Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 October 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< October 19	October 21 >

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 redirect to List of That '70s Show characters#Jackie Burkhart. T. Canens (talk) 04:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Burkhart[edit]

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

Redirect to List of That '70s Show characters The page has no solid sources, and the material is mostly in-universe information. The Irate Communist (talk) 20:18, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 20:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect - Topic lacks real world information from reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 13:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:CHEAP a separate article isn't needed Spudlace (talk) 23:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of That '70s Show characters : Per above (GNG/NFICTION fail). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:17, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect List of That '70s Show characters --Devokewater (talk) 10:31, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of That '70s Show characters for the reasons outlined by others above. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:27, 27 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. T. Canens (talk) 04:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eastmaninstitutet[edit]

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

Non-notable place. I only found reviews, mirror sites, and Facebook pages. Koridas 📣 22:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't think this is a run-of-the-mill dental clinic, based on [1], [2], and [3]. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The institute has an article in Swedish encyclopedia Nationalencyklopedin. The building has the second-highest degree of listing, "green". (As for the listing, see Swedish Wikipedia article. The listing is not terribly significant in itself. It is a nice early modernist building with interior wall-paintings by Einar Forseth, but there are actually many other buildings in Central Stockholm that are listed as green. To put it in some kind of context, the Stockholm Old Town is mostly blue, the highest level.) --Hegvald (talk) 15:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article is a bit thin, but its significant in the history of Swedish healthcare.Rathfelder (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs many better sources, but it would seem notable. An article in the Nationalencyklopedin would make it notable. May want to look into medical journals, a quick search on Google Scholar provides at least 10 pages of articles. Seems to be heavily involved in research. Oaktree b (talk) 01:52, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the article is currently in bad shape, the article in the Swedish national encyclopedia clearly shows that it is a notable institution. Examples of additional sources (in Swedish): [4], [5], [6]. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 22:23, 27 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. T. Canens (talk) 04:23, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Building biology[edit]

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

Non-notable fringe belief, almost entirely referenced with primary sources. Salimfadhley (talk) 21:07, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Salimfadhley (talk) 21:07, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Apparently somewhat fringey but also obviously notable enough for our purposes - multiple organizations [7][8][9], a number of books [10][11] and peer-reviewed articles [12][13], and the term comes up repeatedly in the context of sick building syndrome (e.g. [14][15]). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that the term "building biology" is used in legitimate academic contexts and was co-opted by the group originating in Germany associated with alternative medicine. The current article seems to be a mix of both. Building biology and Baubiologie should thus be clearly distinguished from one another. Pink pipes (talk) 11:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to Baubiologie may be sensible to avoid conflation. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a German concept and so the language may sound a bit odd in English but that's not a reason to delete. Apart from the good points made by Elmidae, notice that the topic has articles in seven other Wikipedias and so seems well-established. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:00, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's just as fringe in Germany as it is in other parts of the world: The Berufsverband Deutscher Baubiologen VDB e.V. website currently warns of 5G radiation.[16] My suspicion is that the articles in other languages were created or at least edited by "Building biologists" to fake legitimacy. For example: [Kempf], the creator of the french article, is the owner of the Institut français de baubiologie et d'écologie. Not necessarily a reason to delete, but something to be aware of. Pink pipes (talk) 11:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)— Pink pipes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

That website also features asbestos, radon and mould, which are well-established as real building hazards. If they are making a risk analysis of the new technology of 5G too, then this seems prudent. This is not a reason to delete. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Any article founded on the premise that multiple chemical sensitivity is real, has irredeemable problems. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not really an argument, as long as there is sufficent coverage - unless you want to raze List of topics characterized as pseudoscience in the some washup... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article about multiple chemical sensitivity and so we can have an article about this context too. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If it is not deleted, the article must be completely rewritten or moved to Baubiologie to reflect what it is: A set of beliefs with strong ties to alternative medicine. See also my reply to Elmidae. Pink pipes (talk) 11:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Do we have good quality secondary sources for this? I'm seeing the Institute of Building Biology (which I believe is a primary source), but not much else. --Salimfadhley (talk) 13:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. There is nothing usable in the current article; it relies entirely on primary sources and is written in a non-neutral tone presenting all aspects of the movement in a positive light, even the criticism section is written as a criticism of people who criticise the movement! The articles in other languages don't look any better: the French article is a translation of the English one and has only primary sources; the dutch article is sourced entirely to www.baubiologie.de; and the German article is sourced to some fringy looking books and websites, including one on how electricity and radiation cause stress, again no secondary sources. If enough high quality secondary sources can be found there should be an article under the movement's German name - 'baubiologie' but it needs to be written in a neutral manner: i.e. it is an architectural movement that incorporates some aspects of science and some aspects of pseudoscience. 192.76.8.82 (talk) 20:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to do some digging into Pink pipes's suggestion that the article was written by or substantially edited by building biologists, and I've come to the conclusion that is indeed the case. Looking just at the edits that were allowed to stay in the article in some form we have edits by users who identify themselves as building biologists [17], edits by a SPA who's username is identical to that of an Australian building biology firm [18] , edits by Ecolibria (a quack building inspection company that specialises in air-quality testing and EM-radiation measurements) [19], a user called BBaustralia [20], and an edit by a user alexgreig [21] adding informtion on himself as head of the new Zealand building biology institute. There are also a number of single purpose accounts that exclusively edited the article to add promotional content e.g. [22], [23]. For an article with under 200 total edits the amount of COI and POV pushing editing is remarkable 192.76.8.82 (talk) 21:03, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While the concept might be notable, the article is completely written from a fringe point of view based on primary sources. There's nothing usable to keep. What would be necessary to write an article about this is a reliable source describing baubiologie from a mainstream point of view. None have appeared so far. Tercer (talk) 09:21, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per policy based comments by JzG, and Andrew Davidson. Is this Heilpraktikers trying to justify their nonsense? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 12:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article meets the general notability guidelines Wikipedia:Notability. Lost in translation.RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 15:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The source you added here to show notability is a self published book that claims that there is a connection between human health and 'Cosmic Energy, Chakras, Aura and Vastu'. To improve the article we need to find some high quality secondary coverage from reliable sources, which is what the article currently lacks. Since the article is currently sourced entirely to similar primary and fringe material I think it is best to start again, per WP:TNT. 192.76.8.82 (talk) 16:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article is fringe, POV, with dubious notability at best. Article would need to be completely rewritten to meet standards. TNT seems like the best way forward, if notability can be established, the article can be rewritten and properly sourced. // Timothy :: talk 16:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if we strictly apply WP:SIGCOV, this must be deleted. Bearian (talk) 17:10, 23 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. There was a strong consensus after the deletion review and it's final relist that the sources provided, particularly late in the debate, unambiguously demonstrate notability. There was a valid copyright concern about previous versions of the article's prose being a copy-paste from the artist's website - I have rev-deleted all of the previous versions that include this text. The current version of the article does not have this problem, and is considered suitable for inclusion by the consensus here. ~ mazca ^talk 20:59, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All Join In[edit]

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

Has been in CAT:NN for over ten years, so it's time for this to get a hearing. Currently, it's unsourced, which doesn't help anything. The AllMusic page is just a track listing [24] This piece is a press release. There's a good deal of coverage in blogs and user-generated sites, but those do not even approximate reliability. This is reasonable coverage in a reliable source. This news piece only gives two or three sentences to this particular album, and is primarily about Loggins himself. It's possible there's another decent piece or two out there, since I found one, so I'm taking this to AFD, rather than boldly redirecting. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The links indicated above (except AllMusic) seem reliable. I also found some reliable sources which talk about the album, whether fully or briefly: [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31] and [32]. With these, the article is good enough to pass WP:NALBUM. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kenny_Loggins_discography#Studio_albums per WP:CHEAP. I am not convinced by Superastig's sources—they look like passing mentions to me. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While the album is just a passing mention in the Billboard and Las Vegas Sun articles, majority of AleatoryPonderings's claim is baseless since the other sources I provided above are not passing mentions.

The following articles briefly discuss the album:

The Dispatch Argus article states:

He contributed a song for "The Tigger Movie" (2000), and the 61-year-old's latest CD is an up-tempo collection of family-friendly songs, "All Join In," which features vocals from all five of his kids, ranging from age 11 to 28.

"All Join In" includes takes on classics such as the Beatles' "All Together Now" and "Two Of Us"(the latter beinghisfirst studio recording in decades with Jim Messina),Randy Newman's "You"ve Got a Friend In Me,"the 1950s-era "Come Go With Me,"and Traffic"s "You Can All JoinIn."

The Express Times article states:

Loggins released his second children's album, "All Join In," in 2010. But he says the songs on "All Join In" appeal to a broad range of listeners.

The Santa Barbara Independent article is an interview with Kenny Loggins, stating:

Most recently, Loggins refocused his attention on the kids, penning and releasing All Join In, an up-tempo follow-up of sorts to 1994’s lullaby record, Return to Pooh Corner.

The album is among the highlights in this Globe Gazette article, stating:

Loggins talked about his newest venture — a family album titled, “All Join In” — before he strode the stage with Jim Messina at North Iowa Area Community College on Sunday. The new album is expected to be released around the holidays.
“I think it’s the most emotionally rewarding album I’ve ever made,” he said.
The album, he added, is an upbeat family-friendly collection of music that runs from Randy Newman’s “You’ve Got a Friend in Me,” and Donovan’s 1965 hit,“First There is a Mountain,” to the rare studio teaming of Loggins and Messina with the track, “Two of Us.” The pair also sang the number during the concert Sunday.
Every one of the numbers includes singing by his children, although he admitted that two of them — Cody and Lukas — participate more than sing.

The Musings From Me and Connected 2 Christ articles are reviews about the album.

Therefore, aside from the first 2 I mentioned, none of the sources I discussed above are passing mentions since they discuss the album, whether briefly, partially and fully. My keep stands. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 07:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – bradv🍁 05:43, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as copyright violation from [33]. The main prose text of this article is word-for-word identical to what appears on Loggins' own copyrighted website. After deletion, the article can be re-created. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:57, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Metropolitan90, that can easily be taken care of since the content isn't that big. One can trim down the first paragraph and modify the track listing. After all, deletion is WP:NOTCLEANUP. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No effective sourcing. scope_creep^Talk 16:35, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Kenny Loggins, because it seems to me that he's clearly notable, but the album is borderline. ~~Delete because of the copyvio Metropolitan mentions.~~ Coverage that's just a sentence mentioning the album is not enough to establish notability, imv. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:06, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I recently cleaned up the article, simplified the first paragraph and tabulated the songlist. That should probably remove the copyright violation. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable album. Press release on BusinessWire. Lancasteronline. Wm335td (talk) 16:14, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to consider additional sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't consider a press release and an article in a local paper that barely mentions the album enough from the 'additional sources' presented. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Technical relist to make this show up in current logs. The previous closure was undone because the closer was a banned sock, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 October 20. This can and should be closed now by somebody else.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:58, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I know you're trying to close this, but I have some late-breaking newspaper articles: "Kenny Loggins cuts footloose, peddles music on QVC", "Kenny Loggins lightens up for latest album" and "Kenny Loggins treasures his family music", which are all entirely about this album. Newspapers.com can be very useful when looking for sources. — Toughpigs (talk) 21:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kenny Loggins#Discography KidAd talk 23:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article itself should clearly be kept, because Toughpigs' sources conclusively prove that this album is notable. The opinions to the contrary, above, are decisively refuted and should clearly receive zero weight. Please would the closer revdel the copyright-violating revisions identified above.—S Marshall T/C 13:50, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources uncovered, especially by Toughpigs. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:41, 22 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. Geschichte (talk) 19:24, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brunei Music Society[edit]

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

I prodded this page in 2019 when the article was far more promotional; two references were added and the promotional material removed, but I can't say this meets the WP:GNG. Raymie (t • c) 01:34, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 01:34, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brunei-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 01:34, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 02:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion:? While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2009-02 ✗ G12

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:34, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - run of the mill, local, amateur, performing arts group. Bearian (talk) 19:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. Yoonadue (talk) 13:05, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG --Devokewater (talk) 10:36, 27 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 Devourment. T. Canens (talk) 04:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Molesting the Decapitated[edit]

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

I find not enough to help the article meet WP:GNG. A quick search found mentions in the usual metal webzines and websites, none of which are RSes. https://www.allmusic.com/album/molesting-the-decapitated-mw0002047686 is simply a database entry: no review or rating. Important content can be merged to the band article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:44, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:44, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — I do definitely think the article deserves to be here especially if you’re knowledged in slam. If Devourment themselves can have a Wikipedia article then it should come with the territory that their most notorious album should as well. It just doesn’t feel right to have it missing. Second Skin (talk) 20:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- If you could supply sources to support the claim that it deserves to be here, that would help determine why. Notability is not inherited. Not every work of a notable band is itself notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yah I know which is why I said this album in particular is their most notable work, and besides I already edited the page and added a source before I even commented lol. Second Skin (talk) 08:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am sure that you aware that http://relapse.com/devourment-obscene-majesty/ is a primary source. The label is linked to the band and does not help the subject meet WP:GNG, and their job is to hype the band. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- None of that constitutes a valid reason to keep an article. Notability isn’t inherited, and unsourced claims of importance or weird baseless comments like "it wouldn’t feel right” aren’t policy-based either. Sergecross73 msg me 22:57, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks independent notability - fails the WP:GNG. Will reconsider if sources are found (Not gonna lie, didn’t exactly want to do a deep dive on source searching with this one, considering where the false positive could take someone...) Sergecross73 msg me 22:57, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Devourment: Barely found anything about the album. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 06:15, 26 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. T. Canens (talk) 04:25, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Christian ska bands[edit]

