Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 October 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 20 October 22 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 12:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Lau[edit]

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

Sources are club websites and has no independent news sources that establish notability Australianblackbelt (talk) 00:52, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Australianblackbelt (talk) 00:52, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Australianblackbelt (talk) 00:52, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Australianblackbelt (talk) 01:13, 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. (non-admin closure) Andrew nyr (talk, contribs) 23:34, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Buckle[edit]

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

BLP without much sourcing. After some search on Google and Wikipedia Library, I found only a couple mentions of the person, all passing. Most other results are about some of her older books, with the newer ones being self-published. Doesn't seem to satisfy the notability criteria. Isabelle 🔔 23:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Isabelle 🔔 23:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Isabelle 🔔 23:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've been finding things written about her work, but I'm running into a barrier when it comes to paywalls for older stuff. However what I've found so far suggests that there is more coverage out there and that she's one of the "go to" people for her topic area, particularly when they want to discuss white authors covering Zimbabwe and the issues concerning its people. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be honest, if I didn't have access to a college database I probably wouldn't have found what I have so far. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are substantial sources out there. For one that is publicly available, here is a detailed academic analysis: [1] Also interesting that African Tears was reviewed by The Times Literary Supplement, though I unfortunately don't have access to the text. There's also quite a bit of newspaper coverage of Buckle. Overall, I think there is a strong case for notability. Haukur (talk) 09:39, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a racist nomination. The nominator clearly has some vendetta against Africans. She expects all the references to be on the internet and because she can't find enough in her Google search she wants to delete this page. Does she not take into account any reporting that takes place here in Zimbabwe? Has the nominator read our newspapers here in Zimbabwe? I bet she has not. Do not judge us by Western imperialist standards. She could offer to improve the article if she does not like it - but she does not. She just wants to destroy and delete like all Western imperialists before her. Why does this racist so-called Isabella think Ms Buckle has to publish her own books? Does she know of the censorship and oppression in Zimbabwe? What Zimbabwean publisher would be allowed to print these books? This person must go and hang her head in shame and reflect on why she hates Africans so much. Mangwanani (talk) 17:53, 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 no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:57, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Inner Circle (album)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. The coverage that I found of this album appears to mostly consist of passing mentions, not satisfying the "multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it." of criterion #1. There has been no evidence that it charted to pass #2 either; checking with sverigetopplistan returns no relevant results. TheSandDoctor Talk 04:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC); updated 17:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor Talk 04:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor Talk 04:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ST47 (talk) 23:21, 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 merge to Evergrey discography. Sandstein 11:35, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Monday Morning Apocalypse[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. The coverage that I found of this album appears to mostly consist of passing mentions, not satisfying the "multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it." of criterion #1. There has been no evidence that it charted to pass #2 either. TheSandDoctor Talk 04:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC); expanded 17:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor Talk 04:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor Talk 04:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ST47 (talk) 23:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Evergrey discography. Fails WP:GNG. I agree with TheSandDoctor's assessment of the sources posted by Superastig. I also searched every source deemed reliable at WP:A/S that also had a focus on metal and I only found one review [16]. I also searched Google, JSTOR, NYT and this article in other wiki languages but could not find additional sources. Merging this content will allow the information to be published in a more appropriate article. Z1720 (talk) 00:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment also worth noting that "albumoftheyear" is currently under review as a source. --TheSandDoctor Talk 22:29, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Z1720 --17jiangz1 (talk) 07:45, 31 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 Evergrey discography. Sandstein 16:40, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Glorious Collision[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM / WP:GNG. The coverage that I found of this album appears to mostly consist of passing mentions or not in-depth about the album itself, thus not satisfying the "multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it." of criterion #1. There has been no evidence that it charted to pass #2 either, with sverigetopplistan returning no results. TheSandDoctor Talk 04:26, 12 October 2020 (UTC); expanded 17:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor Talk 04:26, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor Talk 04:26, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ST47 (talk) 23:20, 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) 12:20, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ACV Auctions[edit]

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

Non notable organization that doesn’t possess sufficient coverage in reliable sources to satisfy WP:ORGCRIT. A before search shows hits in unreliable sources & websites where organizations upload their services. Celestina007 (talk) 22:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:45, 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 merge to COVID-19 pandemic in Wisconsin. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:16, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

COVID-19 pandemic in Door County, Wisconsin[edit]

