Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 October 2

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 1 October	3 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Now you don't. Sandstein 18:22, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now You See It...[edit]

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

Just because something is a Disney Channel Original Movie doesn't guarantee that it has gotten enough "significant independent" coverage to clear WP:GNG. I have just done some WP:BEFORE work on this, and I can't find any significant coverage (either significant reviews or production information) of this TV film. The current article is unsourced (and has been for over a decade) and violates WP:PLOTONLY. I suggest redirecting this to List of Disney Channel original films#Disney Channel Original Movies. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article is completely unsourced and web searches haven't revealed anything substantial either aside from database-type coverage. Fails NFILM. TheRedDomitor (talk) 01:54, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fenix down (talk) 08:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Júnior[edit]

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

Article about footballer who made a total of 6 appearances (only 218 minutes of play) in the Portuguese second division and 2 appearances in the Portuguese league cup. Otherwise, he has only played in semi-professional Brazilian state championships (Sergipano A1 and Carioca B). His nominal play in Portuguese league and cup matches creates a presumption of notability under WP:NFOOTBALL, however, there is a longstanding consensus that such presumption is invalid when the article comprehensively fails WP:GNG. The only online English- or Portuguese-language coverage is entirely routine (match reports, transfer/injury announcements, and database entries, e.g., [1]). There is simply no in-depth coverage available. Jogurney (talk) 21:07, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 21:28, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 8 appearances as a pro, numerous more as a semi-pro, and a very hard name to Google - whilst I fully agree with the nom that GNG trumps NFOOTBALL (and have voted 'delete' at borderline cases in the past), I don't think this is right here. It needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 21:31, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Agree with nominator that the coverage in English and Portuguese media is almost entirely WP:ROUTINE, almost to an unbelievable extent. Subject played 8 times for S.C. Freamunde on the second highest tier of the Portuguese soccer leagues. 8 times is not that many, and second highest is just about OK, so I think in this case WP:NFOOTBALL was not satisfied enough to overthrow WP:GNG. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 02:39, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Agree with GS here. Article needs improving. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 09:14, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 22:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets Nfootball as above. Nfitz (talk) 21:40, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - more than a borderline NFOOTY pass Spiderone 07:29, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:07, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sikh Hunters F.C.[edit]

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

Fails WP:FOOTYN and was tagged as a WP:GNG concern two months ago; the best source is the Express and Star article already referenced; I found nothing better in a search; that one article isn't enough for GNG in my view. Spiderone 21:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 21:47, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Club fails both WP:FOOTYN and WP:GNG. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 22:12, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and has not played at a significant level/in a significant competition. Giant Snowman 10:43, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FOOTYN failure. Number 5 7 12:50, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:, Per above, fails WP:GNG and WP:FOOTYN , Alex-h (talk) 11:01, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cuckfield Town F.C.[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to pass WP:FOOTYN and the entire article is just sourced to the club website. There doesn't seem to be any significant coverage that would be required for WP:GNG. Spiderone 21:39, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Consider this a withdraw Spiderone 21:00, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:41, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:41, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 21:47, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Club fails WP:FOOTYN and WP:GNG. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 22:13, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per others. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 21:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and has not played at a significant level/in a significant competition. Giant Snowman 10:42, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per N57. Giant Snowman 18:41, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:FOOTYN . The club played in Division Two of the Sussex County League, which today is Division One of the Southern Combination (level 10, although back in the early 1950s it would have been the equivalent of level five in the pyramid below the three tiers of the Football League, the one-tier Southern League and Division One of the Sussex County League). Pinging ArsenalFan700 and GiantSnowman for reconsidation. Number 5 7 17:39, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 18:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Rovics[edit]

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

WP:GNG. Does not have significant independent coverage. I pruned out a lot of stuff and those were things in Indymedia.org and like which is red in WP:RSP. A good number of !votes in the first AfD years ago were rooted to editor conflict issues as evident from comments. I have done search, and I don't find significant independent coverage of this subject. Some coverage in radical press and some in Indymedia, which we can not use as reliable source. Graywalls (talk) 20:15, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 20:15, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 20:15, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 20:15, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient coverage exists to satisfy WP:GNG, e.g. [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. --Michig (talk) 15:07, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the coverage identified above in multiple reliable sources such as PopMatters, books, Folkorg, AllMusic and others that shows significant coverage so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is no longer necessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vagaa[edit]

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

Seems to fail GNG. From the article, I'm not even quite sure what this software is, and its written like a promo piece. It no longer seems to be maintained, and I doubt it was notable even when it was maintained. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional piece more than anything else.TH1980 (talk) 04:32, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional article, fails WP:GNG. Zing^(Talk!) 03:20, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional article,Alex-h (talk) 11:05, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 09:47, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:15, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aditi Myakal[edit]

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

Fails WP:Nactor. Minor roles in several films except one film. The only source out there is [7] which doesn't provide much. TamilMirchi (talk) 02:26, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 02:26, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 02:26, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:36, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - she doesn't seem to have much if any coverage on her as an individual Spiderone 09:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:54, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Twelvemile, Missouri[edit]

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

Store, not a town. The state historical society calls it a "settlement"; alternate names of Chubb Store and Clubb Store are given by GNIS, 1930 topo calls it "Twelvemile Store", but FWIW, clearly marks "Chubb Store" as a separate entity. The 1980 topo shows a "Twelvemile", but the font and location suggests a reference to the township, not the "settlement". A 1912 local history calls it a "village". Approximately two houses there now. It's unclear if this was a store or a community or what, but it doesn't appear to have ever been legally recognized as a community, so it likely fails WP:GEOLAND, WP:GNG definitely is not met. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:45, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:45, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:45, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Twelvemile Township, Madison County, Missouri, as it seems that they are the same thing. The couple of residents didn't really constitute a community as such. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 17:08, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My research did not convince me that they were the same, IIRC I think they might have both been on one of the maps I saw. Without clear proof these are identical places, I'd be very uncomfortable with a merge. The name alone does not prove it. See Deepwater, Missouri and Deepwater Township, Henry County, Missouri. In the same county, but distinct; in fact, the former isn't even in the latter. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:20, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A quick check of the USGS Topo maps (via Caltopo at [8]) suggests that Twelvemile community is indeed within the township of the same name. Dralwi k|^{Have a Chat} 21:23, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid stub about a rural community, even though the population is small.72.49.7.25 (talk) 04:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 05:49, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:04, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 owing division of a fairly small number of participants. Normally in such cases I say no prejudice towards a renomination but would ask for that to be done thoughtfully as this is a no consensus which leans keep. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Margaritas (restaurant)[edit]

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

Seeking consensus on a borderline WP:NCORP fail. A toughie, not just because it's hard to search without getting results for lower-case margaritas. The best sources I could find in a search were [9] (local newspaper, not really SIGCOV IMO), [10] (looks like SIGCOV, but not clearly independent—I'm rather suspicious of "business journals"), [11] (looks decent, thought not entirely sure if reliable), and [12] (not great either). So seeing a lot of mediocre coverage, but not really WP:CORPDEPTH. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:31, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seacoast Online and Bangor Daily News are reliable. Also I could probably find coverage of the Concord location in the Concord Monitor if I searched their archives, but I've used up my free articles for the month with them, so I'd either have to wait or have someone with a subscription do it for me. Cooljeanius (talk) (contribs) 20:53, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 05:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: a before search indicates that reliable sources with significant coverage are available. I will now proceed to add some. Northern Escapee (talk) 20:14, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Northern Escapee: The sources you are adding do not seem to be about this restaurant. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is this the same restaurant? [13] 10 flavors of margaritas may not be enough for WP:NCORP however Spudlace (talk) 02:11, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Spudlace, Hmmm … I doubt it? This is a New England–based chain, but perhaps they've expanded to the Midwest. One of the many reasons assessing notability here is tough is that I'm sure there are a number of restaurants with this name in the US. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:15, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Does this help? "Margaritas replaces Tiffany's in Toms River" from the Asbury Park Press, 2016. It's definitely the same chain; there's a picture with the logo. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:44, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Toughpigs, Yes, definitely helps. That's the best source so far. I think that, plus, [14] and [15] (both cited above) are enough to get me to a weak keep and stubbify (as article is entirely unsourced atm; the only source there is not about this restaurant). AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the references provide in-depth information about *the company*, that is, the franchise operation itself. Most references are in relation to a single restaurant in the franchise with, at most, a single line explaining that the restaurant is part of a franchise. This isn't good enough to establish the notability of the franchise - the topic here at at AfD. The "best source so far" above is an article discussing one restaurant opening in New Jersey and is peppered with information provided by the company itself, fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. Topic therefore fails NCORP/GNG as there aren't any references that establishes its notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:28, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:04, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The coverage in the Boston Globe looks ok. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. May be mainspaced if additional significant coverage in independent, reliable sources is discovered. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 19:00, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sree Leela (actress)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR, WP:GNG. The actress has acted into only two films and has received some coverage for the same. WP:TOOSOON applies. Furthermore, the article was recently declined in AfC but the creator still ignored the reviewe and created article directly in mainspace. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 15:34, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 15:34, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 15:34, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 15:34, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Notable films. One which ran for 100+ days.[16] TamilMirchi (talk) 17:37, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TamilMirchi: notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. In order to have a separate article on her, she must pass either WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG and she does not meet either of them.Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 05:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am in favor of delete or draftify.TamilMirchi (talk) 01:22, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep As NACTOR says "significant roles in multiple notable films", she borderline qualifies. Both films in which she played a lead role have articles, so I'm assuming they are notable. --Ab207 (talk) 09:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ab207: she has worked in only two films till now and two isn't multiple. Please have a look at this discussion [17], the result of which was delete and there are many more.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 12:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Umakant Bhalerao, Its open for interpretation. I'd personally lean towards weak keep for two films and keep for three or more. Others may view it differently. Ab207 (talk) 12:43, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ab207: I don't think she meets WP:NACTOR as of now, even if she does then the creator will need to submit a draft for AFC review as there appears to be a COI here.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 13:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a possibility, but I voted after considering that there's not much WP:PROMO content.--Ab207 (talk) 18:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet any reasonable reading of the actress notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Umakant Bhalerao: She played lead role in a movie which ran successfully for 100 days and gave another hit movie back, which have separate articles. If an event or an individual is covered well in the Media then there can be a separate article, I believe. If you still feel that it should be deleted. You're welcome to do it. Thanks. User:NinadMysuru