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

The lack of sourcing violates WP:BLP. The shortness and lack of context makes the list seem unnecessary. Moreover the inclusion process may be faulty as it is not establishes what constitutes a "Christian ska" band compared with "a ska band where one of more members hold Christian worldviews". The list, a longer version of it, has also been deleted in an old AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian ska. Geschichte (talk) 20:31, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The bands are all notable and the list is valid. There's no reason that one band can't be a Ska band in the Christian music industry and another is a ska band where one or more of the members are self-proclaimed Christians. There are many other, similar lists with the same definitions. Worst case, merge the list with the Christian ska article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:39, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If its a valid category then its a valid list article. List articles are always more useful than categories as they can show far more information. Category:Christian ska groups If you doubt anything on the list just search for it at Amazon, check the package their music comes in, or official media they produce about themselves such as [34]. Valid navigational list. Dream Focus 22:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree with both Walter and Dream Focus. The bands and list are notable. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 02:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dream Focus. There's no problem with listing all half-dozen or more notable members of a category in a list. Bearian (talk) 19:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable list of blue linked entries which aids navigation, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:42, 24 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 19:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SU(6) (physics)[edit]

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

Effectively unsourced article with unclear scope, muddling two unrelated uses of the group SU(6) in physics. (The only reference is a primary source about a specific Grand Unified Theory; it doesn't apply to anyhing else in the article.) According to user Footlessmouse (talk · contribs), "it is currently in such awful shape with so little useful information that WP:TNT applies here." –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. My views were restated by nom, originally in WikiProject Physics talk page here. There are no references and there is no usable information on the page. I am not sure if the topic itself has inherent notability, but if it does, a new, properly cited, version can be started after this is deleted, per the deletion process guidelines. Footlessmouse (talk) 19:55, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above and the fact that it's been tagged as needing expert attention for over a decade. XOR'easter (talk) 20:31, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and per XOR.--ReyHahn (talk) 11:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:TNT. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TNT, OR, and WP:SNOW. It's interesting, but without more than one citation, it is effectively original research, which we do not publish. Bearian (talk) 19:28, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or WP:TNT --Devokewater (talk) 20:08, 26 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. Geschichte (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christian electronic dance music[edit]

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

Spurious topic. As such it borders on WP:COATRACK. The article does not demonstrate that "Christian dance music" is any different from dance music where the performer doesn't do drugs for other reasons, or dance music where non-Christian performers sing about angels or loving one's next. Electronic dance music is simply the basic pop music in our days, and some Christians happen to play it. Geschichte (talk) 18:57, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a valid sub-genre of music. It lives at the intersection of electronic dance music and contemporary Christian music and has sufficient sources to meet GNG. I see no COATRACK. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: I agree with Walter; this is a valid sub-genre of Christian music, especially Contemporary Christian music. There are plenty of sources to meet the notability guidelines. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 01:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep Not only is this a legitimate music genre, but your claim that the article doesn't explain the different between Electronic dance music and CEDM is demonstrably false, as the article states "the CEDM culture's lack of drug use and emphasis of positive lyrics (often focused on Christianity-based principles) distinguish it from non-religious counterparts", as well as the fact that "CEDM has also been incorporated into some Christian worship routines". In fact many CEDM songs are worship songs. I don't supporting deleting this article on the grounds that this is an illegitimate genre, because that is incorrect. AKA Casey Rollins Talk With Casey 15:06, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sourcing in the article is solid and it definitely passes WP:GNG. Less Unless (talk) 14:43, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article has references to significant coverage in multiple reliable sources so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:39, 24 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 19:50, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Construction projects in Providence[edit]

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

1) "Construction projects" is an unclear topic. Is it intended to be a list of all notable construction projects in the history of Providence since its founding? Or is it more of a "news" or "current events" topic, about current construction projects at this moment? If the former, doesn't the article "Timeline of Providence" cover it sufficiently? If the latter, then it is not particularly encyclopedic 2) It's outdated by at least ten years 3) A search for "construction projects in ..." brings up no similar articles for other cities 4) no other articles link to this Kzirkel (talk) 18:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. Kzirkel (talk) 18:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Whatever this is trying to be, it's not working, and it's not encyclopediac. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:57, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It was a spirited attempt to keep up with downtown construction projects that hasn't been tended to in over a decade.Louiedog (talk) 15:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. NavjotSR (talk) 15:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unencyclopedic, more than a decade out of date. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 13:46, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - at some point, this subject becomes obsolete. And although Providence is important, it isn't and will never be able to be big enough to justify a list of buildings built in xxxx article, and where else could this go? WP:NOTNEWS applies I'd say. 174.254.193.245 (talk) 21:04, 26 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 19:49, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Melodyguild[edit]

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

Non-notable band! GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt the notability of this band. All I am finding are the usual streaming links, databases, youtube videos, blog and forum entries, trivial mentions (mostly in the context of the band "Love Spirals Downwards" which I have never heard of either) and some retail sites. Tagged for notability and to improve references. I don't think they are notable. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I would agree. Band has little output, and lacking coverage. Geschichte (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My WP:BEFORE has also shown only user-generated platforms - nothing significant, so the band fails notability guidelines.Less Unless (talk) 14:48, 22 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. T. Canens (talk) 04:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Khaled Ahmed Abdelaty Farag[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON, professional association football player who does not appear to meet WP:NFOOTY. As a sub-top-tier player playing in a fully professional league, there MAY be enough coverage to meet general notability guidelines or guidelines for biographies but I am not optimistic. Also, this being a biography and a poorly edited one at that suggests that if notability is marginal, WP:Blow it up and start over later, when notability is solid, is a good outcome. Of course, if it turns out this person is notable, well, deletion is not cleanup, so if clear notability is demonstrated, "keep" and clean up. This deletion discussion is to replace a proposed deletion. I think this needs discussion to either 1) save the page if the person meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, or 2) to send a clear message to the autobiographical author not to try again until he clearly does if he is not. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC) updated davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Draft:Khaled Ahmed Abdelaty Farag (footballr , born 1992 has been redirected to the target of this AFD as a "redirect with history." It's primary author is the same as that of this page, but there is some overlapping edit history and some edits to both pages by other editors. If the article survives AFD, that page needs to survive as well for attribution purposes. If the page at AFD is moved back to the Draft: space, the redirect will need to be changed. If the page at AFD is deleted, that page should be restored to its non-redirect form. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:32, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 17:32, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:57, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - every reference available for this person seems to be a rehashing of the exact same story about the 'Egyptian Cristiano Ronaldo' being linked with a few clubs in the transfer market. I'm not seeing any WP:SIGCOV Spiderone 08:12, 21 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 19:49, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

McLeans Ferry, California[edit]

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

Topographic maps have the site marked as a generic ferry, and there's no GNIS entry. As a ferry, it fails WP:GEOLAND and would have to survive based on multiple examples of significant coverage in reliable sources. I can only find one. Several passing mentions in Google Books hits as a landmark, but "We crossed the river at McLean's Ferry" falls short of WP:SIGCOV. As it stands, we've got one example of significant coverage in an RS. If more significant coverage, not just namedrops, can be found, I'll withdraw this, but as it is, it fails WP:GNG. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete No post office. Confirmed that there is no GNIS entry. Searching Newspapers.com for "McCleans Ferry" yields a description in an RS, a trival mention, another trivial mention. GBooks has 10 or so trivial mentions. There is no legal recognition for this locale, so #1 WP:GEOLAND does not apply. There is only limited trivial coverage, so #2 of WP:GEOLAND probably does not apply. I'm a bit on the fence about the coverage, there are a number of trivial mentions including a description in an RS. Maybe someone else will have a stronger viewpoint? Please don't let my Weak Delete block consensus. Cxbrx (talk) 16:32, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all the above; I'd like to see some more coverage come, but I'm worried it doesn't exist. If it's borderline, I'm okay with a keep close, as opposed to a relist. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:42, 22 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 Fargo (film). ‑Scottywong | [chatter] || 05:23, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stan Grossman[edit]

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

Character is obviously not notable for its own article, and fails WP:GNG. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 16:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:59, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 20:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Notability guidelines are not determined by article content and GNG is not determined by the quality of sourcing in the article. There's no "obviously" to it, would you mind explaining why the several copy/paste nominations you just filed fail WP:GNG? Dark knight 2149 02:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Per the above statement. Also noting that this article is more referenced than many of the other Fargo character pages. Cassandra872 (talk) 09:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Pages for other Fargo characters are notable because they're mostly on main characters. Right now, we're talking about a minor one. Now with references: 1 doesn't work (inaccessible), 2 and 3 are the same ref. and along with 4, only talk about the character's mentioning in season three. Finally, when you click number 5, the page reads "This site can’t be reached", and 6 only mentions the character for one sentence. With all in this in mind, this article is clearly WP:FANCRUFT, fails WP:GNG, and is WP:PLOTONLY. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 12:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Some Dude From North Carolina: GNG is not determined by the sources in the article or by article content (it's determined by the existence of sources). Secondly, simply declaring something fancruft tells us nothing (it's the equivalent of saying "Keep. It's valuable"). Even a minor fictional character can be considered notable if there is enough coverage. Lastly, PLOT is a writing guideline, not a WP:DELREASON and generally warrants a rewrite template unless the article isn't notable or rewritable to begin with (which hasn't established here). Dark knight 2149 18:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Darkknight2149: you keep saying what the policies are not, but here's the question, looking at the article itself, does it look notable to you? The article is on a minor character in which most of the sources are on a mere mention of the character's name. The two "reviews" are either inaccessible or unrelated to the character itself, and most of the article is WP:PLOTONLY. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of an AfD is to establish why something cannot be kept and it's typically not a first resort (WP:ATD, WP:NOTCLEANUP, WP:PRESERVE). When filing an AfD, the purpose of the rationale is to establish why the subject of the article isn't keepable. The problem is your rationales are making it seem as though you looked at the current state of the article and decided "This needs to be deleted." I'm not familiar with Fargo but the onus is on the nominator to cite criteria for deletion and establish for everyone why a topic isn't sustainable or that it lacks (the existence of) coverage. Dark knight 2149 19:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a minor character! The article clearly fails WP:GNG as it's not notable for its own page. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know that it sounds weird if you haven't done a lot of AfD discussions, but "common sense" arguments like "it's a minor character" don't actually count. There are minor characters in well-studied works, like Rosencrantz and Guildenstern in Hamlet, who get a lot of coverage despite being minor characters. On the other hand, there are major characters in lots of notable works who don't get a lot of coverage, like Harriet M. Welsch in Harriet the Spy, who isn't notable for her own page because nobody talks specifically about that character. Fargo is a pretty well-studied work, so it's possible for a minor character to be notable. It depends on what the reliable sources say. — Toughpigs (talk) 20:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"...who get a lot of coverage." Stan Grossman does not have a lot of coverage. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 12:11, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I see some analysis of Stan's role in Fargo in The Philosophy of the Coen Brothers (2008), and similar analysis in Seeing the Light: Exploring Ethics Through Movies (2012). — Toughpigs (talk) 20:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Current coverage seems limited to trivial mentions. What's currently in the article also seems improperly weighted, in particular the part cited to the "Observer" article being longer than the actual sentence fragment from the article. TTN (talk) 20:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fargo (film). I share concerns about why this article was nominated; in the future the nominator should indicate a Before search for sources was made before nominating. That said, looking at the sources provided I don't see a level of detail that would pass GNG, and I agree he is indeed a minor character. I'm a bit surprised the main characters from the movie don't have articles, as there is a lot of scholarly analysis about the film and the Coen brothers, but I don't think there is enough about this particular character. Rhino131 (talk) 23:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant parts of reception to the two movies the character appears in, the reception is very in passing and more related to the actor's performance than to any analysis of the character itself. OTherwise, it fails NFICTION/GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:19, 27 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 19:46, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guinness Kumar[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Holds "records" in a book that also has records for "oldest person to rotate each hand in a different direction." The Guinness record was suggested by himself, it was not an existing record. ... discospinster _talk 16:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 16:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete More guinness garbage. It's easy enough to buy your way into their "records" that it's pretty meaningless wrt notability. Praxidicae (talk) 16:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG ChunnuBhai (talk) 16:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I oppose the deletion he holds Guinness records and 11 incredible book of records. Anyone can create a record in Guinness with only their hardwork. Better seo for him is there too — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.68.74.158 (talk) 16:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC) (Moved to discussion area and properly formatted) davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: See also Draft:Guinness Kumar written a few days earlier by the same editor, 10point. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT and WP:MILL. His achievements are made up in a day, and the article is terribly written and formatted. Bearian (talk) 19:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of his so-called records are Fastest Backward Brain cycle rides - the difference is location! I think by the end of the year he may get 3 more. This is not what shows notability of the person in my opinion. Fails WP:GNG also as the coverage is only related to the records. Less Unless (talk) 14:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: no need of deletion here, he achieved those records and name — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vishnuvkt999 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 19:17, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert William Trenchard[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:CHESS, took part in a few tournaments without winning any of them. Sophia91 (talk) 18:20, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sophia91 (talk) 18:20, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:15, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Balle010 (talk) 02:19, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - participation in the very strong Vienna 1898 chess tournament with the world's leading players of the time, and representing Britain in several Anglo-American cable chess matches is enough to get him over the line. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:47, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Not enough notable chess success, and does not meet the criteria in WP:NCHESS. Was clear last place in the Vienna tournament with only one win. --Alan Islas (talk) 15:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Re-opened as closing admin for further discussion and addition of sources to meet GNG.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chess-related deletion discussions.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JGHowes ^talk 15:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He represented Great Britain in the cable matches, which have their own article here. That's a high honour to be bestowed on any player. In addition, one of the great chroniclers of British Chess, PW Sergeant found him noteworthy enough to mention on several pages of his book A Century of British Chess. Brittle heaven (talk) 20:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the extra sources found by Brittle heaven, which have now been added to the article. It's difficult to judge playing strength in an era long before there were Grandmaster titles and tournaments held all over the world to compete in, but the Anglo-American matches were certainly prestigious and he did manage to defeat Emanuel Lasker (in a non-tournament game) in 1890, when Lasker was arguably the strongest player in the world.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:06, 23 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. Geschichte (talk) 19:12, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zebpay[edit]

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

notability per WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH not established, sources are not reputable (bitcoin.com), primary blogs (zebpay blog), or not in-depth with no independent research (businesstoday.in) Ysangkok (talk) 15:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 15:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 15:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 15:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 15:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 15:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even the one RS, Livemint, is notably lacking in WP:CORPDEPTH. I also removed crypto site refs - David Gerard (talk) 09:09, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nom. 1 Pumpkin (talk) 11:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL and total lack of WP:RS. Bearian (talk) 19:46, 21 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⁺⁺ 11:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 11:26, 23 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. T. Canens (talk) 04:31, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Balaklava Hill, California[edit]

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

Another Durham entry, but in this case Gudde describes it as a "mining place", and there are a few geological citations implying it might have been a literal hill. In any case, I find no trace of it outside of these sorts of references and the usual clickbait. The topos of the area in question are remarkably changeless over a period of some fifty years, and show a hilly area with a number of named peaks (though not this name) and others without labels. The "Duchess Mine" is shown on the east side of one of the latter, and there is another unlabelled mine shown a bit further north, but other than that there is a decided lack of any buildings or other marks of habitation. Gudde mentions two other "Balaklava"s, in other No. California counties, and it's possible that the geological references mentioned above might be for one of those spots instead. I just cannot see how this passes any notability standard, and there is absolutely no evidence that this was a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In California there was a gold camp called Balaklava Hill two and half miles south of Vallecito, California, according to California Gold Camps by Erwin G. Gudde and edited by Elisabeth K. Gudde. This book notes that Like a number of gold and copper mining places, it was named after Balaklava, a seaport on the Black Sea,... For example, Names and Naming by Puzey and Kostanski mentions a historic settlement in Australian goldfields known as Balaklava Hill and GEOREF contains publications that refer to the Balaklava coal deposits of Australia..