COVID-19 pandemic in Door County, Wisconsin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS. I'm not seeing anything in this article that would indicate the COVID-19 outbreak in this one county of one U.S. state is standing out from all the rest. I would assume the article's notability is based on certain geographic factors, e.g. places of interest, locations of hospitals, distance from certain areas, etc., but none of that is being illustrated here. And judging by the table of case statistics by county in the COVID-19 pandemic in Wisconsin article, Door County is in the lower-middle tier of affected counties, so I'm not seeing what exactly is so special about the number of confirmed cases and deaths it has. Love of Corey (talk) 22:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- article meets GNG due to substantial coverage in non-local media sources: Chicago Tribune, Milwaukee Journal-sentinel, Wisconsin Public Radio, The New York Times, WBEZ: Chicago's NPR News Source, and Iron Mountain Daily News in the UP, a 140 mile drive to the county seat in Door County. These stories, which are linked to in the external links section, were driven by concerns about property rights when non-permanent residents were asked to stay away from their seasonal residences. (In the northern part of the peninsula, most property is owned by people from out-of-state.) As for Door County being in the lower-middle tier of affected counties, the reason for this has been speculated about in several media sources. It is thought that the relatively high rate of masking has helped. Compared to COVID-19 pandemic in Columbus, Ohio, this article has more non-local coverage and compared to COVID-19 pandemic in the San Francisco Bay Area, this article has a smaller volume of non-local coverage.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then the property rights story should be merged to the broader COVID-19 pandemic in Wisconsin article. If not, this article should be renamed at the very least. The content as it is now is aimed exclusively at this angle and not any broader concern about COVID-19 spreading throughout the county. Love of Corey (talk) 04:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The geographical distribution of cases was scattered to begin with, and remained that way to the present. There is no story about cases "spreading" they way you might think of it. Each tourist or out-of-county commuter ads to the risk. People live, drive, and get infected all over or nearly so.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then where's the COVID-19 story for this article if geographical distribution of cases is scattered? I would expect the COVID-19 problem to be absolutely crippling if an article on this small county would deserve the benefit of notability. The way you describe it makes this event sound WP:ROUTINE, and therefore, not notable. That leaves the property rights story, but it seems more worthy of being merged to COVID-19 pandemic in Wisconsin, unless you can expand the content with a trove of more recent coverage of that angle. Love of Corey (talk) 01:27, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"more recent coverage of that angle"---please elaborate on the angle you are referring to.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:13, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm not seeing a reason to delete here. There are naturally lots of articles about the pandemic in particular geographies such as NYC. This is just another one and doesn't need some special justification. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between this article and articles like the one you just cited as an example is that these kinds of articles are talking about major cities/metropolitan areas.
And those are just the articles focusing on U.S. cities.
Here, Door County is only moderately populated compared to other counties in Wisconsin. Its largest (and only) city is home to less than 10,000 people. According to the article itself, it was the 45th county to report its first case in the state. Wisconsin has 72 counties, so by that point, more than half of the state's counties had reported at least one case each. Not exactly notable compared to being in the first five or first ten counties to report a first case.
The only thing worth noting about this article, as noted by Epiphyllumlover, is the property rights controversy. Given what we have now for this material, that can be merged to the COVID-19 pandemic in Wisconsin article, which should have enough bulk to take it without any WP:UNDUE concerns. Love of Corey (talk) 01:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As this is a pandemic, it's everywhere, not just major cities. Other distinctive regions merit articles too – see COVID-19 pandemic in the Isle of Man; COVID-19 pandemic in the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base; COVID-19 pandemic in the Navajo Nation; &c. Myself, I am on the other side of the Atlantic, in London, but am quite familiar with Door County and interested in how things have been going there. The OP has no business trying to censor this notable aspect. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Of course COVID-19 is everywhere, but we're not going to try and break it down by every region and subdivision known to man. We primarily break it down by the notability of the region affected. Isle of Man is a crown dependency (the UK equivalent of a U.S. territory like Puerto Rico (which also has its own article, as do all the other territories, BTW)), Guantanamo is a military base with extremely special significance in U.S. history, and the Navajo Nation is a Native American territory, essentially its own country. Door County is none of those things.