Draftify- She has played the lead in two successful Kannada-language movies so deletion is a bit haphazard. One more significant acting credit and she will satisfy both WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR, after which the article can then be moved back into mainspace. Sunshine1191 (talk) 05:38, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:02, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dratify. Per Sunshine. Pamzeis (talk) 07:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Despite some of the comments above, our rules are not entirely mechanical, and it matters whet the person did, and what the references say. It would help very much to have some reviews for her second film in addition to the publicity release that now is the only ref. to it in the article. It would also help to have some substantial criticism beyond the two utterly bland quotations given. DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: as per DGG's comment above. She seems to be on the border of meeting WP:NACTOR and anyone searching espcecially in Kannada language media might find suitable sources to confirm her notability. Roller26 (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice towards a renomination. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lorna Jean Moorhead[edit]

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

Individual fails WP:GNG, and the page is an absolute mess. KidAd talk 05:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 12:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 12:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 12:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a page from 2011 and some links are dead, as can be expected. The page has been edited, cleaned up, and is not a mess. Stating the page is an absolute mess is an opinion, not a statement of fact. Considered notable. -- Whiteguru (talk) 11:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My statement of opinion is supported by evidence. Read the first sentence of the first/main section and report back. Lorna was born in Carmichael, California. Her mother is former Assembly Member[1] Jean Macpherson (Moorhead) Duffy (member of Clan Macpherson).[2] Her father was George Moorhead, 12 November 1927 - 24 March 2008. This nonsensical word salad has no place on Wikipedia. KidAd talk 21:15, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not pass GNG. Natureium (talk) 21:13, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:01, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 20:10, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Textbooks[edit]

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

Non notable documentary. I couldn't find anything in a WP:BEFORE search to establish notability. It was previously AfD'd several years ago in a mass inclusion of other Iranian films and was kept. However, taken on it's own I fail to see how it would pass again. Donaldd23 (talk) 02:16, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 02:16, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 02:16, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This needs someone who can search in Persian for sourcing. On a side note, the director's article needs a lot of work and pruning. For example, there's a section on various film festivals his films have screened at, something Wikipedia typically sees as non-notable or relatively indiscriminate data as far as the site goes. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may also want to look at the other films - there seems to be a problem with notability at first glance, as many of the sources seem to be links to various film festivals and awards at small film festivals, rather than stuff like reviews and coverage. Some film festival awards are notable, but those are extremely few and far between. I'm kind of wondering if this is a walled garden. --ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:57, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 My All. I'm persuaded by arguments that it's a re-release of My All, which makes that article a better merge/redirect target than her general discography. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:45, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mariah en Español[edit]

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

Non-notable, non-promoted compilation release which is sourced almost purely from Discogs which is not a reliable source as it is user generated.

Per WP:GNG, a body of work should receive third party coverage from reliable sources. WP:NALBUMS states that if an article does little beyond denoting that something was released it isn't notable. It hasn't charted and hasn't been covered by critics. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 08:22, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 08:22, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could possibly be merged into Mariah Carey#2018–present: Caution, Merry Christmas 25, and The Rarities as one sentence along the lines of "a digital-only promotional EP was released in September 2020 containing previously released versions of Carey songs sung in Spanish and dance remixes"... that's really all the Billboard and Idolator sources say anyway, they are just announcements of the release of the EP. Richard3120 (talk) 15:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~: The EP has received some coverage, notably Billboard, Newsday, Remezcla, Mitu and Popelera (in Spanish). With these reliable sources, ~~the article is good enough to pass WP:NMUSIC.~~ ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All they say is "it is released". That's not evidence of notability. Richard3120 (talk) 19:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All of the sources provided simply talk about the existence of the EP but nothing material about the content of it. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:36, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:56, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IMO this is just a retitled release of My All on streaming services with Hero and Open Arms tacked on... I don't think it should be considered an EP either. On Spotify, the release date is 1998, meaning this isn't a new release like The Live Debut. It also has a shot from the My All remix video on the cover. Merge with My All. Heartfox (talk) 23:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mariah Carey albums discography where this is already mentioned. I do not believe there is enough substantial coverage from third-party, reliable sources to justify an independent article, but it is a viable search term. Aoba47 (talk) 19:04, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to My All: Changed my vote, per Heartfox. Makes sense since it's a remake for the Spanish market. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mariah Carey albums discography until better sources are found. It's a recent release maybe in some months it could chart.--88marcus (talk) 23:55, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 17:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Pi[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:ORGCRITE, the only provided example of independent, significant coverage currently provided is [18]; as a student publication, it would normally be considered unreliable, although given the subject matter it may be admissible here. Even if we're charitable with that source, we're short the additional sources that would add up to meeting notability guidelines. I was unable to find anything online, although my search was admittedly impeded by false positives from unrelated greek life orgs that include the letters Delta and Pi. There's been an extended discussion at the talk page, Talk:Delta Pi, where Jax MN has made an argument for notability by way of passing references and affiliations with notable organizations, but I'm not seeing enough examples of coverage to think that we're really in WP:NEXIST range. I don't have a strong opinion on deletion vs restoring the preexisting redirect; at a glance, the former redirect target, Mugsy's Girls, may not be notable. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:53, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:53, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:53, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Side note, but AfD automatically listing all other AfDs with the prefix "Delta Pi" seems like an edge case that should probably be fixed _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:53, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - simply not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because I normally presume that fraternities and sororities that exist with multiple chapters are notable per WP:ORG (and those with only one chapter are not). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The earlier, deleted stubs from 2005 and 2010 were not useful. But this new version of the page is far improved, and matches many others in the fraternities and sororities project for style and format. The Talk:Delta_Pi page elaborates on the chase for references and how, many of whom, after 30 years, this group meets the requirements for notability. Jax MN (talk) 15:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:02, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - mild. Is https://ryersonian.ca/ryes-big-fat-greek-secret/ enough? Without that, I would definitely be at delete. I think so given that the article is specifically focused on them.Naraht (talk) 14:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is highly unusual for an article about an organization to be kept on the basis of a single source, let alone a student publication. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:05, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rosguill, please clarify, do you still suspect that the organization does not exist, and has somehow been a 30-year fraud? Or is your concern that it is still not notable, with multiple chapters and hundreds of graduates referencing it on many resumes or Linked In pages? I previously suggested I could add these but it would be tedious and duplicative. There are perhaps a thousand such societies listed on Wikipedia, some active and some dormant, and genealogical researchers like me use these Wikipedia pages to confirm where relatives went to school, where to start looking at yearbooks, and the provenance of mysterious old pins we inherit. For these researchers alone, the pages are valuable. What does it hurt, keeping them? Jax MN (talk) 16:21, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's notable. A few chapters founded and a bunch of graduates listing it on Linkedin doesn't do anything to establish the subject's notability, what we need is significant coverage (i.e. actual analysis) in multiple, independent, reliable sources. If we don't have such coverage, it is impossible for us to write an article without engaging in original research and taking primary sources at their word. Without the presence of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, there's no way for us as editors to know that the information presented isn't biased or missing something important. Creating articles for subjects that don't meet notability guidelines undermines Wikipedia's epistemic foundation. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:43, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:56, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't meet the GNG or ORGCRITE. The only source which is somewhat significant is Ryersonian [19] which isn't all that substantial, and by itself, certainly doesn't amount to significant coverage. All other sources seem to be incidental/trival coverage. -M.Nelson (talk) 22:58, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - These sources are abysmal. Notability is demonstrated by substantial reliable sources. Tumblrs and extremely trivial passing mentions are not acceptable for this purpose. Grayfell (talk) 06:07, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I inserted a REFIMPROVE template. Existence is proven. Notability is shown in spite of lack of standard references used by fraternities (Baird's, yearbooks, national news, or university imprimator). A clear summary of why these are missing is discussed on the Talk page. I agree that it is niche. Much of WP is. But these references aren't abysmal; a provincial incorporation filing isn't trivial, several reviews by disinterested parties provide a preponderance of evidence of Delta Pi's persistent presence; known corporate entities refer to the group as a prominent sponsor. I have no connection to the sorority: I am not Canadian, not Jewish, and not female. I don't know why this particular article, better written than many that need more references, is causing concern. Too often, Canadian fraternal societies are marginalized, as are Jewish groups that some seek to suppress. Thus I favor leaving the template for REFIMPROVE to do its work, and leaving the article in place. It seems a far better and more useful article than the redirect to a fictitious sorority that it replaced. Jax MN (talk) 16:54, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that the sourcing is terrible. When you have to 'prove' notability with footnotes like "The sorority is linked on several Canadian social media sites, such as this national list" and "Local community newspapers regularly list Delta Pi among campus organizations, like this 2015 Excalibur article" it's obvious there's nothing better available. Participating in charity events does not provide notability unless there is independent coverage of the participation for some reason, and mentions on websites aren't coverage. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:43, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Edge[edit]