In 1884 Calaveras County, the California State Mining Bureau's Fourth Annual Report of the State Mineralogist for the Year Ending May 15, 1884 (p. 219) lists, without providing a location, of a placer mine named Balaklava Hill that produced 900 to 910 fine gold. In the gold field associated with the Balaklava Hill gold camp, there is listed in 1896 the Meinecker & Sanguinette mine, which was known as the Balaklava Mine, according to the California State Mining Bureau's, Thirteenth report (third biennial) of the state mineralogist for the two years ending September 15, 1896. The same report lists it as a combination of placer (hydraulic) and drift mine. However, the Balaklava Mine was just one of 2,800 gold mines in Calaveras County. To further confuse matters, the same California State Mining Bureau reports another Balaklava Mine in Shasta County, California.

Fulltext searches of the Proquest History Vault and EBSCO History Reference Center for Balaklava Hill yielded nothing useful. Understandably, searches for Balaklava yielded an overabundance of material about the Crimean War which can hinder searches.

Still, like the nominator, I do not understand how this entity, whatever it is, passes any notability standard. Paul H. (talk) 01:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Apparently, there once was a feature known as Balaklava Hill at the location of this feature according to:

Shelden Davis, 1942, Moaning Cave Vallecita, California (Appeared in Stockton, ( Cal.) Record, April 1, 1922). Bulletin of the National Speleological Society. 4, pp. 25-28, 40.

This article states about Moaning Cavern in relation to Balaklava Hill:

The cave is located two miles from Vallecita on a spur at the right of the Parrott's Ferry road to Columbia and Sonora. It lies between the old Sloan ranch and Balaklava hill, which was named by the early French emigrants of the section after the famous Crimean battle. The natural bridges lie three-quarters of' a mile away on Coyote creek.

The Balaklava Hill mentioned above corresponds to the location of the Balaklava Mine. However, neither of them pass any notability standard. Paul H. (talk) 03:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No post office. Confirmed to not be in GNIS. Confirmed Gudde's "mining place". Searching newspapers.com for "Balaklava Hill in California" yields a few mining and Crimean War references. No legal recognition found, so #1 of WP:GEOLAND does not apply. No coverage of this locale being any type of a settlement other than an insignificant mine with trivial coverage, so #2 of WP:GEOLAND applies. Cxbrx (talk) 20:30, 27 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. Geschichte (talk) 19:08, 27 October 2020 (UTC) Motu Patlu in Wonderland!]]===[reply]

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

Article does not meet NFILM or GNG. Article is all WP:PLOT with no encyclopedic content or references. BEFORE showed promos, database entries, mentions, but nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in-depth. // Timothy :: talk 15:31, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 15:31, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 15:31, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 15:59, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no entries at all at IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes, does not pass WP:GNG imv, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Motu Patlu as this is an episode/film based on the main series. There is a mention of this particular episode on the main article, so I guess a redirect is appropriate.--DreamLinker (talk) 12:19, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Motu Patlu per DreamLinker. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 21:09, 26 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. I have not regarded the two other articles as bundled into this nomination. Geschichte (talk) 19:05, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manila Waterfront City[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTALBALL, no definite construction date nor significant coverage in secondary sources ◢ Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 15:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ◢ Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 15:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question. @Ganbaruby: Why was just Manila Waterfront City nominated and not New Manila Bay–City of Pearl nor Horizon Manila? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:50, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

@MJL: I actually didn't notice those two articles earlier, but now that I've taken a look at it, I would delete them too for the same reasons. We could probably merge them into Manila and Manila Bay (where little blurbs currently exist), but these individual projects are certainly not notable yet. ◢ Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 03:06, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because nothing absolutely nothing is getting done under Duterte, the infrastructure week of the week leader. Bearian (talk) 19:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mostly the same situation as the Horizon Manila. WP:CRYSTAL. HiwilmsTalk 15:25, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:CRYSTALBALL. It remains to be seen if the project will push through or not. So, it's WP:TOOSOON at most. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:00, 23 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. Geschichte (talk) 19:02, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeeva (actress)[edit]

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

Non notable make up artist and actress with no indication of satisfying WP:NACTOR, WP:GNG. No significant roles played by her and Google search does not bring up much. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 15:05, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 15:05, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 15:05, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NACTOR. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 21:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. My bad for creating this.TamilMirchi (talk) 17:59, 27 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. T. Canens (talk) 04:36, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keymaker[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG with a lack of reliable, secondary sources. The article is entirely sourced from interviews. A list entry is plausible, but does not meet the criteria for a standalone article. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it obviously fails WP:GNG. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 17:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, how/why is that obvious? Daranios (talk) 15:08, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article itself falls under WP:FANCRUFT. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 15:12, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it that way, given that there is an evaluation how the character is seen and put on screen. But be that as it may, Fancruft is no reason for deletion. To quote the essay you put forward: "If the user comes across fancruft, an approach is to assume that the article or topic can be improved." Relevant for deletion is the question if the subject is notable, i.e. treated in secondary sources, no matter if these are already in the article or not. Daranios (talk) 16:32, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The character is treated directly and in some detail in Jacking In To the Matrix Franchise: Cultural Reception and Interpretation, The Matrix of Hip-Pop/Rap over Black & White Culture and especially Detecting Detection: International Perspectives on the Uses of a Plot. Those together satisfy WP:GNG. I am also not sure if the interviews are actually primary sources in this case, given that the movie is the primary source for the character. In addition, there are numerous sources which give us some character description, plot summary and small bits of analysis: [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41]. Lastly, the interviews provide some out-of-universe information on the character. Even if there were no other sources, I think it would be a loss, not a gain for Wikipedia to delete rather than preserve it in some way. Daranios (talk) 16:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Matrix is well-studied, with lots of published film criticism and commentary. I think that Daranios' sources are well-chosen, especially Detecting Detection. I have another published interview to add to the pile, from Starlog: "Keynote Speaker" (Jan 2004). I disagree that interviews with an actor about character development don't count towards the character's notability. The fact that there are multiple interviews in multiple publications discussing the character demonstrates that the character is recognized as notable. Publications don't typically interview every actor in a film; the interest is in the character. — Toughpigs (talk) 17:24, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question: To clarify, when you say the article fails WP:GNG, how did you determine this? I ask because two of your more recent nominations read as "FANDOM-level fancruft without a single reference, making it WP:ALLPLOT and WP:OR. Only lists a bunch of minor enemies. Therefore, fails WP:LISTN." ([42], [43]). Not only is this a non-sequitor that doesn't reflect WP:LISTN, but the bulk of the nominations were subjective declarations of importance, and not deletion criteria. The delete vote above is equally unconvincing for similar reasons. Dark knight 2149 21:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it's best when an AfD discussion sticks to what's being said here about this article, rather than bringing in statements from a different discussion. The only thing that matters for the Keymaker article is the existence of reliable sources writing about the Keymaker. — Toughpigs (talk) 22:13, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I was asking for clarification. I appreciate your perspective on keeping things on topic. Dark knight 2149 22:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on sources provided. I think taken together there is enough to pass GNG. I also agree that interviews work towards notability if they go into the creation, development, and/or reception of the character. Rhino131 (talk) 00:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it has encyclopedic information so is not fancruft and also passes WP:GNG imv, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:42, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think the reception here is borderline but keepable, which is why I didn't go for it half a year ago (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Architect (The Matrix) (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seraph (The Matrix) (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mega City (The Matrix) (2nd nomination)). The current Matrix-related articles are likely ok. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:29, 27 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. The "merge" opinions don't address the concerns about poor sourcing. Sandstein 19:45, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Renault 4L (2009)[edit]

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

Rather pointless article about a rehashed Renault 4 that never passed the concept stage, doesn't pass GNG, sources appear to be either blog posts or images used as references. Nightfury 14:13, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 14:13, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 14:13, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:41, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it doesn't meet any standards for an article. BlackWidowMovie0000Editor (talk) 22:05, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Renault 4 with an immediate redirect-with-history even if the merge hasn't happened yet. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:22, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: lacks RS with SIGCOV that addresses the subject directly and in-depth. Current and BEFORE sources are inadequate and unsourced or dubiously sourced material should not be merged into other articles. // Timothy :: talk 17:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete would be better as a section on the history of the brand perhaps. Oaktree b (talk) 01:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Renault 4 --Devokewater (talk) 20:09, 26 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 19:44, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thaweeporn Phingchamrat[edit]

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

Non-notable pageant contestant; fails WP:GNG { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 13:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:59, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable beauty queen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:34, 21 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. The discussion has been ample. That being said, a merge to Therion (band) may be on the table for later, though Therion is a fairly long article. Geschichte (talk) 18:58, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Demonoid (band)[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NBAND / WP:GNG. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:06, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:06, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:06, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are several reliable sources: Metal Storm (with staff written album review included), Sputnikmusic, Allmusic biography, Album Review - Metal.it Album Review. Besides, it's composed of members of notable bands such as Therion and Dark Funeral. And their sole album was released on an important label - Nuclear Blast. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 11:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@GhostDestroyer100: Metal Storm (webzine) just confirms that they exist (no other content) and appears to be a mostly crowdsourced webzine. The Sputnikmusic source you link does not have any non-trivial coverage of the band and the sole review is crowdsourced. AllMusic is a good start. metal.it does not have a Wikipedia article that I can find; I am unfamiliar with them, but it appears to be an interview-style review of the group's one album. This is not enough to pass the "multiple, non-trivial" part of NBAND criterion 1 (which is adapted from GNG) ("multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself"). It does not appear (per sverigetopplistan (1, 2)) that the group's album charted either, thus not satisfying criteria 2 (of NBAND). --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @TheSandDoctor: Yeah, Metal Storm is a difficult story. For a long time I actually thought it was an unreliable source so I kept eradicating it from any WP page (on huwiki) that uses Metal Storm as a source. It looked just like a database, with a blog / forum feeling. Imagine my surprise when I learned that it is actually a reliable source. I then started adding it to more pages but then I realized it is just like Allmusic - when the band has a biography / album review (staff written) and not just a listing of trivial stuff, then it is reliable. But when the opposite happens, it is not. Sputnikmusic is the same. Metal.it is a different story - there is no Wiki page on it indeed, and I don't know whether it's reliable or not. It looks reliable in my opinion - I use it quite a lot, and I think it looks reliable. But I don't know if it actually is. So even if you say that the sources aren't the best, at least Demonoid passes one criteria of notability - its members participating in multiple notable bands. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:29, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@GhostDestroyer100: At this point though, we seem to be running into WP:NOTINHERETED and WP:NRV. Metal storm does nothing but prove they exist in this case and provides no in-depth coverage (just a db listing with no info) and Sputnikmusik in this specific instance appears to be exclusively user reviews, which does nothing for notability. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 02:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@TheSandDoctor: Okay. But what about two other criteria of notability? (members have been part of multiple notable bands) Therion and Dark Funeral are notable. (albums have been released on major or important indie labels) Nuclear Blast is an important / notable label. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 13:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@GhostDestroyer100: While it is true that two former — and one current — member(s) of the band are independently notable from being in multiple bands and in their own right as musicians, there are currently no reliable sources able to be found to back up the key facets of notability for this group. I would suggest merging into Therion (band) based on that being all that is said about Demonoid in reliable sourcing. To quote from policy, "[t]o meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and notability, the article in question must actually document that the criterion is true. It is not enough to make unsourced or poorly sourced claims in the article, or to assert a band's importance on a talk page or AfD page – the article itself must document notability through the use of reliable sources, and no criterion listed in this page confers an exemption from having to reliably source the article just because passage of the criterion has been claimed.".

