talk) 08:59, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2020_November_5&oldid=988752174"