If there was something special about the spread of COVID-19 in the county, then yes, this could merit an article of its own, but I don't see extensive coverage of that angle here. The article is more focused on the property rights of non-permanent, out-of-state residents. Perhaps if the content was expanded and the article was renamed to properly reflect the topic, then it could be kept. But if an expansion cannot happen, it should be merged to the main Wisconsin article, because the amount of sourcing right now doesn't look substantial enough to support an individual article spun off from the broader pandemic, and the main Wisconsin article could cover it better as a subsection relating to responses. Love of Corey (talk) 18:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If I added referenced material concerning the high rate of masking and a physician's analysis of the possible effect of this would that meet your standard for "something special about the spread"?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:19, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the material in question comprises multiple paragraphs of content with multiple sources, and not just a single paragraph documenting anecdotal stories and a statement by a physician, that kind of information would be better suited for Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. Love of Corey (talk) 03:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to COVID-19 pandemic in Wisconsin, content is local news that is mostly in line with what happened in every community in the country. We don't need separate articles for every small county. Reywas92Talk 23:33, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Door County has received non-local coverage including from New York and Chicago.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:19, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the article on Wisconsin. Other stuff exists is not a valid reason to keep, Door County is not a major metropolitican center. Wikipedia is not news, and breaking down the pandemic by county level will lead to lots of unneeded news level coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Door county (prior to the pandemic) received 2.2 million visitors every year. How many counties with Door County's population receive that many visitors? During the pandemic the figures are maybe half, but still that makes it different than most counties.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:19, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the article on COVID-19 in Wisconsin. Literally every county in America is getting local coverage for COVID-19. There's nothing unique about it and there is zero good reason to have separate county articles about COVID-19. Unless there is something particularly unique about COVID-19 in said county. Which in this case there isn't. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:59, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The difference is that Door County has received non-local coverage including from New York and Chicago.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:19, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I think they should make a difference, but for whatever reason the non-local sources are in External Links section. So, technically they don't count. Since they aren't being used as references. At least, I think. Although, they do exist. So, likely I'm wrong and they just don't work anyway. Personally, they don't work for me because pretty much everywhere is getting coverage of COVID-19 from everywhere. At this point you could probably pic any random county in America and it would have non-local coverage about it. Hell, I live an extremely in-significant county in the grand scheme of things and a few weeks ago there was an article in Bloomberg about a couple of religious fanatics here not wanting to wear masks, because supposedly they infringe their religious rights or some crap. I don't think my county should have an article about COVID-19 here though. Even with Bloomberg deciding to do a story about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:37, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed one of them (the NYT article) is also being used as a reference, so I don't know why the others wouldn't be used as references too. From my experience, external links are mainly supposed to be used to redirect any interested readers to additional information that otherwise cannot be used as actual references in the article. Love of Corey (talk) 00:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets GNG, has non-local sources. The only thing I see needing improvement is properly citing the non-local sources in the article, but thats easy copyediting for a bored wikipedian to do. Deleting wouldn't fix the issue, just remove it. JackFromReedsburg (talk) 00:47, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What could we do to properly integrate them, though? It doesn't look like any of the "External links" sources have anything new to offer for the article. If anything, that section should be purged entirely if the article is somehow kept. Love of Corey (talk) 00:03, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The comments about the article being supported by non-local sources have prompted me to look at the list of references. Out of the 28 references provided, as of this writing, there are only a grand total of three sources (or an estimated 10 percent) that are national and/or from out-of-state (The New York Times, Petoskey News-Review, and Marine News). If you count the external links section as references, that makes six out of 34 references (or an estimated 17 percent) that are national and/or from out-of-state, the additional three being Iron Mountain Daily News, Chicago Tribune, and WBEZ.
So, while non-local sources are indeed being used, there's not a lot of them, and they're not being used extensively. For example, an article I've been working on since its creation, Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot, features 101 references as of this writing, of which there are at least 45 (or an estimated 44 percent) that come from non-local, out-of-state, national publications. I'd expect around that number of sources to be used in this article if I believe this is a notable topic. And moreover, the Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot article is still being updated by the day with recent sources. I noticed that, at least as far as I can see, this article's sources have all been published from March to May, with only one outlier source coming from yesterday. For a sub-article about a massive, ongoing pandemic that is close to affecting every corner of the Earth, there's not a lot of substantial coverage that indicates there's an ongoing problem of particular importance, COVID-19 or otherwise.
Note that I've excluded some Wisconsin-based sources; while some of them are certainly non-local, as Wisconsin-based publications, I believe they're more likely to cover a matter located elsewhere in Wisconsin than a source that's from out of state would. In particular, Green Bay, the headquarters of recurring source The Green Bay Press-Gazette, is located in Brown County, which neighbors Door County to the southwest. It's no surprise to me that there's an abundance of coverage coming from that publication. Love of Corey (talk) 01:34, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Most sources in the San Francisco coronavirus article are local, with Los Angeles significantly accounting for the non-local ones