Regarding your question about #5's applicability in this instance, the policy states the requirement for the group or musician is that they have "...released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels." That is specific to the group at hand and does not "carry over" from any others albums that the group member(s) have released as part of another group (or solo). With this in mind, Demonoid fails this requirement based simply on the numbers; they only ever released one album, Riders of the Apocalypse, and not "two or more" as is required by the criterion you are citing. (Addendum: album never charted and nor appears to have otherwise been notable either, thus eliminating criteria #2-4 and 8-12) --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep the staff written review at Metal Storm here is significant coverage as is the review at AllMusic together with a small bio. They also pass WP:NMUSIC as a "super group", imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Atlantic306: metalstorm review from <2009 is not RS per WP:A/S and therefore doesn’t contribute to notability. —TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info, changed to weak keep, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:17, 20 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. T. Canens (talk) 04:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kovan Double Murders[edit]

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

Protracted case and trial, but simply another double murder. Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. How is it a "another double murder" to you? That one was not a normal double murder as what you put it; it was a double murder where we see a police officer involved in it, and it is not a normal one in Singapore where a policeman kill a person and sentenced to death. That one really garnered nationwide attention and is a notable one in Singapore (in which many had paid particular attention to the trial and aftermath), notable enough like the Toa Payoh Ritual Murders to be published on wikipedia. ^{NelsonLee20042020}

Keep. Clearly notable case, heavily covered and well-sourced. I can see no reason for deletion whatsoever. If this is deleted then WP:NOTNEWS could be seen to cover any murder case in the world. Let's delete 'em all! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not only covered heavily by various reliable sources but also over a prolonged period of time. I'm not sure how NOTNEWS applies Spiderone 14:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All the cited sources covering this seem to span a very short duration: 21 July to 23 July of this year, which would put this squarely in the domain of news. In order for this article to survive (the author(s) clearly have put in a lot of work) consider adding sources that demonstrate sustained coverage over a prolonged period of time.— Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 14:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Upon closer inspection, it appears that the sources do cover a much wider range of dates than that. The creator hasn't inputted the dates on their references correctly. They seem to have dated the references by 'access date' rather than the date in which the article was written. 2013 ref 2015 ref 2017 ref I would argue even a 4 year span of that level of reporting is notable. Spiderone 16:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Enough coverage for it to be included. Inexpiable (talk) 19:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Note: Notability is not temporal. The article is heavily referenced with sufficient reliable and independent secondary sources to deem that the article easily passes WP:GNG. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 21:18, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I amended the links and included the dates of publication of the news articles covering the case. like what i said in my previous comment, i say we should keep it. NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 11:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SNOW and WP:SIGCOV. Seems like it has ongoing coverage through this month, more than the average murder. Bearian (talk) 19:58, 21 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. Geschichte (talk) 18:50, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Emil Kroner[edit]

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

PROD contested on grounds of 1-His officiated 2 international matches were enough for notability as became BIO article such as football player which notable with play at least a international match (even friendly). 2- There are a lot articles in wikipedia as this article (with database sources or without newspaper sources)

Appears to fail WP:GNG but is name checked in numerous Romanian sources. I cannot find any source that goes into any depth about him, though, and I can't see any potential for this article to be fleshed out at all. In most of the sources, he is very briefly mentioned and, in most cases, it's simply to state that he's one of the few referees to have officiated 4 Romanian Cup finals.

[44] - mentioned once
[45] - once
[46] - once
[47] - once
[48] - once
[49] - once
[50] - once
[51] - once
[52] - once

A referee is not deemed inherently notable simply for having refereed a cup final or an international match. If anyone finds WP:SIGCOV for Kroner, please ping me. Spiderone 11:39, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:39, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:39, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:39, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:44, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 17:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:39, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources fail to establish notability. Australianblackbelt (talk) 01:08, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:57, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 10:38, 27 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. ‑Scottywong | [verbalize] || 05:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Majid Ali Jaunpuri[edit]

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

The article's subject fails WP:GNG ,WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR and lacks independent sources ,all the references mere mention the subject none of them are indepth.Contested Prod by article creator.Mumbaigold (talk) 11:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant coverage in the "History of Dārul Uloom Deoband", a reliable book by Syed Mehboob Rizwi, and Asir Adrawi's Karwān-e-Rafta, and in the monthly journal of Darul Uloom Deoband. Teacher of notable scholars and considered to be notable in his field by scholars. This AfD nomination has not considered doing a WP:BEFORE ─ The Aafī (^talk) 11:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you share more details about the book, e.g. publisher and ISBN? (Current citation says publisher is Darul Uloom Deoband, which would fail WP:IS) Coverage in monthly journal of Darul Uloom Deoband can not be considered for notability as the WP:SIGCOV needs to be in WP:RS AND WP:IS. — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 14:06, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ad Meliora, Dear friend, I've added another reference and did a bit cleanup. I added a bit more information from that source, and that's a known work in not just Indian masses, but outside as well, commonly known as Nuzhat al-Khawātir. I would consider this significant, and independent as well, besides being reliable. Asīr Adrawi's book adds more to this, and rest remains the issue of Syed Mehboob Rizwi's book. Islamic books in India and Pakistan are published by a number of book publishers, mostly without ISBN, and if you search so, you won't get any, some exceptional cases, and time being Muslim bookstores and publishers have developed, so now a part of books come with ISBN. Syed Mehboob Rizwi, the author of Tārikh Dārul Uloom Deoband, adds a bit more (in providing information), if we do not consider it something like IS, but is still is not as much "primary". 44 years later from the subjects death, a detailed article appears in the monthly journal of Darul Uloom Deoband, I wouldn't regard it as "non-independent" source, though there is just a little connection, i.e Jaunpuri graduated from this seminary.. He had no other association with this seminary. Anyways, all the sources added altogether, let the subject pass notability, and I guess there would be more, but it will take time to find out. Also, there is something we call Systemic bias. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 16:32, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Aafī Thanks for your work. In order to save the article, it would be helpful to add the other WP:RS/WP:IS with WP:SIGCOV you can find. With respect to the essay Systemic bias, there's no denying that it exists and some WP policies may be caught in its trap, but that's not something we can address at this point, in this discussion. There may be a systematic bias in media coverage (or lack thereof) of local homosexual heroes in Pakistani or Ugandan press. Unfortunately, unless there is such coverage, those people will not get a WP article. — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 17:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are sources, such as Al-Ilām bi man fī Tārīkh al-Hind min al-Ālām al-musamma bi Nuzhat al-Khawātir wa Bahjat al-Masāmi wa an-Nawāzir (in Arabic), authored by Abdul Hai Hasani (father of Abul Hasan Ali Hasani Nadwi) and published by Dar Ibn Hazm, that discuss Majid Ali Jaunpuri. This is a common situation of notable individuals in South Asia and the Middle East, who are mentioned in texts in local languages, rather than in English. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 17:22, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anupam The book you've referred makes only a passing mention of the subject, which doesn't rise to the level of WP:SIGCOV. English-language Wikipedia is not a good place for every minor regional figure. — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 14:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ad Meliora, thanks for your comments. As I mentioned, the literature that mentions Majid Ali Jaunpuri is primarily non-English. A source that I recently discovered includes Nathr al-jawāhir wa-al-durar fī 'ulamā' al-qarn al-rābi' ' ashar, wa-bi-dhaylihi 'Iqd al-jawhar fī 'ulamā' al-rub' al- awwal min al-qarn al-khāmis 'ashar, authored by Yusuf Marashli and published by Dar el-Marefah also mentions Majid Ali Jaunpuri on pages 996 and 997. I would imagine that a plethora of literature (in print) that discusses the scholar would be found in the library of the Darul Uloom Deoband, though accessing it would be difficult unless one goes there in person. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 15:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question with regard to WP:SIGCOV, the first book I mentioned dedicated an entire page to the subject. I personally wouldn't consider this a passing mention. Kind regards, Anupam^Talk 15:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tried but had difficulty finding newspaper and print coverage for someone that died in 1935. There are already enough book references at the article (8 of them). Ngrewal1 (talk) 20:32, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ngrewal1 Actually the references cited so far make only passing mention of about a sentence. That's not WP:SIGCOV. With respect, the subject has had no significant coverage in books/academia in the 85 years since his passing, as far as the evidence available. And clearly the subject did not receive significant coverage in local news media while he was alive. So the notability claim seems to be on thin ice, IMO — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 13:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - excellent work from The Aafi; notability now demonstrated in the article Spiderone 23:12, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment all the sources are linked to Darul Uloom Deoband which is not a Independent source Sources in Urdu are also not indepth or indepedent. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Adrawi's book there is mere mention in page 220 not indepth.Mumbaigold (talk) 05:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mumbaigold, That's more of being a stubborn. When notability is demonstrated by Arabic book by Abul Hai Hasani who was a rector of Nadwatul Ulama, and a known scholar, the significant posts like, "Head Teacher of Aliah University, added with the other sources of information, doesn't just become a wide significant coverage but adds to more of the notability of subject. The subject is also teacher of known scholars, some of them having an article and some not, and no source honestly is "non-independent" as I commented above. Majid Ali Jaunpuri is notable even without the coverage in the two sources, the monthly journal of Deobandi l seminary and Rizwi's book. Get up above from the systematic bias thing. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 06:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Aafī Abul Hai Hasani is himself not notable, at least as per WP — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 14:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Someone not having an Wikipedia article doesn't become non-notable by default. Adbul Hai Hasani is a known figure in Urdu literature, and besides that he headed one of the known Islamic seminaries in India called Nadwatul Ulama. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 14:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you making the argument that anyone who headed Nadwatul Ulama is automatically notable? WP:INHERITED says no.— Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 14:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You again missed the main point, a subject meeting the GNG criteria is enough to be notable (because the subject and his works are widely cited, maybe you can try a bit searching Google), I just pointed out to two facts about the subject. Anyways, it is not necessary that a notable person need to have a Wikipedia article so that something from their books may be referenced. Articles about them may be created anytime when someone having interest in editing such topics gets time, to add an article about them. Besides this known figure in Islamic scholarship, and Urdu language literature, I've found another few sources, and would be updating the article soon with more details. Requesting you again not to miss my point and I won't be making any more comments here. Enough explanation has been offered. Thank you!─ The Aafī (^talk) 14:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of WP:RS/WP:IS that demonstrate WP:SIGCOV is exactly what this article needs, and would be welcome. — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 15:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As Anupam said above, it is sadly with most of the notable scholars of South Asia who aren't covered by non-native sources despite being notable. Adrawi's book even if not with significant details, adds more to the notability when combined with other sources available. Saying again, there would be another offline sources, and there are, but it isn't a work of two minutes to get such books in one's hands. Also, you didn't performed a BEFORE. A subject that lived century ago, would've coverage online, and that too when religious bias and sectarianism is at peak in Subcontinent? I've improved the article to extent that confirms the notability, and still finding more. You may try as well? ─ The Aafī (^talk) 06:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Aafī I don't think it is productive to litigate the bias of WP policy here. The issue is not merely "online" sources. The issue is WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS/WP:IS. The sources cited in the article as of right now are ALL from Darul Uloom Deoband, and don't pass WP:IS. Even if they did, there isn't WP:SIGCOV in the sources cited - every single citation refers to a passing mention of a sentence or so. — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 13:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ad Meliora, How come is the book of Abdul Hai Hasani connected with Deoband? He had not even a long relationship with this seminary. Nadwatul Ulama is completely different institution, and so is Hasani's Arabic book completely different, and has significant details. Asīr Adrawi's book doesn't have significant details, but it is reliable and independent, and thus partially adds more to notability. For your last comment, it has no base. A most part of the page looks like a passing mention to you. Strange! ─ The Aafī (^talk) 13:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Aafī There are 6 citations right now (see reference section), 5 published by Dar al-Ulum Deoband AND do not offer significant coverage. Hasani's book is best described as self-published... Adrawi's book is not among citations, but as you say, it doesn't add any non-trivial detail anyway, so adding it wouldn't help. English-language Wikipedia is not a good place for every minor regional figure. — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 14:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ad Meliora, You are again wrong in saying that 5 are published by Darul Uloom Deoband. Adrawi's book is cited at two places, and a book of an Indian scholar published in Beirut, is self published? wow. There are just two sources that are published by Darul Uloom Deoband, Rizwi's book, and the monthly journal. As I said, a scholar having served a top position during his career, and having notable students, with significant coverage in some, but not very much sources, is enough to be included on the Wikipedia. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 14:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Aafī Are you familiar with WP:VERIFY WP:NOTTRUTH? Your arguments seem to indicate otherwise, always pointing to some elusive unattainable sources, and supposed reputation of the subject event though the available citations don't support WP:N — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 14:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Mumbaigold (talk) 11:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ngrewal1. Owais Al Qarni (talk) 07:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User Owais Al Qarni claims Deobandi affiliation. — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 14:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, currently, article is notable.----Irshadpp (talk) 11:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing is quite poor - it's mostly links to other Wikipedia articles, and Deoband seems to be a site promoting religious faith-based essays, but doesn't appear to be something that will be a reliable source for neutral journalism. I did a WP:BEFORE Google search and can't find other coverage under his name or for Muhaddith Manwi. Everything seems to be from Wikipedia or mirrors of the article. The sourcing fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOLAR. The lack of an sourced birth date for a 20th century death is also a notability flag. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I did notice that this nomination is the nominator's first contribution to Wikipedia - odd for a newcomer. His only other contribution was the deletion nomination of another scholar's article. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also saw a comment by Bearcat which reads as follows "Discussions about scholars or academics which fall under WP:PROF are actually trickier than usual to assess — PROF allows for the conferral of notability on standards quite different from the depth of coverage about the person, such as how widely cited they are in other works by their peers or followers. So I actually try not to weigh in on PROF discussions very much, to be honest, because in that field a person can attain notability without technically having any of the kind of in-depth sources I would look for in an article about a writer or an actor or a musician or a film director. It's not that your standards are necessarily wrong in principle — for most articles about people, we do require sources that analyze or write about the person in more depth — but when it comes to academics in particular, that kind of sourcing isn't always available at all so the notability standards are designed to assess the impact of their work rather than the presence or absence of biographical literature." So I may be wrong, but I'd like to see some information that clears this up. I've done a lot of AfDs and this one wouldn't be a keep for me. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Timtempleton, I'm sorry dear friend, but this statement Everything seems to be from Wikipedia or mirrors of the article. is definitely wrong. I would be happy if you point out to one source of the article which is a mirror article of it or anything similar. The books and journals published two decades ago having significant details, aren't any mirrors to the Wikipedia article. Also, it is hard to find any coverage in English language. Thank you! ─ The Aafī (^talk) 18:40, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@TheAafi: I’m referring to the search results in Google when I look him up by name, not the sources listed in the article, none of which are accessible to me anyway. Please provide a link to a single source demonstrating notability, and I will review. We usually require multiple sources anyway. Otherwise there’s no way to differentiate this from a hoax, although I trust it’s not. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer - I'm still waiting for a single link that demonstrates notability. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 02:50, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Thank you Anupam for the source you provided above, I have added it in the article. There seems to be significant detail in the K̲h̲udā Bak̲h̲sh Lāʼibreri jarnal, a journal of Khuda Bakhsh Oriental Library, which I couldn't get a full preview on Google Books, but whatever I could get from there, I added the citation in the article. This added with the source you provided, and Abdul Hai Hasani's book, are enough to be regarded as significant coverage and I'm searching for more. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 18:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! I'm glad it was helpful! Kind regards, Anupam^Talk 20:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per significant coverage in Abdul Hai Hasani's book Nuzhat al-Khawātir, Yusuf Marashli's book Nathr al-jawāhir wa-al-durar fī 'ulamā' al-qarn al-rābi' ' ashar, wa-bi-dhaylihi 'Iqd al-jawhar fī 'ulamā' al-rub' al- awwal min al-qarn al-khāmis 'ashar and in the journals of Khuda Bakhsh Oriental Library. — Hammad (Talk!) 07:35, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG as no evidence so far of WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS/WP:IS. Fails WP:TEACHER as no evidence yet of citing of the subject's works. — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 19:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I'm convinced by the sources added by TheAafi in the article right after this AfD was initiated. The sources are fine to establish notability of this scholar. The subject also held a top seat (then, maybe today we would not give it a weight depending on the academic system of our time, but the time subject lived in, this is a good sign) in the then Madrasa Alia, now Aliah University. — The Chunky urf Al Kashmiri ^{(Speak🗣️ or Write✍️)} 16:52, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the added sources clearly establish the notability of the subject. Also legitimate concerns of not doing WP:BEFORE by the nominator has been raised. Also a note that the nominator is a new user with the only contributions being nominating 2 AfDs, the other being WP:Articles for deletion/Syed Mehboob Rizwi, which is also clearly a notable subject. Roller26 (talk) 13:53, 26 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. Speedy close as a purely disruptive nomination intended to make a point, created by an account now subject to an indefinite CheckUser block. JBW (talk) 09:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Historical policy of the Law and Justice party[edit]