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

This article is mainly the work of two WP:SPAs, one of which has the same name as the subject. It has superficial referenciness but the sources are some combination of self-published, unreliable, directories, namechecks, or about the band (Savage Progress). That band toured as support to the Thompson Twins, but is hardly a household name. There are a couple of much people with this name, with a couple of legal types coming above the subject in the very limited number of Google hits. Another band he was in briefly, supported Big Country. I last saw them as second support to Queen. Overall, I don't see any evidence that this is an independently notable musician, and I see abundant evidence that this article is promotional. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:49, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:55, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:55, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: at the moment, I would probably lean to redirecting to Savage Progress, who did at least have some chart success in Europe, although I wouldn't object to a deletion on the grounds of WP:XY. I know the Thompson Twins are by far the biggest band the subject was in, but his involvement in that band was brief and several years before their fame and chart success, when they had a completely different line-up and sound. And the other two bands mentioned in the article, Uropa Lula and Drumsing, both have articles written by the same SPA, and neither look notable, with zero chart success or reliable sources that actually talk about the band instead or the people they worked with. Richard3120 (talk) 14:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:16, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other similar pages made by individuals themselves get deleted and this is no different. Andrew created his own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.227.12 (talk) 18:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:52, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:46, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Solmaz Aghmaghani[edit]

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

Asides this which is even an unreliable source, I couldn’t find any coverage on the subject of article let alone in reliable sources. She fails to satisfy either WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Celestina007 (talk) 19:51, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:51, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:51, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:51, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:51, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:51, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:51, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:28, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:14, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Parish[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY, fails WP:NBIO OGLV (talk) 19:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. OGLV (talk) 19:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. OGLV (talk) 19:30, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:36, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:37, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails both WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 22:14, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:42, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 20:59, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. LTFC 95 (talk) 19:33, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY for not being professional player. --☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 16:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:18, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Materia Collective[edit]

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

This music label does not satisfy WP:NCORP as it lacks multiple reliable secondary sources writing about it in significant detail. The fact that it has notable artists signed to it does not give it notability (no reverse WP:INHERITED). Barkeep49 (talk) 19:10, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:10, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:39, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:07, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Fails WP:NCORP as it does not have significant coverage._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:21, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Couldn't find reliable secondary sources with significant detail. Jontesta (talk) 16:28, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 21:28, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 17:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alvin Parker[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSPORTS. Probably WP:G11 material. Almost certainly WP:UPE. Moved into mainspace bypassing WP:AfC review. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:44, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:58, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:58, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:58, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:02, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing demonstrates actual notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:14, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep head football coaches of college-level programs are typically kept because they generate more than enough press to cover WP:GNG. I see no reason to make an excpetion here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Paulmcdonald, Could you provide some examples of this coverage? -- RoySmith (talk) 22:28, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, there's fifteen in the article. Some of those are not third-party, but others are news sources. Here's some more: Coaching during COVID-19; Virginia Union hires Dr. Alvin Parker as new football coach; Blocked punt late in the game helps Virginia Union to comeback 16-15 victory over Winston-Salem State. You don't have to look hard.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Paulmcdonald, Yes, there's 15 in the article. I looked at each one. None of them struck me as independent, reliable, secondary sources providing significant coverage. Of the three you present here, the first is an article written by the subject. The second is local coverage of the fact that he was hired. There's a bunch of those in the article now. I'd be more impressed if some newspaper outside of Virginia covered the event. And the third is a namedrop in an article about he game he coached; it's not about him, specifically. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am unaware of any notabiltiy standard, guideline, or rule that sets the bar at "impressing any individual editor" as the breakpoint for inclusion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, the notability guidelines are quite subjective, so editor discretion plays a major role, for your information. Best, Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 22:33, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Certainly does not meet WP:NFOOTBALL. Looking up "Alvin Parker coach" on the web raises several hits, but multiple are from only two websites, and many are about his admission as a coach of the Virginia University team, that is, they are largely ~~WP:ROUTINE~~ routine (i.e., not significant coverage). To meet WP:BIO, I'd want to see more coverage on his achievements as a coach, rather than mere announcements. Especially considering that he coaches a non-notable team. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 22:28, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ROUTINE applies to events and not people.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Paulmcdonald, But WP:BLP1E applies to people. Based on the sources I see, the 1E is that he was hired. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:11, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - The coverage is nowhere near "one event" as just his head coaching stint covers 2018-2020.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:16, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG per Paulmcdonald's sources. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Paulmcdonald passes WP:GNG, possibly we can keep this as it passes WP:NCOLLATH --☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 16:52, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - paid-for spam, very likely written by a sockpuppet of a blocked spammer. MER-C 11:29, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a significant accusation. What evidence do you have to support that?--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I cannot disclose this for the usual reasons. A copy has been emailed to the paid-en-wp mailing list. MER-C 17:19, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Don't break any rules! But that does leave an interesting impass here... can the outcome of whatever is going on "over there" end up managing the results of this article? But even if it was written by a sock, that alone would not be reason to delete if the article itself passes muster. In other words, we're not discussing the original author's account, or the article?--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:20, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per MER-C and per nom. None of the sources indicate that he meets the standard required by WP:N, which looks for "sufficiently significant attention by the world at large" - ie, coverage outside the subject's local area. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:55, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the kind of sourcing that a typical DII coach gets, and Parker is on the whole an unremarkable DII coach, is simply not going to be the kind that establishes notability. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arena Premier League[edit]

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

A well written article but unfortunately the topic does not meet the Wikipedia notability guidelines.

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.

The only independent coverage I could find was this single sentence from an article about arena soccer: "For players skilled enough, CASA will sanction the semi-professional Arena Premier League out of the Hershey Centre." I do think that some of this article's content (like the History section) could be moved to another article such as Mississauga MetroStars or Soccer in Canada. BLAIXX 17:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are dependent on the main article:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. BLAIXX 17:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:41, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 17:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 17:58, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:59, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I guess delete it if it fails notability, but it would be nice if some of the article's history does get used in those articles mentioned. Shotgun pete 8:37, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete: Yeah, definitely fails WP:GNG. Funny league, the teams make it look like a Canadian arena World Cup type league. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 22:18, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note from nom: I have just added the 2017–18 and 2018–19 season articles to this nomination because the same rationale applies. BLAIXX 02:59, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - no evidence that this can pass GNG Spiderone 07:51, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 15:38, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there's also a mention in another Mississauga News article here. But very thin. Nfitz (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Beyblade Burst. Consensus is that a selective merge (i.e. main characters only) would be best. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 19:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Beyblade Burst characters[edit]

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

List of manga characters with only in-universe sourcing and no independent sources to demonstrate notability. Basically fancruft. Attempted redirect to the main article was reverted by the creator. Mccapra (talk) 17:28, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:28, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:28, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:28, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:28, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its not easy finding sources for series that has five seasons. That's why I'm citing it for episode credits while I search for sources from other sites. SpectresWrath (talk) 17:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Beyblade Burst. I am in favor of merging main character info only into the main article. These character lists for Beyblade as a whole though are a mess and need condensing to include only the most relevant info. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:09, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: There are alot of characters for the Burst series with four or five different main characters. I best I can do is trim down some of the characters and remove some the teams. SpectresWrath (talk) 01:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively, to Beyblade Burst as per Knowledgekid87. Simply fancruft.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:13, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively per all. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a directory and it's best editorial practice to focus just on the few main characters instead of every detail. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: That's 2001:56A:F5CC:1600:95B7:706B:DA57:CED6 adding extra details. I'm trying to keep every character description simple and easy to read so I remove unnecessary info. SpectresWrath (talk) 04:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nichols Industries, Inc.. Sandstein 18:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nichols cap guns[edit]