There are two articles from Chicago and one from New York for this article's topic. You only need three to get past AfC. Looking just now I found a coronavirus-topic interview with a Sturgeon Bay area farm family from a Milwaukee based publication that is not in the external links.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:16, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, the San Francisco article is acceptable because San Francisco is a major city in the U.S. and a symbol of the country to a good part of the rest of the world. Door County doesn't have any significance in broader U.S. history, nor does it have any of that symbolism that would make a majority of the world recognize it as an American hallmark whenever they hear of it. Therefore, there wouldn't be any worldwide investment in knowing what happens over there, regardless of whether it is a hard-hit part of the country or not.
Also, please note that WP:EVENTCRITERIA says this, "Editors should bear in mind recentism, the tendency for new and current matters to seem more important than they might seem in a few years time. Many events receive coverage in the news and yet are not of historic or lasting importance. News organizations have criteria for content, i.e. news values, that differ from the criteria used by Wikipedia and encyclopedias generally. A violent crime, accidental death, or other media events may be interesting enough to reporters and news editors to justify coverage, but this will not always translate into sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article."
So, what does Door County have that would cause many publications like The New York Times to revisit its situation days, weeks, months, and years down the line? People are always going to revisit San Francisco's situation because it's San Francisco. What does Door County have that would make me care if and when it keeps showing up in the news feeds? Love of Corey (talk) 01:27, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"what does Door County have...many publications"--a large number of out-of-state property owners from large metro areas.
"nor does it have any of that symbolism"--then what brings Japanese tourists to the county each year, and not just for cherry blooms? One of the wrote ja:ドア郡_(ウィスコンシン州). Or if it is not symbolic, then why were two farms in the county featured on postage stamps?
"majority of the world"--which hasn't heard of Columbus, Ohio either. A decent chunk of Eastern Europe (a generation ago, Western Europe) has an association with Door County due to the J-1 visa program, for example:[23]. A ship manufactured in Door County currently serves in the Mexican navy, and there is (or is planned), a public art display in a large Chinese city depicting Door County. Also, the southeastern part of the county part of an area that is is well known to Walloons in Belgium as the #2 largest Walloon speaking area in the US.[24] The inhabited island at the north of Door County is known to Icelanders as an Icelandic ethnic area.[25]
"any significance in broader U.S. history" The Cardy Site forced historians to re-write the pre-history of the central US. The Rock Island II Site is considered (by some relevant state employee quoted somewhere) as the most important archaeological site in the state. It was closed to visitors during the pandemic. Also, the Sturgeon Bay Ship Canal helped Green Bay grow into a major city. Also consider the wartime impact of the ship manufacturing industry and the county's association with a Wisconsin state political dynasty.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:58, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm still on the merge side, I do find it rather carious that this seems to have gotten a lot of out of state coverage for whatever reason. I still stick by the example of my county not deserving an article due to being in Bloomberg, but the coverage this has gotten seems to go beyond that. Although, I don't want to make of it. Nor for the life of me I can't figure out why. Even reading the articles it doesn't seem like there's anything particularly unique about COVID-19 in Door County and it is a rather insignificant place in grand scheme of things. Other places must be covering it for a reason though. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:44, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's the COVID-19 pandemic. Of course out-of-state publications are going to visit other areas every now and then. It's just like you said. I'm pretty sure the Bloomberg article is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to outside coverage of your home county. Given the scope of this pandemic and Wikipedia's extensive, ongoing coverage, however, I would expect more than a dozen or two dozen national and/or out-of-state publications to have an interest in a certain populated area before said area could even be considered for its own COVID-19 article. Love of Corey (talk) 23:07, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"a large number of out-of-state property owners from large metro areas." Yes, but that would be for the property rights story. Is there anything special about the COVID-19 outbreak that could be covered at extensive length in this article, so extensively that it cannot be fit into the Wisconsin article?
"then what brings Japanese tourists to the county each year, and not just for cherry blooms? One of the wrote ja:ドア郡_(ウィスコンシン州). Or if it is not symbolic, then why were two farms in the county featured on postage stamps?" Sources on this information?
"'majority of the world'--which hasn't heard of Columbus, Ohio either." The most populous city of Ohio, and the 14th-largest city of the U.S.? I doubt it.
"A decent chunk of Eastern Europe (a generation ago, Western Europe) has an association with Door County due to the J-1 visa program..." From what you're arguing in that entire paragraph, you're saying this topic's "notability" is also rooted in the county's history with certain populations from certain countries. So you'd argue there should be a COVID-19 article for Hamtramck, Michigan, for example, because of its high population of Yemeni and Bangladeshi immigrants? Even if it's dwarfed in size by its neighbor Detroit, which is more suited for an article of its own because of its high population, which guarantees widespread COVID-19 cases?