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

This article defames the Polish people and nation. The Law and Justice party does not have a special historical policy, this article is a hoax. Law and Justice, like all normal parties, just want to educate Polish youth in the established historical truth. Nothing special here. Remember Polish Heroes (talk) 09:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the nom's rationale does not give a good reason as to why the page should be deleted or should otherwise not have an encyclopedia entry, nor do I find it defamatory. It certainly is not a hoax. Note: the page was previously tagged for speedy deletion as a hoax; I removed the tag as invalid. Java Hurricane 09:30, 20 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 19:43, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anita Belli[edit]

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

Non-notable Author. Fails WP:RS Palmsandbeaches (talk) 09:00, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:50, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:50, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NAUTHOR (doesn't come close to meeting any of the 4 criteria) and doesn't appear to pass the wider WP:GNG. Her local paper has very occasional coverage (e.g. this and this) but way short of GNG Spiderone 11:07, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Draftify I don't see any WP:RS cited at all. Doesn't meet GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. That said, for living people, esp. young ones, I prefer draftifying instead of deleting. — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 13:58, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent sources to support the content and notability. Writing novels doesn't really make you worthy of wiki inclusion and it absolutely fails WP:NAUTHOR for me. I checked the references. Out of the three, two are her personal website.--Camella Gandhi (talk) 21:30, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The books don't show up in worldcat, so can't be widely published. Cf. Ad Meliora I don't think she's that young either, propably at least 55, having worked as a "director in the arts" since 1990. Geschichte (talk) 18:48, 27 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. Geschichte (talk) 09:30, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary Neil Tarnopol[edit]

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

Contested PROD. No convincing claim to notability. Sources are mere listings or social media. Nothing significant or RS. DanielRigal (talk) 08:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:57, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:58, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:58, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also, it appears the author is possibly engaged in COI or UPE page creations. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 13:39, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I am independant author. I write about anything and everything. I do not discriminate or write anything in favour of anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CanadianBBQ (talk • contribs) 03:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliably sourced evidence of notability. This appears to be an attempt to create an autobiography on Wikipedia. The same editor added the name to List of YouTubers. Sundayclose (talk) 15:22, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Comment: Like it or not, I added Zachary Neil Tarnopol to the list of YouTubers because he is obviously an established content creator. Don't you think a YouTuber who's having a Verified YouTube channel with over 1.1 Billion views and 4.6 million followers deserves to be notable.?? People put up pages for personalities who come from 1/10 the number of subscribers Zachary Tarnopol has on YouTube and they are deemed notable. If you wanna talk about numbers, 4,600,000 that is how many people who follow Poke. I don't think that is a small number to be ignored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CanadianBBQ (talk • contribs) 03:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC) CanadianBBQ has already voted, striking duplicate "keep" vote. theinstantmatrix (talk) 11:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - zero evidence of notability; appears to be a blatant attempt to promote the subject Spiderone 16:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Comment: Poke has won YouTube creator awards. Obviously I don't think it needs much of explanation. A channel gets Silver button Creator award upon having 100,00 Subscribers and Golden Play Button creator award on reaching 1,000,000 Subscribers. Poke has 4.6 Million followers making him one of the biggest YouTube content creators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CanadianBBQ (talk • contribs) 03:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC) CanadianBBQ has already voted, striking duplicate "keep" vote. theinstantmatrix (talk) 11:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers of subscribers and followers are irrelevant in a notability discussion. Please provide reliable sources showing significant coverage Spiderone 23:17, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A simple and straightforward google search of his online handle yields exactly 5 results. Haleth (talk) 13:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Comment: Not trying to be harsh but mate, you really need to do better with searches. Zachary Neil Tarnopol, Zachary Tarnopol, Poke, Pokediger1 are the names the subject goes by. Some artists deserve respect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CanadianBBQ (talk • contribs) 03:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC) CanadianBBQ has already voted, striking duplicate "keep" vote. theinstantmatrix (talk) 11:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Barely found anything about him. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Comment: Yet again, there are films to which he contributed to which other costars are also notable figures. Nearly 5 Million people subscribe to Poke's YouTube channel and even a single search would give you plenty of results. His song became a huge hit with over 18,430,000 (18.4 Million Viral Video Views) and still you say he isn't notable? That's more x times the average hits any pop singer in the 21st century is receiving. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CanadianBBQ (talk • contribs) 03:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC) CanadianBBQ has already voted, striking duplicate "keep" vote. theinstantmatrix (talk) 11:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The creator of the article, CanadianBBQ, is indeffed for undisclosed paid editing. Sundayclose (talk) 00:06, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I was paying somebody to write an article about me I think I would try to find somebody who could link the channel they are trying to promote correctly. ;-) I've fixed it in the article now, if anybody cares. I don't think that it helps the case for the article at all except to the trivial extent that it proves that the channel exists and isn't a complete hoax. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:06, 25 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 19:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Karmen Karma[edit]

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

BLP of a porn actress, does not pass WP:NBIO. Subject has not won any major awards and the majority of sources are not independent. 1292simon (talk) 08:06, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. 1292simon (talk) 08:06, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1292simon, I do not think you took time to go through the references before nominating this article for deletion. Which of the awards scheme do you refer to as not major? XBIZ Awards or AVN Awards or Inked Awards? Kindly do your checks to avoid this back & forth.
You nominated it for deletion yesterday for the use of advertising word of which User:Seraphimblade reverted. Do you have a personal interest of taking down this article? Ajpoundz (talk) 08:21, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The XBIZ and AVN may be major awards, but the subject was merely nominated and did not win the award. Seraphimblade actually suggested that I take this to AfD. No I do not. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 08:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did take the time to go through the 30 citations. More then half of them cite Adult Film Database to state that Karma appeared in the given film. The rest are primary sources (mainly interviews), reworked press releases (AVN) or unreliable porn blogs. The porn awards and nominations didn't meet the "well-known and significant industry award" test when WP:PORNBIO was in effect, and they count for even less now. • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The entity has a total of 15 nominations at the XBIZ Awards and AVN Awards, has won several Inked Awards Ajpoundz (talk) 08:59, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:52, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:52, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:21, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:22, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As I stated above, this performer would not even have passed WP:PORNBIO. Claims of passing WP:BASIC or WP:ENT are not supported by reliable secondary sources. An independent search for sources yielded some plausible secondary coverage in Inked and non-significant coverage in the Daily Beast. Not sufficient for general notability. • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

additional comment: @Ajpoundz: Two citations were added with the edit summary "added credible sources." They don't help the article since they don't count as independent coverage, one of the key concerns of the nomination. One is yet another interview, a primary source. The other is a citation to an Amazon sales link for a book written by the subject. It verifies that the subject wrote a memoir published by a small-press company. It is obviously not independent and citing Amazon for a book sold there is generally frowned upon. What would help the article are WP:RELIABLE references that are independent of the subject and cover her in a non-trivial manner. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes • Gene93k I added some sources I just came across,a close look at the interviews confirm the information in the article are authentic. Also the entity also has an article on the Spanish Wikipedia here - https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karmen_Karma Ajpoundz (talk) 14:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of them provide evidence of notability. Promotion was the main concern of the G11 nomination. Notability is the much more important concern in this AfD debate. Other editions of Wikipedia have their own guidelines for notability. In this case, the es.Wikipedia article uses the same low quality citations that fail in en.Wikipedia. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If XBIZ Awards and AVN Awards are considered notable enough to have a Wikipedia profile, then I do not know what else to refer to as notable when the entity has been nominated not once or twice but severally making it pass WP:BIO Ajpoundz (talk) 18:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even winning avn or xbiz awards are not enough to satisfy notability, so, this person merely being nominated is a slam-dun deletion. The rest is just interviews and adultfilmdatabase.com refs. Zaathras (talk) 21:21, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a pornographic performer who does not meet our inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Author of Overcome: A Memoir Of Abuse, Addiction, Sex Work, and Recovery. As well as sources including, Inked - Karmen Karma Talks Life After Porn, and The Pull To Return Back To It. As well as rationale by Ajpoundz, above. Right cite (talk) 20:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can write a book and anyone can give an interview. If the book itself is not notable, and the only thing the article is falling on are primary sources, i.e. interviews, that is not sufficient to pass notability requirements. Zaathras (talk) 23:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ajpoundz, this is your second keep vote. Please vote only once per AfD debate. Additional comments are welcome. Just don't tag it as another vote. Notability as an author needs more than just getting a book published. Please see WP:AUTHOR. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 22 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. Geschichte (talk) 09:27, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NW (magazine)[edit]

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

Minimal content about a now defunct magazine. Reference 3 hidden behind paywall. Official webiste now defaults to other content. Teraplane (talk) 07:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Teraplane (talk) 07:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Teraplane (talk) 07:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - this was a notable magazine in Australia that was in print for 27 years. The closure received notable independent coverage, e.g. this, and there was other significant coverage during the magazine's lifetime, e.g. this. The fact it has stopped circulation and the fact the official website no longer exists are not valid reasons for deletion. Deus et lex (talk) 08:57, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Deus et lex. I've done some cleanup and added several IRS citations. The page looks good to me and entirely appropriate. Cabrils (talk) 04:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- If it is to stay, still needs a lot of improvement. No use keeping links to the Australian as only subscribers can read them. Article is very brief. No mention of long history of shoddy tabloid jounalism such as https://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/episodes/mags/11647506 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teraplane (talk • contribs) 21:14, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Whether the article survives depends on the notability of the subject, not how comprehensive the article is. Nick-D (talk) 23:04, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - And any "long history of shoddy journalism" is also not a reason for deletion (but thanks for the extra source!) Deus et lex (talk) 09:36, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - And a source being behind a paywall (or offline for that matter) is no reason it is not appropriate: WP:OFFLINE. Nonetheless, I have added some additional data into The Australian citation should Teraplane wish to access it either via subscription or free public library databases or microfiche :) . Cabrils (talk) 23:03, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very prominent magazine. Nick-D (talk) 08:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep thanks to Cabrils' improvements. — Toughpigs (talk) 21:24, 22 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 19:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Sanna[edit]

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

I had earlier draftified this to Draft:Antonio Sanna but it was recreated with no improvements. In its current form, the article does not cite any sources, besides an IMDB link. A definite GNG failure. I couldn't find any sources either for it. Comments? ─ The Aafī (^talk) 07:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 07:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it is far past time that Wikipedia stopped being an IMDb mirror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:39, 21 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. Geschichte (talk) 09:23, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs that debuted at number ninety-five on the Billboard Hot 100 in 2020[edit]

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

Fails WP:LISTN. This just seems completely random and unnecessarily trivial. There is no coverage of songs debuting at no. 95 on any chart much less the Hot 100. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 06:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 06:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Billboard Hot 100 or something similar- Honestly, why on Earth does this have its own article? Foxnpichu (talk) 10:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I guess it’s a possible search term, there’s certainly isn’t any plausible reason why someone would search for such a thing. Sergecross73 msg me 10:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. There’s absolutely no significance to charting at 95 on this music chart. Sergecross73 msg me 10:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is no evidence of any notability to the position 95 as the entry position on this or any other chart. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as debuting on a chart at position 95 is not something of note. -- Whpq (talk) 11:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This was probably created by a chart watcher who likes trivia and number patterns, and that's okay for geek purposes but it does not belong on Wikipedia per WP:LISTN. In an early version of the article, the creator speculated that an unusually high number of songs debuted at #95 in 2020 alone, which may have kicked off a conspiracy theory among chart nerds, but it could just be a wild coincidence. DOOMSDAYER520 | TALK | CONTRIBS 14:44, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:LISTN. Hog Farm _Bacon 22:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely no notability, and as I like to believe, if you do it with one chart, you gotta do it with 'em all. Total overkill. ResPM^{come to my window} 20:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but at least the "one-eyed horse thieves from Montana" now have some real competition. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the assessment of the other posters, that this topic lacks in the notability criteria. Garlicolive (talk) 20:46, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above arguments, I agree this article has poor notability. Such a specific list would be better suited elsewhere. MagPlex ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator's rationale and the above comments. I do not see this being a viable search term so I do not see a strong reason for a redirect. Aoba47 (talk) 17:39, 26 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. ‑Scottywong | [verbalize] || 05:30, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No-code development platform[edit]