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

Type of product manufactured by a specific company. Individual product doesn't seem notable enough for an article. BJackJS (talk) 16:55, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:57, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Toys-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 05:27, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article does not meet notability. Article is entirely unsourced and BEFORE showed nothing that would make it meet guidelines. There is no appropriate (sourced) content for a merge or a redirect target // Timothy :: talk 02:27, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nichols Industries, Inc. PamD 06:33, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nichols Industries, Inc. - I agree with PamD. Rogermx (talk) 12:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas_Powell_(writer)[edit]

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

Does not meet notability guidelines Transfo47 (talk) 16:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:44, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:44, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:44, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to enough sources to show he is a notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:32, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — basically what JPL stated above + the article reads like a bare resume without any indication of notability. Celestina007 (talk) 20:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NOTRESUME. Barely found anything about him, especially the company he formed. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Shirimani[edit]

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

Non notable musician who doesn’t satisfy any criterion from WP:MUSICBIO & sole claim to fame is being nominated for non notable musical awards. A before search doesn’t turn up anything concrete other than hits in user generated sources/primary sources. This is also a blatant WP:BASIC fail also. Celestina007 (talk) 16:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:20, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - See Draft:Joe Shirimani. The draft has more information than the article. I have not yet assessed whether there should be an article on the subject in article space, but the information in the draft should be applied to this deletion discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:07, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears that Nhletelo Shirinda (talk · contribs) has now copy-and-pasted the content of Draft:Joe Shirimani directly into the mainspace version; I've requested a history merge to try and fix the attribution problems that this has created. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 19:56, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Baba Jackson[edit]

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

Subject of article is only notable for one event (winning a reality Tv show that just began in 2020) & per WP:1EVENT this invariably doesn’t count for much. As a dancer he doesn’t satisfy seem to satisfy WP:ENT. This source looks good but isn’t enough to substantiate notability. This is simply WP:TOOSOON. Celestina007 (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a pretty clear violation of our 1 event rules.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:TOOSOON to meet WP:ENT, even with winning the show. Redirect to the show article. Ravensfire (talk) 20:47, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero evidence of notability; not everyone that wins a reality TV show warrants an article Spiderone 20:30, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:ENT --☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 16:58, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 19:04, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of Zohra Shah[edit]

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

Biography about a child murder victim. Per WP:BLP1E and WP:CRIME I don’t think notability is demonstrated. Mccapra (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article seems to violate the not news guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per WP:NOTNEWS.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An important case highlighting child slavery in Pakistan. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:44, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being an important case of its kind, the article should definitely be kept. I guess it matches the BLP:1E, first because the child slavery thing is significant and second because she has received wide coverage for it which is beyond the Pakistani sources. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 13:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is an important case in Pakistan. Needs expansion, that, in and of itself is not grounds for deletion. However, if we were to adhere strictly to not being notable for one event, then we would have no need for Category:Incidents of violence against women. — Maile (talk) 19:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the arguments above which make sense to me. Ngrewal1 (talk) 20:48, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the girl's death sparked widespread response from notable persons and has led to notable legal changes: Islamabad: Child domestic labour banned following outrage over murder of eight-year-old Zohra Shah. Meets WP:VICTIM--Goldsztajn (talk) 10:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meama (Company)[edit]

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

Non notable organization that lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence do not satisfy WP:ORG. A before search mostly reveals sources in unreliable user generated material. Celestina007 (talk) 14:53, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:53, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:53, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:53, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:53, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:53, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:53, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know which detail in particular violates the rules.

Meama is a Georgia-based company, quite popular in the country, similar to Nescafe worldwide. The text does not contain bias, and it does not seek to promote the company’s sales. Meama’s building, praised among the architectural community, has garnered international awards in various nominations. To verify this information, you can follow the links listed by me. Erasing an article just because it celebrates a coffee manufacturer is wrong.NobodyUser (talk) 15:36, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on the sources in the article, it does not meet WP:NCORP. I trust Celestina's before search. (t · c) buidhe 09:12, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article does not meet GNG or NCORP, no direct and indept SIGCOV from IS RS // Timothy :: talk 02:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:18, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Father Soosai Nayagam[edit]

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

Fails WP:ACADEMIC Pamzeis (talk) 13:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Pamzeis (talk) 13:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 14:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:03, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PROF; nothing to suggest notability of any kind. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:43, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. As others have noted above, there is no indication of the subject's notability under WP:PROF or WP:BIO. Moreover, taking a look at the talk page of the article's creator, User talk:Wiki orb2, shows that this editor is an SPA with a persistent history of re-creating various versions of this article, after it had been deleted under G11 and G12. Some prior versions apparently involved copyvio of [20]. The same user talk page indicates that the user has a likely COI in relation to the subject of the article. Also, the photo of the subject currently used in the article has been uploaded by User:Wiki orb2 with the tag 'own work'. Personally, I think that an indeff WP:NOTHERE block should also be considered here since I am not seeing any evidence of constructive editing by User:Wiki orb2, only persistent promotional, COI and copyvio editing. Nsk92 (talk) 12:40, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero evidence of notability; an academic with next to no coverage Spiderone 20:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Tikhman[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. References are mentions, name drops. Nothing in-depth. No coverage. scope_creep^Talk 13:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:58, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:58, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies if any inconvenience has been caused, this was not at all my intention. I have updated this article with additional biographical information to assist with the verifiability and reliability of its content. Additional sources have been cited and more in-depth information has been shared. If there is anything else I can contribute to this article, please let me know. (Stephencraven (talk) 19:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Delete The investment events described do not pass WP:BIO. 1292simon (talk) 07:48, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Also withdrawn by nominator. Canley (talk) 02:44, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of longest living dogs[edit]

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

Delete. Long-standing issues have not been resolved and the main source cited, Guinness Records, is unreliable (WP:RS) because key information such as edition is unobtainable. This means there is a serious concern about WP:V and the list is wide open to WP:OR and WP:POV abuse. The article cannot be maintained and, in any case, the content is WP:TRIVIA. The case of Bluey (dog) should be included in the parent article so, in that respect, perhaps this could be merged with and redirected to Dog. As it stands, the article presents a real problem for reviewers at WP:RPC. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:22, 2 October 2020 (UTC) No Great Shaker (talk) 13:22, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:22, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article has been on my watchlist for some time and as the nom notes, the sources are unreliable. Perhaps if reliable info can be found, there can be a subsection in Dog that lists the verified cases. In the current list, there are significant problems with verification. Jip Orlando (talk) 14:31, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:04, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rationale seems to say that we should delete because the article needs cleanup. WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. The rationale also states that the list may be open to OR and POV abuse? - not reasons to delete... Rationale also cites WP:TRIVIA and that is just an essay. No policy or guideline based reasons to delete were provided in the nomination rationale. The list passes WP:LISTN criteria - provides information to our readers. The reliable sources exist so we keep such articles WP:NEXIST Lightburst (talk) 15:12, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination doesn't say anything about cleanup. It says that the main source is unreliable which means, as I have now inserted, that the key issues are WP:V and WP:RS. How do you know reliable sources exist? I can't find them and I have searched. The Guinness site only confirms the case of Bluey, none of the others. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:30, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Referenced and notable. Users need this information. To be sure, article can be improved, but there is no reason to delete. WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. WP:Verifiability not WP:Truth. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not disputed and is irrelevant to this discussion. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:32, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the nomination proposes cleanup/merger rather than deletion. The main title-holder of Bluey is well-established and other contenders such as Maggie get reasonable coverage too. As we have a list of oldest cats, deletion of the dogs would not be neutral. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:40, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination proposes deletion with merger as a possible alternative. It does not mention cleanup at all. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:52, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination's main issue seems to be that the list is difficult to maintain. That's a cleanup issue, not a reason to delete. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:28, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meeting point one of WP:LISTPURP. schetm (talk) 16:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The crux of the nom is saying that Guinness World Records is NOT a reliable source, which is obviously not true, and that the information is "unobtainable". Again, that's not true. For example, I have every single edition of the Guinness Book of Records printed in the UK (apart from those really rare editions from the 1950s), and I suspect other Wiki editors have access to them too. You can buy them for next to nothing from eBay, Amazon or any second-hand/charity shop. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:20, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No valid reason to delete given in nomination. Whether you think an article can be kept up to date or not, is irrelevant. Dream Focus 17:09, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's no reason to limit this to "verified" (where "verified" means specifically "verified by one commercial entity in particular"), but that's something for the talk page. Seems like a notable enough topic without falling into any of the WP:NOT pitfalls. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:11, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn. Obviously a consensus to keep so best to close this now. Thanks to all who took part. No Great Shaker (talk) 19:30, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Kurt Saxon. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Poor Man's James Bond[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article has been tagged as unreferenced since 2008 and appears to fail WP:GNG. The subject not appear to merit any significant coverage on Google Books. The previous nomination in 2006 was closed without a single WP:RS being adduced to show notability. —Brigade Piron (talk) 12:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 October 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:20, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sourcing is not good. If you look at the 2006 discussion you get claims such as "books are notable". Not every book ever published is notable, especially when it is mainly just a reprint of previously published material.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kurt Saxon, I couldn't find much about this book series.★Trekker (talk) 15:50, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kurt Saxon, which mentions this topic by name. In general, if a title would make for a useful search phrase, please pursue such alternatives to deletion before nominating an article for deletion. No substantive book reviews found. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 00:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep as cleaned up. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Naturism (disambiguation)[edit]