"The Cardy Site ... The Rock Island II Site ... Also, the Sturgeon Bay Ship Canal..." Do you really expect every American across the country to know all of that? If they're not teaching it in history books, then all of the information you just shared about Door County's history is not something that would be of great interest to the masses, only something a specialized historian or a private individual with a particular interest in Wisconsin history would know. In comparison to Door County, lots and lots of historic events have occurred in San Francisco, Boston, New York City, Columbus, Portland, and Philadelphia. There are simply too many count that these cities have their own articles on their histories (History of San Francisco, History of Boston, History of New York City, History of Columbus, History of Portland, History of Philadelphia). Door County doesn't have that kind of article.
Just because Door County is a resort area and a travel destination doesn't mean it deserves its own article. Other, more well-known resort areas and travel destinations in the U.S. don't have their own COVID-19 articles too, e.g. Las Vegas, Miami, Atlantic City, etc., etc., and I suspect it's for good reason. Love of Corey (talk) 23:07, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. It seems like your making a lot of hypothetical and what-aboutism type arguments. While not saying much about the guidelines. Which really doesn't bode well for your position. Not that Epiphyllumlover's argument is completely solid either, but it's at least less obtuse (angle wise, not meaning "insensitive or slow to understand." Like, people would have go around a sharp corner to get what your saying and agree with it). --Adamant1 (talk) 23:17, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've already said what needs to be said about the guidelines. They've never responded to that. Love of Corey (talk) 23:27, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I know. I more meant it for potential voters. To be rhetorically successful you always want to be partly aiming your comments at them and the closer, not completely the person your having the discussion with in the moment. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:07, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay. Love of Corey (talk) 09:15, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Las Vegas, Miami, and Atlantic City aren't as dependent on J-1 workers--which dropped to zero nationwide this year. The publicity staff in Door County has prided itself on getting media coverage for everything for two generations now. Ever since they made it into the March 1969 National Geographic they have been trying to repeat it with similar accomplishments. Even when there was a 1971 scandal about faulty septic systems that was reprinted in papers across the Midwest--one way to spin it was that the publicity was good advertising. The DMO has ways to get coverage. Maybe it is connections, maybe they help fund the reporting. That might get explain the New York Times article, but it won't buy your way into Hoard's Dairyman. That coverage was genuine--and is national since Hoard's is a national magazine.
As for what happened at the Rock Island II Site, that is taught in history books across the US in a generalized sense--they mention Jean Nicolet and other French explorers which stopped there. Your typical national map of the US used in schools shows the Door peninsula, and maybe even Washington Island. What was found at the Cardy Site was first dismissed as not possible, but is now mainstream pre-history. Paleo-Indians hunting near the retreating ice sheets is commonly taught in a general sense. Sturgeon Bay hosted the 2015 Bassmaster's Angler of the Year Championship tournament--it is one of the top national sportfishing locales.
The majority of the world has heard of New York City, Chicago, and Los Angeles. Majority is a very high bar and too high to be appropriate here. If Wayne County had a Covid article I would vote support for keeping it. Maybe it will someday. Covid could be around for a while. Statistics tend to be reported by counties.
"I would expect more than a dozen or two dozen national and/or out-of-state publications"--- The San Fran covid article does not even have that, much less the Columbus, Ohio covid article. Your bar is impractically high. Three national or out-of-state articles is enough to pass AfC, three should be enough here. Door County has five--Iron Mountain, New York Times, Chicago Tribute, WBEZ, and Hoard's Dairyman. Looking at the Columbus, Ohio article I see one reference to NBC news titled, "Unreleased White House report shows coronavirus rates spiking in heartland communities". Columbus is mentioned in a list in that reference. I did not find any other such articles, so by that standard it would not get out of AfC.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:15, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - For "COVID-19 pandemic in [place]" articles, as long as there is indeed sufficient coverage to sustain an article, and that information would be too much to include in its entirety in a parent article, and as long as they're being updated frequently enough so as not to become harmful in their inadequacy, I find myself thinking that we should let them be for now and revisit how to combine/condense/whatever when it isn't such an important subject for so many people. Yeah, I know that "is someone updating them" isn't typically a reason to keep (or to delete), but it's a matter of pragmatism. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:24, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The only updates thus far for this article, at least ever since I nominated the article for deletion, are only about the case numbers, not for anything in the actual body. For an article about a COVID-19 outbreak in a certain area, there's a virtual absence of more recent information, not to mention an absence of documenting how exactly COVID-19 is spreading through the area, e.g. a "Timeline" section, like all the other COVID-19 outbreak articles. If this is supposed to be about COVID-19 spread, this article seems to have a lot of WP:UNDUE focus on the property rights of out-of-state locals. Love of Corey (talk) 04:12, 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) 12:26, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Kelly (American businessman)[edit]