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

Just another name for what's known as Visual Programming Languages - See Visual programming language. Looks like the article is written by technical editors with practical experience where the term (No-code) is used, but in computer science researchers are using the term (visual programming language) from 40 years ago! So this is another article about the same topic but with a different name Charmk (talk) 06:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Kvng I am interested in your opinion in this discussion since you rejected the article submission in the past. Charmk (talk) 06:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Charmk, my proposal was to merge this to Low-code development platform. The argument was made by Group29 that there is a difference between the two but there is clearly significant overlap so I think it can be done effectively in one article. ~Kvng (talk) 12:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kvng At least the Low-code development platform article have a reason to exist. Using google scholar, you will find it in the literature, and the article demonstrates the difference between (Low-code development platform) and the (Integrated development environment). So we have (Code Editor ---> Integrated Development Environment ---> Visual Programming Language) Then we have (Low-code development platform) as something between the IDE and the VPL. (Code Editor ---> IDE ---> Low-code ---> VPL). so the (No-code) is just a VPL and it doesn't exist in the literature (use google scholar) because we already have (Visual Programming Languages). Charmk (talk) 13:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Charmk, I think it would be at least slightly less WP:ASTONISHING if a search for "no-code" landed you at "low-code" than "visual programming language" ~Kvng (talk) 20:50, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kvng, Yes I agree with you. Charmk (talk) 22:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nominator has added a sentence to the article claiming that NCDP = VPL, but it's not backed up by a source. Given that the AfD hinges on that argument, I think we need something to substantiate it. Or if there are other grounds for the AfD, could we have details, please? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Check this reference

"No-code development could also be regarded as a form of visual programming. Instead of text-based development environments, users manipulate code elements through drag-and-drop user interfaces. A popular example is MIT Media Lab’s Scratch programming language, which uses graphical programming blocks to teach children and adults how to code."
Comment I don't think "could be regarded" and "a form of" quite add up to saying that the two terms and concepts are synonymous, at least not to the extent of rendering this article superfluous. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:15, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is written in 2018 by people who think that (No-code development platform) is something new or the current trend and think that readers need an article about it. but the reality is, this thing is very old (exist from 40 years ago and is known to computer scientists as visual programming languages). creating another article with a different name will separate the knowledge here and there and will introduce (knowledge repetition). Charmk (talk) 08:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From the (No-code development platform) article we have "No-code development platform (NCDPs) allows programmers and non-programmers to create application software through graphical user interfaces and configuration instead of traditional computer programming." and "Core Design - No-code platforms tend to function off a model-driven, declarative approach where the end user dictates an app's design through drag and drop manipulation or simple logic.".

Using graphical user interfaces, drag and drop instead of writing the textual source code --> This is what we call (Visual Programming).
The software that uses (Visual Programming) to create new software without the need to write any textual code ---> This is what we call (Visual Programming Language).
So this article is just about Visual programming language. check the references here and there. the (No-Code) article is based on technical articles (Written by Business People & Programmers) but the Visual programming language article is based on literature from Computer Science (What scientists have presented about the topic). Charmk (talk) 07:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:58, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This is obviously not a new idea. Computers were originally programmed with plugboards and wires and that was a different sort of no-code paradigm. And then you had COBOL which was promoted as being close to natural English. And you then had flowcharts. Anyway, none of this is a reason to delete anything. If there's some new methodology that is being hyped then just add it to the pile. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Davidson This article is not about (no-code paradigm) it's about (No-code development platform) which is the same thing as (Visual Programming Language). Charmk (talk) 22:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charmk is suggesting that the topic is a content fork. If it's a redundant fork, then per WP:REDUNDANTFORK, "If the content fork was unjustified, the more recent article should be merged back into the main article." Merger is not done by deletion. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:58, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For editors who want to keep the article, please provide an answer to this question:
What is the difference between (no-code development platform) and (visual programming language)?
I see that they are the same thing, so one article is enough. Charmk (talk) 22:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charmk should please read WP:BLUDGEON. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:58, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not convinced the concepts are entirely identical or the terms synonymous, and I see no grounds for deleting. Instead, a short section might be added on taxonomy and 'compare & contrast' vis-a-vis VPL. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment BradMyers I am interested in your opinion in this discussion as a known researcher in the field of Human computer interaction and visual programming languages. (I think we need opinions from experts) Charmk (talk) 01:24, 22 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. T. Canens (talk) 04:37, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ismael Kanater[edit]

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

A daunting task reviewing all the sources optimizing google translate but was worth it as they all appear to be unreliable. The subject doesn’t seem to have taken active roles in movies and TV series he featured in neither does he appear to have received an award. Put all together & they do not satisfy WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 17:46, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:46, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:46, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:46, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:46, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He may not have a significant presence in foreign works, but he is considered one of the famous actors in The cinema of Morocco. --البوعناني حاتم (talk) 18:15, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — The editor above is the article creator. Celestina007 (talk) 19:03, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm not sure why the nominator thinks that the sources are unreliable, or the roles are insufficient. The Ahdath.info article talks about his starring role in a 30-episode Moroccan television series called The Legacy. The Byanealyaoume Press article, "Portrait: Ismail Abu Al-Qanater .. A special Moroccan actor", is a profile of his life and work. The Bladi.net article, "Ismaïl Abou El Kanater, le Marocain d’Hollywood", is a similar profile of his life and work. All three are medium-sized articles, directly about the subject. I see nothing to suggest that any of them are unreliable, and the nominator did not explain the rationale for their assessment. — Toughpigs (talk) 03:27, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Toughpigs, all are mostly unreliable because they lack editorial oversight and reputation for fact checking. For example, The Bladi.net article this one; https://www.bladi.net/ismail-abou-el-kanater-hollywood.html is a blatant promotional write lacking editorial oversight & a reputation for fact checking & definitely not independent of the subject hence a WP:GNG fail. How then is that source reliable??? Featuring in movie series & not partaking in active/main character roles doesn’t do much to satisfy NACTOR either or does any source state he took active roles in movies he featured in? Celestina007 (talk) 03:34, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as I said, the Ahdath.info article talks about his starring role in The Legacy (الإرث). — Toughpigs (talk) 04:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:44, 20 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. T. Canens (talk) 04:37, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Kern (insomniac)[edit]

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

It was discussed earlier at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Paul_Kern and the result was "Merge to insomnia", but somehow it was later unmerged. There is still no indication of notability, only some news from 1930s, and, what is more important, the article is totally WP:FRINGE, telling a story of a guy who have not slept for years, although the official record is 11 days. Wikisaurus (talk) 12:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:21, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:21, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt per nom. Agricolae (talk) 15:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Salting is too extreme. Draftifying might make more sense. Haykthetike (talk) 14:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion on deletion, but I have altered the text at Insomnia to correctly relate what the source there, Horne, writes, and, also, all the text and references for the article has been placed at Talk:Insomnia (some time ago). Buckshot06 (talk) 17:23, 25 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) 18:17, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 17:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Widely covered and quite unique medical case.--Seacactus 13 (talk) 21:56, 25 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 19:41, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nenem…Chinna Pillana?[edit]

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

This film is completely sourced by 123 Telugu, which is not reliable. TamilMirchi (talk) 23:27, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 23:27, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 23:27, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - concerns around WP:GNG and WP:NFILM Spiderone 09:14, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found this review from the Times of India [53] Spudlace (talk) 23:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as per the one full national review mentioned above, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:59, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Times of India review and possibly 123Telugu. I have failed to find 123Telugu as being listed as unreliable at WP:RSPSOURCES, what made you determine that it isn't? Donaldd23 (talk) 14:33, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:14, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is currently a discussion at [54].TamilMirchi (talk) 16:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep 123Telugu is not assessed anywhere as unreliable.--Ab207 (talk) 06:41, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The reliability of one of the two sources seems to be questionable; relisting to allow exploration of other sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 17:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:43, 20 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. Sandstein 19:40, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peachtree 25th Building[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)It appears that this article doesn't pass WP:GNG. When looking for references, I can barely find anything. Captain Galaxy 13:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lack of references is not a good reason to nominate for deletion. I was able to find a number of references in Google Books and newspapers.com. There's a good summary in this Fire Department issued book [55] and the FEMA report on the fire is online [56]. Here's some news coverage in 1989 [57] [58] and a year later in 1990: [59][60]. There are also some articles indicating the city considered changing its sprinkler rules for older buildings as a result of this fire, and what impact that would have on building owners. The building itself has a current website to speak to the current state of the building and so on. --Krelnik (talk) 20:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 18:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment This is an article about the fire, and if kept, needs to be renamed to reflect that. The building seems otherwise unremarkable. Mangoe (talk) 19:58, 24 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 19:40, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thaddeus Rutkowski[edit]

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

Article created by sockpuppet of User:Rudra.shukla, identical to previous version deleted on G5 basis. ... discospinster _talk 22:02, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 02:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 02:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NAUTHOR. Sources in the article establish it, and the consensus at the last AfD (in 2017, not so long ago) was keep. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 01:56, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:30, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see a NYFA award and one Kirkus review; the other sources don't look as strong. Is this all? BTW the last AfD had exactly two legit keep !votes, and some socking. - Bri.public (talk) 18:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bri.public, This encyclopedia entry looked strong to me. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 01:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, it's a stretch to call that an encyclopedia article. That's a listing in Contemporary Authors. czar 17:28, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. When reviewing authors, it's worth taking a look to their book reviews. Even if his books do not warrant separate articles, multiple reviews across several books makes the author article at least into a place to aggregate those reviews. I wouldn't give trade pubs like PW much credit for paragraph-long articles but there are several external reviews [61][62] that put the author on the cusp of notability. Only reviews in Book Review Index are Kirkus and PW. I'd look for at least three reviews from non-trade pubs. Ping me if you find more? I wouldn't give much credence to the 2017 discussion, which lacked sources. czar 17:37, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 19:01, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:42, 20 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. ‑Scottywong | [confabulate] || 05:39, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kendall Almerico[edit]

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

There's some coverage that quotes him as an expert, but independent coverage in reliable sources appears to be limited to a stray sentence here or here. I don't think this meets WP:GNG. The article is also written like an advertisement. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:04, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:04, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:04, 25 September 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 September 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:20, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a duplicate nomination. Mccapra (talk) 21:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weird, this one page appears to have been transcluded twice to the AfD log. I removed one of them manually, so hopefully the issue has been resolved. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:43, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The ad language should definitely be toned down but appears to meet GNG. Sigcov here and here after just a quick pass through existing refs. Looks like he’s been involved in some pretty high profile issues - Goldenseed in particular - and cov isnt limited to his role at a single corporation as we so often see with CEO pages/promo garbage. FWIW there appears to be additional coverage from a quick search that hasn’t been included in this article and helps tip the notability scale WP:ARTN. 70.238.168.205 (talk) 14:04, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The first of those linked sources, both of which I had already read as they are cited in the article, does not look like a reliable source. The second has pretty fleeting coverage of Almerico, and only really discusses StarTrust. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am not finding much more than one-sentence mentions. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:18, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:41, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promo for a somewhat well-known attorney who nonetheless fails WP:BASIC. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Given the sources, and the somewhat controversial nature of his clients, meets GNG. 73.52.118.35 (talk) 15:33, 23 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:30, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1000 – Oru Note Paranja Katha[edit]

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

Couldn't find any sources in English and Malayalam about this film other than what is in the article. There is only one review (Times of India) and one music review (Mathrubhumi). Two reviews are needed. Created by a blocked (paid) user. TamilMirchi (talk) 20:01, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 20:01, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 20:01, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep effectively it has two reliable sources reviews as the music soundtrack is part of the film, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:03, 27 September 2020 (UTC) Changed to weak keep as the music review is not a review, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Per Atlantic306's rationale. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:48, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Atlantic306: @Donaldd23: After viewing the Malayalam article in Mathrubhumi, it is not a music review of the film. It is simply a preview of the film's plot and the cast and crew of the film. Also in the article, the content before the first picture and second picture in the article is the same. TamilMirchi (talk) 16:22, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:42, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:40, 20 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. Being discussed for 11 days, the notion that the article should be kept has only been supported by an unsubstantiated claim. Geschichte (talk) 05:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mallard, California[edit]

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

A railroad siding (hence the alternative name, Mallard Siding, in GNIS). Durham call it a locality on the Southern Pacific RR. No evidence that it was ever a community and not otherwise notable. Glendoremus (talk) 05:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Glendoremus (talk) 05:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Glendoremus (talk) 05:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There's no evidence of notabillity for this entity. Fails WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG Paul H. (talk) 01:20, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep"Even abandoned places can be notable". The place was an old city. There are sources attesting to the existence of this settlement. Meets WP:GEOLAND. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 02:46, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please share sources showing that this was "an old city." I couldn't find any indication that this was a town. Glendoremus (talk) 03:32, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Paging Dr. Sources, paging Dr. Sources to the AfD...?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:50, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No post office. Alameda County Place Names says there were two railroad sidings with that name, so WP:STATION applies. Searching GBooks for "Mallard Alameda" results in a number of trivial railroad-oriented hits. Nothing I've seen supports the notion that this locale was legally recognized, so WP:GEOLAND #1 is not met. There are only trivial mentions, so WP:GEOLAND #2 is not met. Cxbrx (talk) 20:44, 20 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. Geschichte (talk) 09:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Static supporting characters[edit]

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

FANDOM-level fancruft without a single reference, making it WP:ALLPLOT and WP:OR. Only lists a bunch of minor supporting characters. Therefore, fails WP:LISTN. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:37, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:37, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 14:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does indeed appear to fail WP:LISTN. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unnecessary content split that fails to properly summarize content per WP:WAF and WP:NOTPLOT. The main article can handle whatever little context these characters need, if any. There is no reason to retain this content. TTN (talk) 14:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 17:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I completely agree with ALLPLOT, OR and LISTN being used here. There is nothing of value worth keeping from this article and it isn't fit for being in an encyclopaedia. A fandom Wiki, sure, but not here. Spiderone 23:03, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep - Will retract when the nomination cites a proper rationale.