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

This is not a valid disambiguation page: "Naturism" is not ambiguous, and none of the entries on this page are "encyclopedia articles covering topics that could have had the same title" (WP:DPAGE). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:03, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:01, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The word is ambiguous, it's just that the other topics it can refer to have other, more common names. I've rewritten the page to make it clearer, mostly based on the OED entry (which lists four distinct meanings, only one of which is marked as rare and obsolete), and I've added a link to the French literary movement. I'm a bit unsure of the Naturopathy entry though: the OED lists one obsolete meaning (with a 19th-century example) that looks similar to this concept, but do we have anything reliable that the two words have been used interchangeably? (pinging AlexEng). – Uanfala (talk) 14:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the version of the dab page I advocate keeping. I see that it has subsequently been expanded with links to a lot of subtopics of the main article. That's being discussed on the talk page. – Uanfala (talk) 16:39, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:D It is necessary to provide links and disambiguation pages so that readers typing in a reasonably likely topic name for more than one Wikipedia topic can quickly navigate to the article they seek. I have added a few more Naturisms. Lightburst (talk) 15:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dorathy Bachor[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable subject who fails WP:GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER. Only notable for being a housemate in the just ended Big Brother Naija (season 5) where she was first runner up. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 11:47, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 11:47, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 11:47, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 11:47, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable reality TV personality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:57, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She's just a regular reality TV show contestant. There are plenty of TV contestants with their own articles (Ken Jennings, and John Carpenter), but I can't think of any notability guidelines this article meets. Scorpions13256 (talk) 02:14, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Fails to satisfy WP:ENT at the moment. No prejudice against article being re-created at a later time when subject does indeed attain notability. Celestina007 (talk) 15:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject of the proposed article is non notable, just a regular contestant in the TV show, hence fails Wikipedia's WP:ENT Synes4 (talk) 17:29, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Maybe these researchers should research proper capitalization first. Sandstein 20:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

European Training network Of PhD researchers on Innovative EMI analysis and power Applications[edit]

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

Notability not established and article mostly written by COI editors.

Only one of the sources is independent, and this is an interview on a local television station. The remaining sources are all affiliated with the project. (If additional sources do establish notability, the Wiki procedure for articles by Paid Editors is to go through AfC)

The major contributors are Paid Editors. Also, the first three sections on the Talk page show a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's purpose, since they intend for ETOPIA employees to use the article to publish news from the program, instead of unbiased editors seeking to create encyclopaedic content. 1292simon (talk) 08:28, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. There is no evidence of independent coverage in reliable sources to satisfy WP:ORGDEPTH. It would seem that the page's editors have fundamentally misunderstood the purpose of Wikipedia, and would benefit from acquainting themselves with WP:NOTPROMO. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 08:50, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Pamzeis (talk) 09:23, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:04, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 11:40, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lots Road South Tower[edit]

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

Did this ever get built? The information at Lots Road Power Station seems to suggest multiple development plans. Even if it did, there does not seem to be standalone notability for this particular building. Raymie (t • c) 07:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 07:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it appears to be called 'Chelsea Waterfront - Tower West'. I can't see notability, though. I'll have a proper look later Spiderone 07:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've done a search and can't find anything more than just routine estate agent listings and things like this. [21] No WP:SIGCOV so fails WP:NBUILD Spiderone 12:57, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Mursley United F.C.[edit]

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

Has spent most of its life in levels 12 to 15 of the English football pyramid, recently playing at level 11 by the looks of it. Has never played in the FA Vase or FA Cup and doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG. Spiderone 07:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 07:33, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - has not played at a significant enough level, has not played in any significant competitions, and does not meet GNG. Giant Snowman 11:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I prodded this article some time ago as it fails the WP:FOOTYN criteria. I think the deprodding editor didn't realise that the Spartan South Midlands Division One was the third tier of the league (as there was a Senior Division between the Premier Division and Division One). Number 5 7 21:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:FOOTYN. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 22:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 15:36, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nigej (talk) 15:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Old Bradwell United F.C.[edit]

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

Has spent most of its life in levels 12 to 15 of the English football pyramid, recently playing at level 11 by the looks of it. Has never played in the FA Vase or FA Cup and doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG. Spiderone 07:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 07:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - has not played at a significant enough level, has not played in any significant competitions, and does not meet GNG. Giant Snowman 11:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:FOOTYN. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 22:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FOOTYN failure. Number 5 7 17:40, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We don't need articles on teams at the 11 level of a sport in a particular country. Nigej (talk) 15:08, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Loughton Orient F.C.[edit]

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

A very short-lived club that seems to have only played at step 7 and has never played in any national cup, not even the FA Vase. More importantly, I can't find any significant coverage, in fact, even passing mentions are hard to come by. I can only see this as a WP:GNG fail. Spiderone 07:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:01, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:01, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 07:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence that this club meets WP:GNG and WP:FOOTYN. LTFC 95 (talk) 07:48, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 11th tier teams are not notable, does not meet WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:01, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - has not played at a significant enough level, has not played in any significant competitions, and does not meet GNG. Giant Snowman 11:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 22:20, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FOOTYN failure. Number 5 7 17:41, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 but in no way was this nomination disruptive or inappropriate. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

George H. W. Bush vomiting incident[edit]

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

WP:SENSATIONAL, and not WP:LASTING and not WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Just a WP:BURP. Note that George W. Bush pretzel incident was deleted. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 06:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 06:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 06:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 06:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 06:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 06:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note discussion in 2009 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George H.W. Bush vomiting incident. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 06:48, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What we note in that previous discussion is that the outcome was Keep. Per WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome.". Andrew🐉(talk) 15:52, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson:, it's tendencious of you to claim that the nominator is being disruptive. Two nominations in 11 years, seriously? Assume good faith. —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:15, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I attended that previous discussion and so consider it disruptive to have to go through this again. As the nomination presents no fresh evidence, being based only based upon false premises and vague waves, it does not make a case for the matter to be reconsidered. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:20, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like Russell's teapot. The nom has acted perfectly reasonably since it is logically impossible to prove that a subject isn't notable. All the policies seem perfectly relevent to me. —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:44, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination doesn't cite any policies; just waving at irrelevant guidelines and the crude essay WP:FART. It is certainly possible to prove that the coverage has been continuing and is not confined to tabloids; I have done so by providing a counterexample. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SENSATIONAL and WP:LASTING are "policies". So is WP:NOTNEWS cited below by another. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SENSATIONAL and WP:LASTING are guidelines not policies. The first says that "Tabloid or yellow journalism is usually considered a poor basis for an encyclopedia article" and the latter says that "An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable." The topic has long since left the newspapers and is now to be found in numerous books. These typically report that the incident has passed into the Japanese language as Busshu-suru (ブッシュする). So, these guidelines do not indicate that we should be deleting this page; quite the contrary. The appeal to them is begging the question contrary to WP:FORCEDINTERPRET. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:50, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All of which can be covered in Presidency of George H. W. Bush. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, that presidency article is about 100K and currently seems to say nothing about this incident. Lots of details are bound to be crowded out of such a long article and so oddball items such as Bush legs, the Chicken Kiev speech and Decade of the Brain have to be covered separately. Per our policy, WP:NOTPAPER, we can have as many spin-offs as we want and need. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:47, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The presidency article is 48K and can spare to add 2K from merging this article into it. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, it is not Bush legs that is notable it is either the Washington Summit (1990) or the Helsinki Summit (1990) from which it originates that is notable. The other two articles have good and viable WP:SCOPE. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:57, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear what that 48K number is. The current size of the presidency article is reported in its history as "99,847 bytes". That's way beyond the limit suggested by WP:CHOKING while WP:TOOBIG indicates that it should be split rather than expanded. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You do not know what WP:PAGESIZE means. Page size refers to the size of the prose which is 48K. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:28, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, if we expand the readable prose from 48K then this would push that article into the category: "> 50 kB May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)". Bloating a big article is not sensible. It is generally best to keep our articles small and specific so that readers can easily find what they are looking for rather than having to scroll through long, rambling compendia. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I have only been around for about 3 years. I foolishly attempted to redirect the page and take it to RfD in August 2018‎, at which time I was told an AfD was the proper venue. Yet, I waited 2 more years after that before nominating here.