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

Subject of article is a businessman that lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of him hence doesn’t satisfy WP:GNG. A before search shows hits in mere announcements & turns up nothing to prove nor substantiate his notability. Furthermore WP:ANYBIO is also not satisfied. Celestina007 (talk) 22:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject of the article has been interviewed by multiple independent news organizations that meet the WP:GNG reliability standard. The subject being a founder and chair of a national sports league team is notable on its own accord. Rightooth (talk) 04:34, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of eight founders of a fourth-tier team? Hardly. Geschichte (talk) 12:26, 29 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) 22:21, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mass shootings in Israel[edit]

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

Unlike the Mass shootings in the United States article, the topic of mass shootings in Israel is not a particularly well-studied and well-sourced phenomenon, and that much shows in the content of this article. While two mass shootings in a country's recorded modern history would be considered particularly unique, they are not part of some broader, long-lasting trend or pattern of concern like it is in the U.S. Therefore, an article cannot reasonably be dedicated to this kind of topic. Love of Corey (talk) 22:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am also nominating the following related pages because they also deal with mass shootings in countries that don't have historic problems with such crimes and are therefore not well-developed in terms of topic and content:
Mass shootings in Belgium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mass shootings in Finland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mass shootings in Norway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mass shootings in Switzerland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mass shootings in Slovakia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Love of Corey (talk) 22:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:28, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any comment on the other articles that have been bundled together with this AfD? Love of Corey (talk) 05:12, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete them all. There is a common thread running through these articles that seeks to delineate how many mass shooting victims there are per 100,000 people, and to that I say Wikipedia is not a directory. There is no need for these articles when we have a Category:Mass shootings by country, where most on that list do not have or need a "main article" of dubious importance to go with them. Havradim (talk) 06:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thank you very much for your input. Love of Corey (talk) 06:13, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any comment on the other articles that have been bundled together with this AfD? Love of Corey (talk) 03:32, 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. T. Canens (talk) 22:21, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Godsil[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NGRIDIRON. He had a decent college career, and is currently signed to the Bengals but does not appear to have actually played in a game. Coverage does not rise above the routine. Previously approved out of the new pages queue by Lapablo, who has since been blocked for approving articles for pay. signed, Rosguill talk 21:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 21:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 21:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 21:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 21:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not appear to have attracted the requisite secondary coverage required for WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 22:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Subject has not been added to https://www.rotoworld.com/sports/nfl/football other sources are not independent, there are his colledge and team websites. Australianblackbelt (talk) 23:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. College long snappers rarely pass muster, and this one appears to be no exception. The sources cited in the article are not independent (published by IU or Cincinnati Bengals) and/or do not constitute significant coverage. My searches also failed to come up with significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Accordingly, fails WP:GNG. Also no accomplishments that would warrant a presumption of notability under WP:NGRIDIRON (no NFL regular season games played) or WP:NCOLLATH. Cbl62 (talk) 00:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NGRIDIRON, and WP:NCOLLATH, per all above. Ejgreen77 (talk) 07:48, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above Spiderone 15:14, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete deep respect from me for being a long snapper in college, but that position rarely generates anything close to passing WP:GNG and I'm not able to find any. Having not played professionally at this time, I do not see an avenue to notability. Perhaps an enthusiastic editor may try another wiki such as an online sports almanac.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per above, has not played in professional games, fails WP:GNG Alex-h (talk) 10:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:15, 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. T. Canens (talk) 22:22, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tanja Bruske[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG, coverage in reliable independent sources doesn't rise much above mere-mentions. Doesn't meet WP:NAUTHOR, none of her works appear to be notable by enWiki or deWiki standards. Originally accepted out of the new pages queue by Lapablo, who has since been blocked for accepting articles for pay.

Review of sources:

  1. [30] mere mention
  2. [31] not independent, Bruske is an editor at the GNZ
  3. [32] not reliable
  4. [33] review of a local theater production that Bruske wrote
  5. [34] appears to be the personal blog of a colleague
  6. [35] database entry, doesn't mention the subject

I was also able to find some more local coverage that doesn't say much about the subject. signed, Rosguill talk 21:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete Also I couldn't find much about Tanja Bruske. Tanja Bruskes mentions are mainly through the the books which are on sale on Amazon or elsewhere. Her main publisher Mainbook (a local publisher probably named thanks to a wordplay with the river Main in Germany), doesn't have a Wikipedia page either. The founder of the publishing house Gerd Fischer is also not really notable, the authors published by the publishing house neither.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:08, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 21:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 21:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:20, 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 - What an embarrassment of a nomination. IAR non-admin closure, take it to DRV if you'd like to overturn. Nominator hasn't even looked at the article, and has done zero research. Two time winner of Hong Kong Film Award for Best Action Choreography, high profile appearance in many films. That this was even nominated is a clear example of Wikipedia:Systemic bias. Do better. hahnchen 16:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yuen Biao[edit]