"FANDOM-level fancruft without a single reference, making it WP:ALLPLOT and WP:OR." - Two fallacies here. Fiction is one of the many topics covered on Wikipedia (and that includes lists of supporting fictional characters) provided that there is adequate coverage. Perhaps coverage does not exist, but I'm not seeing that argued or substantiated anywhere in this post. Believe it or not, "fancruft" is not a magical word that can waved around to achieve deletion, you have to actually substantiate that (the essay itself says as much). Second, the issue here seems to be unsourced content, not original research. Third, it should be noted that ALLPLOT on its own is not a criteria for deletion.
" Only lists a bunch of minor supporting characters. Therefore, fails WP:LISTN." - That's not even remotely how WP:LISTN works. Article or list content does not determine notability. Likewise, saying "it fails LISTN because the characters are minor" gives off the appearance of WP:IDONTKNOWIT.

Overall, the nomination does not cite a criteria for deletion (at least, correctly), nor does it seem as though the OP did anything to determine if the subject of the article truly fails LISTN. There really isn't anything here other than declarations of subjective importance with some page issues (no sourcing, mostly plot) that don't amount to deletion on their own. Dark knight 2149 02:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vote retracted: After source check by Rorshacma below. Dark knight 2149 23:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete- Excessive fancruft with very poor sourcing. There is no sourced content to merge anywhere and any potential merge targets are already overflowing with cruft themselves and would not be improved by incorporating any more of it. Reyk _YO! 20:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So no valid rationale for deletion is cited here, and all of the "delete" votes (except for one) essentially boil down to "Well, it's just fancruft" and "the quality of sourcing is bad". Well, I guess that's another couple for the pile. Dark knight 2149 23:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Character lists can be reasonable spinouts of articles on a piece of fiction, but those lists and the information in them still need to actually be supported by reliable, secondary sources in order to pass the basic requirements of verifiability and notability. And this article has no sources, nor have any been proposed so far in this AFD. Searching for sources myself turns up nothing covering his supporting cast as a whole. And, aside from Static himself, I'm not finding much in reliable sources that talk about any of the individual characters here either, outside of some minor plot summaries. It should also be noted that the majority of the information in this article is actually on the characters from the Static Shock TV series, which already has its own (though honestly, equally problematic) list here. Rorshacma (talk) 23:26, 21 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 19:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Static enemies[edit]

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

FANDOM-level fancruft without a single reference, making it WP:ALLPLOT and WP:OR. Only lists a bunch of minor enemies. Therefore, fails WP:LISTN. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 14:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does indeed appear to fail WP:LISTN. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unnecessary content split that fails to properly summarize content per WP:WAF and WP:NOTPLOT. The main article can handle whatever little context these characters need, if any. There is no reason to retain this content. TTN (talk) 14:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 17:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above; nothing of value worth keeping Spiderone 23:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yep WP:FANCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 23:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Will retract when the nomination cites a proper rationale.

"FANDOM-level fancruft without a single reference, making it WP:ALLPLOT and WP:OR." - Two fallacies here. Fiction is one of the many topics covered on Wikipedia (and that includes lists of supporting fictional characters) provided that there is adequate coverage. Perhaps coverage does not exist, but I'm not seeing that argued or substantiated anywhere in this post. Believe it or not, "fancruft" is not a magical word that can waved around to achieve deletion, you have to actually substantiate that (the essay itself says as much). Second, the issue here seems to be unsourced content, not original research. Third, it should be noted that ALLPLOT on its own is not a criteria for deletion.
" Only lists a bunch of minor supporting characters. Therefore, fails WP:LISTN." - That's not even remotely how WP:LISTN works. Article or list content does not determine notability. Likewise, saying "it fails LISTN because the characters are minor" gives off the appearance of WP:IDONTKNOWIT.

Overall, the nomination does not cite a criteria for deletion (at least, correctly), nor does it seem as though the OP did anything to determine if the subject of the article truly fails LISTN. There really isn't anything here other than declarations of subjective importance with some page issues (no sourcing, mostly plot) that don't amount to deletion on their own. Dark knight 2149 03:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Fails WP:LISTN" is the reason for deletion._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:54, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- much like the other Static article up for deletion, this is a huge wad of unsourced fancruft. Since none of it is sourced it is not possible to merge any of it and, even if we could, any potential targets are crufty enough already and don't require a fresh injection of more cruft. Reyk _YO! 21:06, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So no valid rationale for deletion is cited here, and all of the "delete" votes (except for one) essentially boil down to "Well, it's just fancruft" and "the quality of sourcing is bad". I guess that's another couple for the pile. Dark knight 2149 23:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NavjotSR (talk) 15:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @NavjotSR: The nom didn't give an explanation for deletion. Dark knight 2149 21:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Is there even one reliable source discussing this topic as a whole? I couldn't find anything online but was wondering if anyone wishing to have this article kept can find a reliable secondary source to show that this meets WP:LISTN and WP:GNG Spiderone 18:36, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When such a list has no sources showing that the topic has real-world consequence, it is more than likely that the content is sourced to the book/comic/show/game itself, which would be a primary source and not usable as a Wikipedia source. Geschichte (talk) 09:00, 27 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. Geschichte (talk) 08:55, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Md Perwez Siddiqui[edit]

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

Run-of-the-mill political activist. Naïve Google search shows that he exists and uses social media; we knew that. Naïve Google search does not show third-party discussion (although this article has been reference-bombed with low-quality sources after it was initially declined for no sources). Article consists largely of name-drops, and does not establish any of the biographical notability criteria.

Article has been created in both draft space and article space, possibly in order to game the system against being draftified. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:15, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the following related page because it is a duplicate page moved to mainspace under a disambiguated title after decline by original nominator:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:15, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:15, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all fails WP:NPOLITICIAN and WP:GNG. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a Run of the Mill case. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 21:06, 26 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:58, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Le Conte Avenue[edit]

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

My prod a while back was declined because this was deprodded with no rationale in 2016. This two-block-ish street seems a clear WP:GEOROAD fail. Unless there is a redirect target I'm not seeing, seems no suitable ATD either. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:12, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:12, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:12, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete No significant claim to notability in the article, and nothing suggests otherwise. Mangoe (talk) 15:41, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL. This street is verifiably more than two blocks per Google Maps, but the UCLA is huge and borders several streets. There's technically no street address that I can find for UCLA itself, unless 405 Hilgard Avenue is it. Bearian (talk) 20:09, 21 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Beadles[edit]

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

Non-notable politician/businessperson. Unsuccessful primary candidate for US Congress does not pass NPOL, none of his business ventures have significant coverage or are independently notable. References include two self-published sources, one blog, a link to his candidacy's FEC records, and a dead link to a news article covering his withdrawal from the congressional primary. ST47 (talk) 02:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ST47 (talk) 02:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ST47 (talk) 02:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable failed candidate who doesn't otherwise pass WP:GNG as a businessperson. SportingFlyer T·C 11:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even winning the primary does not make one notable, but looseing the primary is basically a default sign of being non-notable, unless of course you have an unrelated claim to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get articles for being unsuccessful candidates in party primaries, but this article does not demonstrate any credible evidence that he has preexisting notability for other reasons independently of the failed candidacy — even his business career is referenced to self-published primary sources and/or blogs, rather than any evidence of reliable source media coverage that would have gotten him over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 17:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL and WP:NPOL. There's no evidence that his business has gotten any notice outside of his local city. Producers are notoriously run of the mill, and AfD is littered with deletions of producer stubs. He didn't even make it to the finish line of the primary 10 years ago. Bearian (talk) 20:03, 21 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Giorgio Andrews[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:NMMA since he has no top tier MMA fights. Winning titles in second tier organizations does nothing to show notability. There is also no significant independent coverage to show that WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO is met. Routine sports coverage is not sufficient to show notability. Papaursa (talk) 01:09, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 01:09, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 01:09, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no sources that write about the subject other than his fight record which is too small to be considered for Repeated medalist, from what I see there are no news sources on the subject which are not specifically related to MMA for notability. Australianblackbelt (talk) 23:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject fails WP:MMABIO. Subject has not fought in any top tier promoter and fight info is routine coverage. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:08, 22 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. There is some dispute as to the relative notability of some of the bundled pages, but the overall consensus here is that all of these pages rather unsalvageably end up being original research in the form of synthesis of published material, and as such are considered to veer too far into the area of an almanac of sports statistics, rather than an encyclopedia. ~ mazca ^talk 19:57, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Progression of Latvia association football caps record[edit]

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

As per consensus established in this AfD. The concerns around WP:LISTN persist with all of these articles. There are issues with WP:NOTSTATS as well and we need to be more than simply a mirror of RSSSF and IFFHS.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:50, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:51, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - pinging some of the editors from the previous AfD to see if they have any comment to make on the topic as a whole. Please note that I have not included Progression of Andorra association football caps record or Progression of Albania association football caps record as both are under PROD. @Govvy: @Metropolitan90: @GiantSnowman: @Geschichte: @Nigej: @Ludost Mlačani: @Power~enwiki: Spiderone 13:32, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Personally all these are just boring stats, not suitable for an encyclopedia. Is there a need for 200 (or whatever) of these articles? I think not. Surely something like England national football team records and statistics#Appearances could be expanded with some text, if there is sufficient interest in the topic. I have a little sympathy for Progression of association football caps record (which is not listed here), which covers all countries and has a certain general interest. Nigej (talk) 13:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and last AFD, these kind of articles are not needed. Giant Snowman 14:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proceedural keep - on reflection, this kind of bundling is entirely inappropriate as each article needs discussing separately. I think, however, that these kind of articles should be merged with England national football team records etc. Giant Snowman 14:11, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Again, I can't speak for all national teams, but in the UK the national team caps record is a notable subject. For example, Steven Davis broke the longstanding Northern Ireland record this week (previously held by Pat Jennings) and this was widely covered [63][64][65][[66]. There hasn't been much recent coverage of the England or Scotland records because nobody has got near those records in recent times, but WP:NTEMP applies to that. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:06, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I don't see why it can't be mentioned in the two player articles + Northern Ireland national football team records and statistics#Most capped players "Pat Jennings held the record from a to b, until etc etc.". Text is allowed (indeed encouraged). We're not just a repository of statistical tables. Nigej (talk) 14:31, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG DELETE ALL I don't the point of procedural keep, these tables ARE complete WP:SYNTH. Whats the point in merging these stats to saturate other articles with more statistics. It's just incredibly infuriating in the way these articles have been constructed, it's just showing information in a really bad design with no thought. Govvy (talk) 16:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I fully agree with the nominator's points. I also think that some of the content of these article is tending towards trivia. Dunarc (talk) 22:56, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Clearly leaning delete, but relisting given that there has been no real discussion about why the merge target is not appropriate as an alternative to deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would be happy for merge with all except for the Latvia one. The Latvia one is unsourced and, for all we know, the info might not be correct. I think it would be more sensible to remove it unless someone can go through all of Latvia's match records and synthesise a list for them using those match reports. Spiderone 11:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Govvy actually. We shouldn't be keeping or merging content that's basically synthesised original research. That's not what Wikipedia is about at all Spiderone 18:23, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am also against merging content that basically violates WP:OR and SYNTH. Govvy (talk) 13:46, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The comment below was placed on the talk page of this AfD, so I am copying it here -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree on the deletion for these articles. I do think the seperate national team pages are fine considering they are the same as Progression of association football caps record except the contents are a bit short. I'm still working hard to find more sources. --FastCube (talk) 06:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)FastCube[reply]

As per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, we shouldn't be using the existence of other articles as a reason to keep this one Spiderone 18:22, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Wikipedia is not a sports almanac. Stifle (talk) 17:02, 28 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. Geschichte (talk) 08:50, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Northland State[edit]

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

This article is mainly based on a singular source which mentions "Northland state" only in passing. Additionally, a google search of "Northland State" does not produce any reliable sources to ensure the notability and verifibality of this article. Therefore, it is unlikely that it meets notability guidelines and should be deleted. Jacob300 (talk) 10:11, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Jacob300 (talk) 10:11, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Jacob300 (talk) 10:11, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge relevant content to Dhulbahante and then delete. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this fails WP:GNG. Only two hits on Google Scholar [67]. ~~Per Buckshot06 any relevant and sourced content can be merged with Dhulbahante~~. --Kzl55 (talk) 20:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:57, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relister's comment: @Buckshot06 and Kzl55: merge and delete runs into trouble with our creative commons license. For more see WP:Merge and delete. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:58, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, I have edited my vote above. Best regards --Kzl55 (talk) 11:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unlikely to be notable, as explained above Xisaabiye (talk) 19:16, 25 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. Geschichte (talk) 05:17, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wilson Villa[edit]