If that is disruptive, I should just quit editing Wikipedia. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:59, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, but more so for WP:SENSATIONAL and WP:BURP; I do think that it has been covered in multiple reliable sources for almost 30 years, the Meacham bio and that CNN '90s doc semi-recently. Not to be too argumentative, but this was a lot more public--and was covered as more of a "real" medical issue--than his son's pretzel incident. Caro7200 (talk) 13:09, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom and Caro7200. —Brigade Piron (talk) 15:48, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination is false as there has been plenty of continuing coverage, decades after the incident. Numerous books report the details and here's an example published this year: A User's Guide to Democracy: How America Works. In any case, notability does not expire, especially for US Presidents. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:50, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Widely noted in press and books. SPECIFICO talk 17:23, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I don't know Lightburst (talk) 18:07, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a violation of not news. Some mention of it might be worth having in the article on George H. W. Bush, but it does not merit a separate article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:01, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NOTNEWS does not refer to incidents that have been referenced years afterward. It's not a world war, but it easily passes GNG. SPECIFICO talk 20:09, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Time has shown this event was of fleeting importance and can easily be covered in Presidency of George H. W. Bush. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:32, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrew. Idan (talk) 21:48, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Grant. Grant Faber (talk) A record of notable medical issues/incidents afflicting sitting U.S. Presidents is a topic of public interest. 01:54,3 October 2020 (UTC)

— Grantfaber (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep: This was a big deal at the time, and contributed to the public opinion of Bush and his presidency. There was continuing discussion of the incident for many years. — Toughpigs (talk) 05:07, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above BlackholeWA (talk) 13:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I'm also very disappointed that longtime veteran editors are accusing the nominator of being disruptive with no evidence to support to their claims. Please assume good faith because otherwise, it looks like a case of WP:BOOMERANG to me. Jdcomix (talk) 15:39, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. I'm not a wikipedia registered user but this was a critically important piece of international news at the time. It was referenced for years on internationally popular television shows like Saturday Night Live & The Simpsons. Please do not destroy this important piece of both regular history and comedy history. 18:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.77.64 (talk)
Keep Coffeeandcrumbs has been trying to merge or delete this for awhile from a quick check of the article history. I really cannot fathom why. The article easily passes WP:GNG and had substantial and lasting coverage. It's a very easy keep. SportingFlyer T·C 20:41, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Trying to delete an article after there is clear consensus to keep it is not conducive to progress. Every few years, this incident gets trotted out again in the media, most recently in light of trump's Covid-19 diagnosis. Bearian (talk) 19:06, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Andrew's comments. Hughesdarren (talk) 23:56, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At the time it happened it was very notable and extensively covered. It is not different from the time a rabbit "attack" Jimmy Carter. Plus per previous consensus was to keep, so this repetitive deletion request is not helpful. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:56, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Foreign_policy_of_the_George_H._W._Bush_administration#Japan or another appropriate article and briefly mention there. Human interest story of little significance in th context of a presidency, WP:NOTNEWS. I shudder to think about the number of articles of this kind we'd need for the current presidency, which seems to largely consist of incidents. Sandstein 19:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 11:40, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Farrakhan Muhammad[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. She has a very famous father, but no independent notability. The refs only mention her in passing, and certainly do not rise to the level of WP:SIGCOV. schetm (talk) 05:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. schetm (talk) 05:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. schetm (talk) 05:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sign of notability. Pamzeis (talk) 06:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:59, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable in any way. Not suited for Wikipedia. BJackJS (talk) 14:14, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete she herself is not notable although her father any maybe her husband are.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:56, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 11:40, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amit K. Pandey[edit]

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

Borderline pass WP:NACADEMIC. The article is written in a purely promotional manner WP:PROMO and entity lacks WP:SIGCOV. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 04:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 04:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 04:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly promotional article. looks more like a linkedin profile. ChunnuBhai (talk) 18:18, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 20:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 2020 United States Postal Service crisis. Unfortunately, merge & delete is not an option due to Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia requirements. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 19:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Friday Night massacre[edit]

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

Potentially controversial, but I think this is a WP:NEOLOGISM that fails WP:GNG. It's a term that's been applied to a few Trump administration firings, such as that of Geoffrey Berman (this was originally a redirect to that page), but I don't see sourcing from which an encyclopedic article could be created. Re-redirecting is an option, I suppose, but then we might have a WP:XY problem given the multiple contexts in which the term has been used. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge content of firing to 2020 United States Postal Service crisis, then delete neologism that's not particularly specific to this incident. Reywas92^Talk 05:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content to 2020 United States Postal Service crisis and then delete per Reywas92. As the editor that created the initial redirect to Berman, I think that I may have jumped the gun on creating it in the first place. While the sources at the time did refer to it as a "Friday Night massacre," it's pretty clear that there's now far too many potential targets to redirect to, and I don't think a disambiguation page would be particularly helpful. I don't see another option beyond deleting, unfortunately. OhKayeSierra (talk) 10:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question/comment for closer. This is an odd case where it looks like (1) merging would be justified but (2) redirecting would not, because of the WP:XY problem I mentioned in the nom. Is there ever a case in which merging and then deleting would be appropriate? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 11:41, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amba Research[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NCORP. Lacks WP:SIGCOV. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 04:15, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 04:15, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 04:15, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After conducting a WP:BEFORE, all I am finding are trivial mentions that WP:CORPDEPTH discusses. For example, I found something related to a merger. It definitely lacks significant coverage and does not meet WP:GNG. Scorpions13256 (talk) 02:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 20:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:29, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aneesh Ravi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:NACTOR. Most importantly lacks WP:SIGCOV. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This actor is notable. There is a lot of coverage of him on Google News, even just in English. On the other hand, the article is so poorly written that it wouldn't be a big deal to start over again when someone gets serious about writing a referenced article, so I won't feel that bad if it gets delted. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ssilvers, WP:TNT, is it possible? - Hatchens (talk) 16:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- The article definitely needs improvement in terms of format and citations but refs do exist online. As an actor he is notable. The main question is of finding an editor who is willing to improve the article. Maybe tag it for improvement right now and if nothing happens in an "X" amount of time then deletion can be revisited. Sunshine1191 (talk) 02:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping: @TamilMirchi:. Hi TamilMirchi, since you're an expert on South Asian actors. Could you help to improve this article as suggested by Ssilvers and Sunshine1191. Your help would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance. -Hatchens (talk) 16:35, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After a brief search on Google, I believe this person passes BASIC and probably passes GNG. I did not look for long and only searched in English, but the number of stories that came up in a simple Google News search makes me believe BASIC has been satisfied: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". There are probably direct and indepth sources, I just looked long enough to see that they satisfied BASIC. // Timothy :: talk 16:31, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:48, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Richmond First[edit]

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

Local political group that fields candidates for the Richmond, British Columbia city council. Fails WP:NORG; deleted as WP:A7 in 2019. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:10, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:10, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:10, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:10, 2 October 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) 00:04, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2019-08 ✗ A7

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 11:41, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Special purpose company (Japan)[edit]

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

This article is unsourced and I found no sources about the specific Japanese version of it. It is most likely original research. Koridas 📣 03:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:18, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:18, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 09:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Special-purpose entity. Foxnpichu (talk) 11:09, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's easy to find sources such as Doing Business and Investing in Japan. Note also that the Japanese-language version of the article is much longer. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:40, 2 October 2020 (UTC)*[reply]
Merge to Special-purpose entity, don't see any reason why this needs to be spun-off into its own article. Jumpytoo Talk 00:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article does not meet notability requirements. The article is a single unsourced sentence, so there is nothing to merge and the title is not a reasonable search term so a redirect is not needed. A redirect for Special purpose company may have merit, but that is not the name of this article. // Timothy :: talk 02:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with TimothyBlue's reasoning above. Topic doesn't meet notability requirements. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:33, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It may be useful to develop the Special-purpose entity article to expand coverage of different jurisdictions. However, the present English article provides nothing which can be merged to help accomplish that, and the Japanese article (Google-translated) seems close to a how-to guide, describing mundane procedural stipulations. AllyD (talk) 07:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is that the topic is likely notable enough for an article, but that the current content - a timeline of events in various fictional futures - is a case for WP:TNT. Sandstein 19:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Far future in fiction[edit]