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

A passing mention in books do not establish notability Australianblackbelt (talk) 21:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Australianblackbelt (talk) 21:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Australianblackbelt (talk) 21:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Australianblackbelt (talk) 21:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Seriously wondering what you are talking about. Google Books search returns dozens of books where Yuen Biao is mentioned. And that's only for English language books. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 08:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. @Underwaterbuffalo: These books aren't about Biao they are passing mentions and don't establish notability. I know tons of martial artist who get mentioned in books but have no national news sources about them. Australianblackbelt (talk) 09:08, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: My initial comment was referring to your initial nomination sentence, which you have modified after I posted my comment. It read "A passing mention in one book does not establish notability." Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 09:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Are you suggesting that Yuen Biao is not notable or that the references given in the English language article are not sufficient to confirm his notability? Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 09:36, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply There are no news articles based on Biao to establish notability. Grandmaster Pan Nam was very famouse but because the are no news articles on him I can't write a wikipedia page about. him. Australianblackbelt (talk) 10:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't remember reading news articles about Charlemagne, but somehow his notability was established. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 11:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
well that’s fantastic now I can create a dozen articles for everyone I know if they don’t need news sources. Australianblackbelt (talk) 04:18, 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) 22:23, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Mysen[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Moderately successful, but not notable. Boleyn (talk) 20:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:17, 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 redirect to Fathom (comics). T. Canens (talk) 22:23, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aspen Matthews[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTPLOT. Third party coverage is limited to trivial mentions, nothing substantial about the character. TTN (talk) 20:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:39, 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. T. Canens (talk) 22:24, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lok Yiu[edit]

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

A passing mention in a book is not enough to establish notability Australianblackbelt (talk) 20:28, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Australianblackbelt (talk) 21:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note it is not sure it is a "passing mention". SportsOlympic (talk) 22:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete does not appear to have attracted the requisite secondary coverage required for WP:GNG. Jamesniederle (talk) 12:05, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only mentions I can find of him are as one of Ip Man's early students. That's the passing mention in the history of Wing Chun book. The article's other source is a mention of his death in the "Wing Chun Teahouse", self described as "a community-contributed online magazine of wing chun" (which would seem to indicate it can't be considered an independent reliable source). Even that obituary says his notability is because he was an early student of Ip Man, but WP:NOTINHERITED applies. The other mentions my search found all seem to be from schools claiming lineage from him, which means none of them can be considered independent. I understand that his time and location don't lend themselves to an English internet search, but that's all I can do. Papaursa (talk) 01:24, 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 article creator had a fair chance to persuade with an admittedly detailed argument, but the arguments were not convincing for the other participants of the discussion. Geschichte (talk) 12:31, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Mohammed Noorani Ashraf[edit]

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

non-notable scholar, no independent coverage, mostly just press releases and op eds. Praxidicae (talk) 20:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This page should not be speedily deleted because, it is providing information about an important personality about whom people (particularly of the Indian subcontinent) are eager to know. The references in this article itself are enough to keep this article about an Islamic Keynote Speaker and religious leader. Major Indian Newspaper Star of Mysore, Dainik Bhaskar, *Dainik Jagran, Amar Ujala have done several articles meeting wP:SIGCOV on the subject. Here I am mentioning few major points-