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

Does not pass MUSICBIO. Being the first person in Imbabura Province to die from COVID is not significant either. Mvqr (talk) 10:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:11, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:11, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Fails WP:MUSICBIO as a musician: his death does not appear to have been widely reported and fails WP:NOTNEWS. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 13:41, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His death seems to have been widely reported in Ecuador; besides the articles linked in the page, some more examples: http://www.expectativa.ec/fallece-director-y-vocalista-del-grupo-villamauta/

https://twitter.com/ecuainm_oficial/status/1242562576002813953 https://www.elnorte.ec/imbabura-lloral-deceso-wilson-villa-villamauta-coronavirus/ https://twitter.com/ecuainm_oficial/status/1242562576002813953?lang=bn https://lahora.com.ec/imbabura-carchi/noticia/1102313525/wilson-villa-la-primera-victima-del-coronavirus-en-imbabura https://www.eluniverso.com/noticias/2020/03/24/nota/7793649/artista-ibarreno-es-primera-victima-coronavirus-imbabura https://www.metroecuador.com.ec/ec/noticias/2020/03/25/cantante-victima-coronavirus-imbabura.html https://www.fmritmoibarra.com/2020/03/25/fallece-director-y-vocalista-del-grupo-villamauta/ --Pesqara (talk) 16:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is about "an Ecuadorian singer and composer." Therefore, it should pass WP:MUSICBIO and no where does it say a musician is notable for dying or getting coverage of their death. While it does have the exception that the person is notable if they "Have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself", but someone dying (or getting coverage for it) is the epitome of triviality. That said, a lot of the sources on his death are extremely trivial and/or primary anyway. Especially the Twitter mentions, but also other ones. So, as things currently stand there is nothing worth keeping the article over. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:57, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:57, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Adamant1. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 02:11, 22 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 The Basketball League. T. Canens (talk) 11:48, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kokomo BobKats[edit]

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

Declined PROD had rationale Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, per WP:CORPDEPTH. Professional sports is a business. Teams and leagues must meet corporate notability standards. which I agree with. Only independent coverage is local - per WP:AUD is insufficient. The Basketball League is a possible redirect target. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:52, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:52, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:52, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:43, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Decent amount of coverage, like [68] [69] [70] [71]. It is a fairly important league, so not just a YMCA league but on par with some of the lesser European leagues. A redirect would be better than delete, but I don't think we need either. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Editorofthewiki: Your first and third sources cited are the same source ("Kokomo Bobkats: Professional minor league basketball team officially announced" written by Jacqueline Rans for the Kokomo Persepective). Your second and fourth are also the same article ("The Kokomo BobKats: City lands professional basketball team" written by Carson Gerber for the Kokomo Tribune). If those are the only two significant sources, then it probably falls short of GNG right now via the lack of WP:SUSTAINED WP:NOTNEWS WP:AUD coverage of simply being announced as a team in the first week of September 2020 only covered by the local papers.
  It may not be a YMCA league (although they did have a team play at a Boys & Girls Club in New York in 2019), but many teams play in high school gyms (or even at middle schools in the past). It is a step above the ABA, but a good step below most of the other national leagues
  Seems incubation or redirect would be better until it gets sustained coverage when and if the team ever plays (this type of league does have a reputation of announcing teams that never play, eg San Diego Armada in 2019). In other words, I do not believe teams in this league should be presumed to get coverage to meet GNG in the future in all cases. Some teams do eventually meet it, some don't. Yosemiter (talk) 02:58, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Basketball League. This article fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. The coverage I found were the same source Eddy cites above, and the two local news releases announcing the team are not enough to establish notability. I think this might be a case of WP:TOOSOON and merging the sources to The Basketball League will allow editors to store sources and write about the BobKats until (and if) its notability is established. Z1720 (talk) 15:10, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Basketball League. Not enough non-WP:AUD coverage to establish notability. Likely case of WP:TOOSOON until the league grows and the team generates more non-local coverage. Add the existing info to the "history" section of the target article. Deadbeef 18:17, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Basketball League.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:51, 28 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. Geschichte (talk) 08:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Keezy[edit]

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

Seeking consensus, specifically on whether [72], [73], and [74] establish "WP:NSINGER" or WP:BASIC. It's not clear to me that they do. I should note that I'm quite aware of the WP:BIAS implications of this nomination, and do not make it lightly. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO as sources don't check out. All local sites, a blog, CityPages, promotional interviews, and a non-notable award. Article itself is promotional in tone with no legitimate third-party coverage. Has nothing to do with bias as it does with subject lacking notability. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 17:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Expand~~ Keep Hello! This is the first time one of my articles has been nominataed for deletion, so your patience will be most appreciated. Am I allowed to vote? Is it alright if I add more sources to this article during the deletion discussion? When writing this article, I did believe the articles you cited showed notability, one being an article entirely about her published in the major newspaper of the city and another being published by the NPR affiliate radio station. It is difficult to go by the WP:MUSICBIO since as a DJ, she does not put out albums of her own. She was the DJ for several tours with Rhymesayers artists, which although it is local I assumed counted as a "major record label". Although they are trivial mentions, there are several articles cited from the Detroit Metro Times and Iowa Press. I also thought item #7 under WP:Singer fit for her as she has clealy become a prominent member of a local scene as displayed by the awards. Here is a recent article by college radio station in Kentucky about DJ Keezy. She was played on Minnesota Public Radio radio station through the University of Minnesota here and here. Also, could you clarify what you mean by the bias? Are you saying that you have a bias or are you asking if I do? I do live in Minneapolis and have been to one of DJ Keezy's performances, but I do not know her personally so I do not believe I hold a bias. Thank you, Terasaface (talk) 15:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Terasaface, In response to your questions: (1) yes, you're allowed to vote; and (2) yes, you're very much encouraged to add additional sources. As for WP:BIAS, I meant that I was nominating an article about a young woman of colour, which would contribute to Wikipedia's systemic bias against marginalized people. I certainly was not implying that you are biased in any way. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AleatoryPonderings Thank you for responding and for clarifying! I appreciate that recognition of systemic bias. I will add that other source to the article now. Thank you, Terasaface (talk) 17:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the notability criteria. If you actually look at who the musicians are that we have coverage are, at least on a global scale the claim that Afircan-American female musicians are under represented is not going to fly. Americans overall are over-represented in Wikipedia, musicians especially, and since the percentage of African-American musicians as a percentage of musicians far exceeds their percentage in the overall population, you are not going to get under representation. Now probably on a global scale Chinese musicians are under represented, and probably Congolese musicians, but not any American musicians at all. At least not African-American ones, Asian American musicians and Hispanic American musicians may be under represented, but not African-American ones. Not that any of that should impact individual decisions, but it can lead to some absurdities. Sort of like the "African-American first" I once saw that listed Ella Fitzgerald as the first African-American to win a grammy. This is true, but ignores the fact tha Fitzgerald won two grammy's in the very first grammy, and there was at least one other African-American honored with a grammy in that grammy as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Johnpacklambert Could you explain why you believe the article does not meet notability guidelines? I am not entirely sure how her being an African-American and Black women being already represented on Wiki is related to whether or not this article meets notability? I would appreciate the clarification. Thanks, Terasaface (talk) 17:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing is pretty much all local events coverage, which is not the type of coverage that adds up to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I'd like to see more sources from outside of one city, to show evidence of touring. Bearian (talk) 21:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Bearian. Borderline notable but I'd like to see more women musicians represented on Wikipedia. Haykthetike (talk) 14:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there is just enough reliable sources coverage to pass WP:GNG in my view. Except for companies and organisations local sources are acceptable, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: ~~The article has been significantly improved and expanded since this discussion started~~. per above. VocalIndia (talk) 18:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
VocalIndia, As far as I can see, that is not correct. The only edits to the article after it was nominated were minor copy-edits, the addition of a category, and the inclusion of archive links (most of which I did myself). AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again - I have added a few recent sources to the article. I have also found a decent amount of sources from out of state from that are from ticket sales websites and events listings other such sources which seem trivial and unreliable, so I am not sure that it is helpful to add those. This artist seems to tour nationally every few years, as seen in all of these ticket sales listings, but the nature of being a DJ is that she is often the opening act on national tours and not headlining and not necassarily having reviews written up about her opening performances. I am also not sure how to search for and prove radio plays of her DJ sets but it seems that proving that would add to proving notability. Thank you all for your help navigating this process! Terasaface (talk) 23:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:41, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The page isn’t very good, but seems to be notable enough, given the fact she has won an award. Foxnpichu (talk) 10:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Let's assume good faith in regards to the one writing the article. Offering constructive ideas on how to improve the areas of the article you may feel are below standards is preferred to making short and terse comments about how you feel about the way it is written. In regards to the sources, I'll list the article on the WIR project and see if anyone wants to assist with a search for sources. As many have pointed out, it does seem heavy on local content and coverage which does not automatically preclude a subject or deem them not notable.--Tsistunagiska (talk) 19:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep meets WP:GNG Shameran81 (talk) 22:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: All the additional references confirm notability.--Ipigott (talk) 08:30, 21 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. consensus is the subject has met GNG. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:27, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tunç Fındık[edit]

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

Lacks coverage- the only independent source is the CNN Türk interview. Subject's quest to climb 14 mountains of a certain height does not pass WP:NBIO. 1292simon (talk) 05:26, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:14, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the article says, he is the first Turk to climb the Everest twice and has already climbed 13 of the 14 mountains above 8000m. This results in quite a lot of sources from major publishers; CNN Türk (one already present in the article) [75] [76], Anadolu Agency [77] [78], TRT Haber [79], Hürriyet [80] [81], Habertürk [82], Milliyet [83], Daily Sabah [84] [85]. The amount of reliable sources suggests that a WP:BEFORE has not been done (properly). ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 09:48, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Styyx. Could you please explain why you deleted my vote in the other AfD thread?

Regarding this one, please be aware that "first person from country X to do Y" is not usually the grounds for notability. 1292simon (talk) 07:13, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, that was a misclick because for some reason your edits have the vandalizm tag or something that I clicked to see what it does. I realized half an hour later and added back, sorry about that. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 08:02, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is a very accomplished professional mountaineer who has climbed many of the world's highest and most difficult peaks. The sources mentioned by Styyx are sufficient to establish notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as others have mentioned, he has quite a credibility to him. Foxnpichu (talk) 11:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of what he did is notable . If there is coverage of it, the coverage can only be promotional . DGG ( talk ) 08:00, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Next time actually take a look at the sources, thank you. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 08:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:39, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clear GNG pass, sources identified above are mostly reliable (or were at the time of the article being published), and clearly provide SIGCOV. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:45, 22 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Areeka Haq[edit]

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

Popularity & Notability are not synonymous thus subject of article although popular is not notable as she lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of her. None of the sources used in the article establishes subject as a notable individual. The first source used is a mere announcement, the second lacks editorial oversight & all the rest do not seem to satisfy WP:RS. In all this is a GNG fail. Furthermore, she debuted her acting career in 2020 but currently doesn’t satisfy WP:NACTOR either. Celestina007 (talk) 19:34, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:34, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:34, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:34, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:34, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:34, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Barely found anything about her. Search results return either passing mentions or gossips about her. Perhaps a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:03, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pakistan's major newspapers like The Nation [86], Pakistan Today [87], The Express Tribune [88], Daily Times [89], Bol News [90], and many others added news about her. And also wikipidea have other articles like Hareem Shah, Geet (TikToker), Bhuvan Bham being a social media influencer. They also have similar career years but there articles never got objections then surely Haq also met notability criteria. Libraa2019 (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — The editor above is the article creator. Celestina007 (talk) 17:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:31, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The subject may very well be notable, one day, as well as popular, but she currently fails WP:GNG and is a case of WP:TOOSOON as she has just begun her career. Give her the opportunity to explore, grow and find her place. Time will tell. :) --Tsistunagiska (talk) 19:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Drafts by Mehmoodj1 - FWIW, this article subject has been created multiple times by a undisclosed paid editor who is also a sock operator. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyphoidbomb, thanks for bringing this to our notice. Celestina007 (talk) 12:02, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. The sources do not meet Wikipedia standards for "significant coverage from reliable news sources". Also being deleted multiple times on top of potential paid editing and sockpuppetry does not make anything look good here. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 03:27, 23 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. czar 02:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Abell[edit]

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

Non-notable person. The subject does not have significant coverage in reliable sources meaning the article fails WP:GNG. In addition, the subject fails WP:NACTOR (the subject notability guideline). -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 19:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 19:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 19:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article was deleted in 2015 per this discussion and this article seems to have the same issues as the deleted version so WP:G4 should apply. However an admin declined a request to delete per WP:G4 so I have renominated it here. -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 19:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:55, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:55, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the sources I found from Google News about Tim Abell..

1 Bloody Disgusting

2 MSN

3 soaps.sheknows.com

4 popmatters.com

5 flickeringmyth.com

6 movievine.com,

7 ridgecrestca.com

Also got another new source about one of his notable movie Soldier of God
https://www.medievalists.net/2016/03/friendship-betrayal-war-soldier-of-god-movie-review/

I suggest to close the deletion discussion and keep the article alive. A2Z Pics (talk) 11:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: A2Z Pics (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Delete Sorry, but all of these listed sources flunk WP:GNG. Subject not mentioned at all in SheKnows. Mentioned in passing in Bloody Disgusting, PopMatters and MSN, and Movievine is a promotional interview. Trailer descriptions and movie reviews do not establish notability. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 17:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:NACTOR + WP:GNG Devokewater (talk) 12:42, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given that it's been created twice let's see if we can get a firmer consensus about notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for want of WP:SIGCOV. An argument could be made that he's a male scream queen or ultimate Redshirt (stock character), but I don't want to go there. Bearian (talk) 19:53, 21 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. czar 02:45, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Smith (skateboarder)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSPORTS Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SIGCOV. Other than a single interview (which does not count towards notability) there's zero reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 20:52, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I would not say zero: ESPN interview is helpful 1, He has his own boards with Blind Skateboards 2 Easy to see why he is a pro 3 Looks like he got some press for some law breaking ride down the Toronto freeway system 4 and check out page 72 of ISSU 5. Passes WP:SPORTBASIC because at 33 years old he has made an impact on the young sport and is now respected for his contributions. Lightburst (talk) 21:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Agree with nominator, fails WP:SIGCOV, Alex-h (talk) 08:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SIGCOV. No viable third-party coverage aside from the ESPN interview. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 07:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Three votes out of four for deletion because there's no significant third-party coverage of the subject. What further discussion is really needed? sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 04:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Devokewater (talk) 20:10, 26 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.

Krissy Ramsey[edit]

The result of this discussion was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.