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

I prodded this with "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." PROD was endorsed by User:Shooterwalker then removed by User:Andrew Davidson with no rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for it). Andrew also removed copyediting banner (more citations needed, notability, primary sources) as "vague, stale, erroneous", hence pinging editor who added them in the past: User:ColinFine. This article is a total mess, most content is unreferenced and it is a mash of several fictional timelines (DC+Marvel+WH40k+EVE online and so on). Extreme WP:FANCRUFT. Now, to be clear, the very topic of far future in fiction is possibly notable ([22]), and I can imagine an article discussing this, but in a totally different form - nothing here is IMHO salvageable, and hence WP:TNT is another (since any proper article on this should not be a fancruft timeline listicle). Lastly, there is also a possibility of having a list of far future works, a related topic, and maybe even stand alone timelines of some famous fictional universes (like Doctor Who), but seriously, putting them all in one article is... not a good idea, for a Wikipedia article at least. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:55, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:55, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable as any other time period in fiction. Tempted to meege in Far future in religion. Hyperbolick (talk) 03:09, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Setting aside WP:OTHERSTUFFEXITS,what are those "other time period(s) in fiction"? I don't see future in fiction, close future in fiction, past in fiction, present in fiction, Middle Ages in Fiction, Ancient Era in fiction, Rennaissance in fiction, Modern Period in fiction... Now, there is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/4th millennium in fiction which seems to be ending in delete soon.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is just currently an arbitrary list of dates in fiction that has no defining criteria for inclusion. There are thousands upon thousands of series that take place in the future, so this is completely unmanageable. The topic likely merits discussion somewhere, but probably as part of a larger topic. Something like Apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction linked in the article would be suitable, but that particular article obviously doesn't fit the entire overarching topic. Regardless of where it should be discussed, there's currently nothing to establish actual notability for this topic, so it should only be created at such a time where someone provides proper references. TTN (talk) 03:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Badly sourced fancruft. As pointed out by TTN, this is unmanageable given the necessity of deciding which of the hundreds and hundreds of works of speculative fiction to include and which ones not to. If there's a topic to be written on the topic of the far future in fiction, this is not it- and leaving it as it is would only obstruct efforts to write an actual article. Also, disruptively removing legitimate maintenance tags just so you can leave a deceptive edit summary strikes me as very childish. It's a trick this disruptive editor keeps using. Reyk _YO! 08:15, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination is erroneous from beginning to end. The topic clearly passes the general notability guideline because it is explicitly covered in encyclopedias of science fiction. The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy has an article on the Far Future which naturally discusses influential works like Stapledon's Last and First Men, just as our article does. The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction naturally has a similar article on the Far Future in which it details the way that the topic has been covered in the different eras of the genre. So, the topic is notable. Our policy WP:ATD then explains that "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." The contrary idea of blowing things up is not policy – it is a reactionary essay in opposition to our fundamental principle of wiki editing – that "Perfection is not required ... poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome.". As for the PROD process, note that it "must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected". One should always expect opposition to such poorly-conceived nominations. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The topic is notable, but 0% of the current fancruft plot summary is usable. There is nothing to rescue, nothing to rewrite. This needs to be deleted, with no prejudice to anyone recreating this article from scratch. In fact, I may even do so myself one day. Our article does not discuss Stapledon's work, it summarizes the plot. That's not the same. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:41, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - The prod claimed that the topic was not notable but now the nominator says that it is notable. They should get their story straight before demanding that a topic is deleted without discussion. The prod process is only "meant for uncomplicated deletion proposals". Andrew🐉(talk) 10:57, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Almost unreferenced fancruft. If somebody has written books and theses on the subject (not on the individual works and series, but on the subject of "far future" in fiction, then we could have an article which summarised these books and theses. But this list of dates arbitrarily gleaned from an assortment of work is not encyclopaedic even if they were all sourced. --ColinFine (talk) 09:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Andrew asked me to comment here. There's no question that an article on the far future in fiction could be written; Andrew cites the SFE3 article, which is a high-quality source, and the same source even discusses subgenres such as Dying Earth stories. However, I agree with those that say this article bears no resemblance to what the article should be -- some of the timelines might perhaps be sourceable, but if that information were to be shown to be notable it would belong in the articles about those invented worlds, not in an article about the theme of the far future. I am not !voting keep since I don't think anything in the article should be kept as is; it should be replaced with a sentence or two outlining the SFE3 article, for someone to expand when they have time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:03, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:12, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:12, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:13, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:13, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable topic - the nominator admits the subject is notable. WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. The nomination cites two essays WP:FANCRUFT and WP:TNT as reasons to delete: yet when our guidelines WP:NEXIST and WP:N are at odds with the essays - the guidelines should win here. We also have a policy that overrides guidelines and essays. WP:ATD. So this is a keep. Lightburst (talk) 13:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've deleted the content of the article and replaced it with a couple of sourced sentences. I think this version is keepable, but if it were to be agreed that the content at the time of nomination is the right content for the article I would !vote to delete. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:01, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, my edit has been reverted by 7&6=thirteen. I don't spend a lot of time at AfD so am not expert in the nuances; but from their edit summary 7&6=thirteen was clearly surprised that I would do something like that with an AfD pending. I don't understand the point -- if Lightburst's point, above, is valid that AfD isn't cleanup and a salvageable article should be cleaned up rather than deleted, then I feel I was cleaning up in response. If such an edit is not appropriate with an AfD pending then what's the right process given that I (and others above) believe deleting the content is the right move? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:20, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. I think the article is clearly salvageable. But your Procrustean Bowdlerization gutted the content inexorably. And it ignored lots of potential sources. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:23, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at all the sources in the article and didn't think any of them were sufficiently good quality for an article focused on the theme of the far future in fiction, though some of them were probably OK for the individual timelines, if those were to survive in other articles. And I really don't think any of the article as it stands is worth keeping; it wasn't a blind cut and replace. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree completely with Mike Christie - there actually is the potential for an actual article on this subject in the form of an actual prose article, but this current list is a complete, unsalvageable mess that should not be retained in any form. The vast majority of this "information" (and I use the term very lightly) is unsourced, and the few entries that are sourced are not reliable. As retaining this content is not needed to develop an actual valid article, and there seems to be some resistance to actually allowing the needed revision to occur right now, I have to vote to delete this mess. Because again, nothing currently here should be retained, regardless of the notability or potential of the actual title of the article. Rorshacma (talk) 15:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rorshacma. This is a quintessential case of "Wikipedia is not TV Tropes". I like making lists of big year numbers as much as anybody, but I'll still admit that those lists are fancruft. The dividing line for "far future" is arbitrary, and the material gathered here under that arbitrary heading is unreliable. XOR'easter (talk) 15:37, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am hardly in a position to argue the notability of this article, but for the record the cutoff point is not arbitrary; it's the same cutoff point Wikipedia itself uses. Serendi ^podous 21:48, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's just an arbitrary choice with an extra step. What would be defensible would be to gather secondary and tertiary sources that discuss how the "far future" is treated in science fiction, distinct from more near futures, and report on what their standards for the "far future" are. Do they even specify a number of years, or is the concept more thematic? For example, the SFE3 article mentioned by Mike Christie doesn't use a cutoff year; instead, it sets up a contrast between the historical future which will grow out of human action in the present day and a world where everything has so changed as to have become virtually incomprehensible. Imposing a quantitative cutoff when the source makes a qualitative distinction is Original Research. XOR'easter (talk) 16:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TNT. I am less than convinced we need to sub-divide the future in fiction. However this article as it currently stands is pure fancruft and needs to be removed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:47, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Whether the topic is notable seems apart from the question. More relevant seems WP:SALAT and WP:NOT. There might be a notable topic somewhere, but there isn't one scrap of this article that should be part of an article on that notable topic. There's not on independent reliable source in the bunch, instead comprising entirely in-universe fandom/trivia. It's unclear whether a different version of this article would be notable, because it's unclear what a completely different article would look like. i.e. WP:TNT at minimum. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:17, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this isn't a discriminate topic and unsurprisingly there are no sources that discuss this as a concept separate from science fiction as a whole. That would be a fine redirect target and there is nothing that needs a separate article. Jontesta (talk) 20:55, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are indeed sources that discuss this as a separate concept. This SFE3 article is mentioned above, for example. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:02, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Poorly sourced WP:FANCRUFT plot summary. Per TTN comment, this is just an arbitrary list of dates in fiction that has no defining criteria for inclusion. Per Rhododendrites comment WP:TNT, there might be a notable topic somewhere, but there isn't one scrap of this article that should be part of an article on that notable topic. // Timothy :: talk 02:17, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and per nom._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:27, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rework - Current content is obviously not a good fit, but the topic is also clearly notable. Not sure that deleting and recreating is preferable to just blanking the current content and improving iteratively. BlackholeWA (talk) 13:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I endorsed the PROD because WP:NOT#PLOT says that articles are not just retellings of plot details, and we cover fiction in a summary style, not as a series of disparate bullet points. If you rewrote it as prose, it would still fail NOTPLOT because there is no third party coverage that adds any out-of-universe context. I do see some comments (including delete comments) that this article could be completely rewritten as something that isn't just plot and primary sources, but those articles already exist by a different name if you look at examples in outline of science fiction. If someone find any secondary sources that talk about common themes in the fictional distant future, they should be added to better articles than this. There is nothing in this article that meets Wikipedia policies and it should be deleted. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I came across this article when trying to find information about science fiction set in particular years. Despite its incompleteness and other flaws, it was still one of the best references I could find on the subject. Unless replaced with something better, I would argue to keep it as it is useful. 5 Oct 2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:148:200:91F0:897B:DA4D:7AD9:9C43 (talk) 14:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT, with no prejudice to recreation as an encyclopedic article. We already know of at least one source, a page in the Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, but nothing in this article is worth keeping per WP:PLOT. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 15:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Sources that could be used, directly about this topic, as well as works themselves directly dealing with "far future", include: Envisioning the Future: Science Fiction and the Next Millennium, The Furthest Horizon: SF Adventures to the Far Future, and Far Futures. Further, "Far future science fiction" is itself its own catalog subject matter for libraries. eg [23] [24] [25] [26] Right cite (talk) 17:08, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawn by nominator, clear consensus to keep (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 00:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Coca-Cola buildings and structures[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:LISTN. Unencyclopedic, seems like fan trivia. Also WP:NOTDIR. MB 02:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Coca-Cola-related discussions.RevelationDirect (talk) 17:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Merge into The Coca-Cola Company - There is some information here that might be valuable to said page. Otherwise, I would definitely still say that redirecting the article to there would be a fair option. Foxnpichu (talk) 10:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:01, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as original creator) But Purge While many of the buildings are individually notable, especially the bottling plants on the National Register of Historic Places, WP:NLIST requires that the group or set be notable. I just added citations to the intro from Pullitzer prize winning architectural critic Inga Saffron and an academic from Emory University that discuss the buildings importance as a group which should satisfy the notability guideline.RevelationDirect (talk) 17:10, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The current section on facilities in Germany reads like a corporate phone directory and that section should come out though. RevelationDirect (talk) 17:11, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A valid navigational aid list. Anything listed that doesn't have its own article should be removed of course. Dream Focus 18:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously. I don't grok User:MB's deletion nomination of this, because MB is an experienced editor in area of historic sites, buildings, lists. Note numerous items are individually Wikipedia-notable items. It is sensible to have this as a list separated from, rather than included into a main article about the Coca-Cola company. About the German ones, the current section doesn't seem to have substantial encyclopedic text-type information (though the actual locations' coordinates plus Google satellite view or Google streetview would get you to some significant visual info). I suggest moving it to the Talk page and calling for development perhaps, rather than just outright deleting someone's work which could in the future be part of a valid section. --Doncram (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram, This list has been improved in the last several days. There appears to be agreement that rather an indescriminate list of building (of which the article claims there are over 900), the article be limited to ones that are notable and have WP articles, or could have articles. With removal of the German locations, which don't appear to be notable, I would agree to Withdraw this AFD. MB 06:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this conversation, I moved the Germany section to the talk page and repeated Doncram's encouragement that it be improved and added back to the article at a later date. RevelationDirect (talk) 13:57, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect to Coca-Cola Company. Northern Escapee (talk) 13:12, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 00:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ogelle Africa[edit]

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

This article appears well sourced but almost all the sources are press releases which are not independent coverage of the subject. Northern Escapee (talk) 07:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northern Escapee (talk) 07:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I can see more than four secondary reliable sources which pass Wikipedia notability guidelines.Kojomo (talk) 08:37, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1. If multiple reliable publications have discussed a topic, or better still debated a topic, then that improves the topic's probability of being covered in Wikipedia. First, multiple sources that have debated a subject will reliably demonstrate that the subject is worthy of notice. Second, and equally important, these reliable sources will allow editors to verify certain facts about the subject that make it significant, and write an encyclopedic article that meets our policies and guidelines.

2. Every article on Wikipedia must be based upon verifiable statements from multiple third-party reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered, e.g., a newspaper reporter covering a story that they are not involved in except in their capacity as a reporter.

This article satisfies both scenarios explained. I propose a Strong Keep AGwrites (talk) 09:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:50, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:50, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 01:44, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:22, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:22, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:GNG with The Guardian (Nigeria) Apr 21, 2019 and Vanguard (Nigeria) Jul 11, 2020 (reporting on a commendation from the High Commissioner of Trinidad and Tobago), both of which have bylines are published by reputable national media outlets. Both The Guardian [27] and Vanguard [28] [29] have published other stories about Ogelle. Additionally, we have The Nation (Nigeria) Apr 21, 2019 and Peace FM (Ghana) May 27, 2019, which are not bylined but appear to be reliable sources nonetheless. I'm not familiar with the reliability of Techpoint.africa [30], but it's bylined also. There is multinational significant coverage by reliable national media outlets. Le v!v ich 18:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guide (Adventist magazine)[edit]

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

Non-notable magazine Dronebogus (talk) 16:27, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is notable enough. Epachamo (talk) 16:59, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment Simply stating it is notable does not prove notability. Do you have any reliable secondary sources on it? Dronebogus (talk) 00:31, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dronebogus: Per WP:NMEDIA, this article is about a periodical that has "significant publications in ethnic and other non-trivial niche markets". Epachamo (talk) 20:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: The only websites that talk about this article are Seventh-day Adventist, so it fails 100%. Catfurball (talk) 17:10, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG: see [31], [32], [33], and [34]. Note that the Spectrum is not controlled by the church. (talk) 20:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Number 2 and #4 are passing mentions; #1 appears to be about the company and not the magazine (if it features in-depth coverage, stating which pages it is on would be appreciated); only #3 definitely counts. Dronebogus (talk) 22:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: You know what? I'm just voting Keep because Catfurball's delete vote is a really, really bad rationale. Yes, Seventh-Day Adventist websites talk about Seventh-Day Adventist publications. So what? — Toughpigs (talk) 01:46, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

there may be a conflict of interest? Coolabahapple (talk) 08:43, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish websites talk about Jewish publications; birdwatching websites talk about birdwatching publications; paleontology websites talk about paleontology publications. This is only a problem if you think that Seventh-Day Adventists are somehow different than other medium-sized interest groups. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:32, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

and if they are the only sources then the coi issue may also arise. ps. and no, i do not believe that the Adventists are somehow different. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:34, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To discount Adventist publications as having a COI only because they are Adventist is to discriminate based on religion. If, however, the same management owns both the magazine and everything that's mentioned it, that is COI and then there isn't independent sourcing. Perhaps that is what Coolabahapple is trying to say. But don't vote delete because there may be a COI. Figure it out. I concur that Catfurball's vote reasoning is out there. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 01:11, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly passes GNG. So many references from reliable sources. DMySon 14:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

please provide sources that show this. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:43, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The ones I provided earlier?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:34, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no one has actually shown that this magazine passes WP:GNG, only one source has been found which actually contributes to notability, with the rest being either primary sources, passing mentions or not actually about the subject. As a result, this magazine still fails GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 01:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 00:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AfriMusic Song Contest[edit]

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

Ref bombed promotional spam. Non notable organistion/contest. If there is any notability hidden I suggest TNT as this is so far from appropriate for an encyclopedia it's almost funny. Article is bombarded with primary, press releases, facebook, PR and non mentions. The unrelated "history" section does have some RSs but they provide no coverage of this online contest. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:47, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:47, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:47, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am the page creator, though I haven't actually done much, a few other people have done all the work on the page. I agree that there are way too many references, and they should definitely be cleaned up, but the contest is definitely notable. It's a Eurovision-counterpart, with the winner of AfriMusic even performing at the Eurovision pre-shows. AfriMusic is indeed online at the moment, as far as I know, but that doesn't make it less notable. The page is written well. It doesn't, in my opinion, seem promotional at all. Not any more than pages for similar contests anyway. Several pages link to it, and it has a fair amount of monthly visitors. No reason to delete it, in my opinion. Kaffe42 (talk) 20:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 01:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is true that the sourcing could be better, but the competition has still been covered by specific articles in Deutsche Welle (1) and potentially Daily News (Harare) (rotted) and some other newspapers which appear to be WP:RS. As such, I don't think it can be argued WP:GNG isn't met? The fact that its 2020 version is online is not relevant. —Brigade Piron (talk) 15:59, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 16:17, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hilary S. Parker[edit]

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

Previous discussion resulted in deletion. This new recreation does not address the issues raised there. No indication of notability. Fails WP:PROF Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 01:14, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 01:14, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 01:14, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has been completely overhauled and the subject has received enough significant coverage to warrant an article. There's not a lot of media fuss about data scientists, but I believe the Wired article and her interview in This is Statistics demonstrate that she meets the basic criteria of WP:BIO. She also meets WP:NACADEMIC#7 as someone who has had "a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." As a data scientist, she has worked for Etsy, Stitch Fix, has co-authored papers with Jeff Leek, and hosts a popular podcast with Roger Peng. She has also given a number of keynote presentations at data science conferences. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 02:22, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm sorry I missed the original deletion discussion, where I think I could have made some of the (substantial!) improvements that have been made in this version. As User:Gobonobo says, this page now meets the general definition of notability based on the significant coverage in media such as Wired and VentureBeat. Parker also meets the notability criteria for academics, based both on her highly-cited work (she is third author on both the sva R package (198 citations) and the associated paper (1638 citations), and has several first-author papers as well) and her impact outside academia. She and her podcast co-host, Roger Peng, gave the closing keynote at rstudio::conf in 2020, which they were invited to do based on the enormous impact of their podcast. Parker has given many more keynote addresses about her Opinionated Analysis Development work, including at the International Conference on Teaching Statistics, in Kyoto in 2018. I don't know that this counts toward her notability yet because it is not verified in third-party sources, but she recently left her job at StitchFix to become a data scientist on the Biden campaign (her LinkedIn and Twitter do reflect this job change). AmeliaMN (talk) 13:32, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:18, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is tricky when dealing with people who don't usually get a lot of mainstream coverage, but I think her StitchFix citations hit general notability and, as AmeliaMN says above WP:NACADEMIC#7 can apply. Jessamyn (talk) 15:37, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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