  • Newspaper Star of Mysore and City Today (Newspaper), says that he is a “Islamic Cleric and Scholar from Kachucha Shariff in Uttar Pradesh, will deliver lecture on the life of Prophet Mohammed.”[36][37].
  • Dainik Bhaskar says, “Islamic scholar Tajul Ulma Syed Muhammad Nooran Mian Ashrafi, on Tuesday, the third day of the 152nd annual Urs in the historic Dargah of Hazrat Khwaja Haji Muhammad Najmuddin in the town, in his statement, highlighted the contribution of the saints of the Chishti sect of Sufism to Indian culture and society. Stating that Sufi saints have an indelible mark on Indian society and culture.”[38]
    • “The keynote speakers at the event will be Syed Mohammad Noorani Mian Kichhaucha Sharif and Mohammad Hashmi Noori Nainital UP.”[39].
  • Dainik Jagran says “Along with this, flowers were showered with slogans on the arrival of Alhaj Mufti Qari Sayyid Muhammad Noorani Mian Ashrafi Jilani, son of the famous Maulana Shahshah Khitawat Sayyid Muhammad Hashmi Mian of Kichouchha Sharif”. [40],
    • “Syed Noorani Mian Ashrafi of Kichouchha Sharif, the distinguished guest at the conference held at the Chand Mosque in Utraula, exhorted people to take precautions to protect against Corona”.[41],
    • “Syed Muhammad Noorani Mian, who came from Kichhaucha Sharif, said that according to the prophet, every human being should learn Ilm.”[42].
  • Udaipur times says, “Mass gathering to hear keynote speaker Noorani Mian”[43].
  • Sanskar News says, “International Islamic scholar Pir Syed Noorani Mian will delive takrir as the chief guest.” [44].
  • Janta ki awaz says that , “The Bare Foundation of Darul Uloom Ashrafiya Khwaja Garib Nawaz Academy was held in the presence of thousands of people by Hazrat Maulana Syed Noorani Ashraf Kichhachhavi in Salehpur”.[45].*Sanskar News says, “International Islamic scholar Pir Syed Noorani Mian will delive takrir as the chief guest.” [46].
  • Janta ki awaz says that , “The Bare Foundation of Darul Uloom Ashrafiya Khwaja Garib Nawaz Academy was held in the presence of thousands of people by Hazrat Maulana Syed Noorani Ashraf Kichhachhavi in Salehpur”.[47]. The newspapers are reputed national dailies with considerable reach in multiple states. You can click on newspapers wikilink to read their Wiki article, these all are the evidence that the subject is easily passing wP:GNG, further it may be very helpful for researchers in the field of mysticism, so this page should not be speedily deleted. Indimpdd (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've demonstrated exactly why he isn't notable - all of the sources are press releases or run of the mill announcements, which don't cover him in any depth (or op-eds, so irrelevant also.) Praxidicae (talk) 11:24, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have highlighted just few points from the references, as there are so many sources in hindi language newspaper, if you will try to translate and study the sources then I am sure you will get more information about the person and I am still working on the article to make it good. Indimpdd (talk) 14:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nobody is suggesting speedy deletion, because there is an allegation of notability. That being said, there is a decided lack of signifiant coverage. The coverage seems mostly to be of the "he is giving a speech" or "gave a speech" variety. Bearian (talk) 17:36, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of notability. It is claimed that he is a descendant of a Sufi saint, but even if proved WP:Not inherited. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:26, 24 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment He follows the sunnah (way of life) of Prophet Muhammad(Peace be upon him) strictly. He teaches and explains Muslims about Islam and Prophet Muhammad (Pbuh). He is spiritually connected, and might know many secrets that we don't. That's why a lot of Muslims follow him and learn from him. These Sufi Islamic Scholars are rare. He does programmes worldwide and spreads info about Islam. He has thousands of followers and Murid across the world. And he is a important figure to all those followers as well other Muslims, but he is the key figure in India. He is also an author and descendant of Prophet Muhammad (Pbuh).Indimpdd (talk) 11:18, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Indimpdd, None of these points are valid rationales to keep an article on the Wikipedia. Have a look at the answer to life, the universe, and everything. ─ The Aafī (talk) 20:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:SIGCOV, Few good sources in the article are routine. ─ The Aafī (talk) 20:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the coverage is routine and not significant Spiderone 22:32, 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 11:36, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leung Sheung[edit]

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

A passing mention in 2 books does not establish notability Australianblackbelt (talk) 20:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note it is not sure it are "passing mentions". SportsOlympic (talk) 22:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you don’t know what’s your point? I know those books and anyone who has studied wing chun knows those books are not about Leung Sheung Australianblackbelt (talk) 11:30, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not appear to have attracted the requisite secondary coverage required for WP:GNG. Jamesniederle (talk) 12:05, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It seems to be widely agreed upon that he was Ip Man's first student, but that seems to be a case of WP:NOTINHERITED. The most significant thing he appears to have accomplished for spreading Wing Chun was to have used his position in the restaurant worker's union to sponsor Ip Man's earliest classes. It seems that his position as Ip Man's first student should lead to more significant coverage, but I couldn't find it in independent sources. It seems like there should be more, so if someone finds some please ping me. Papaursa (talk) 00:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A news article discussing Leung Sheung is preserved in image format here: A Scandal of the Yung-Ch'un School I must admit, my own biases can't be removed from this discussion as a member of the Leung Sheung lineage, but the above article should meet the criteria for secondary verification of status. Additional sources include the Wing Chun Sifu Database and Leung Sheung: Too Important to Overlook in Wing Chun Illustrated. I also would like to submit that, while admitting my own bias, the recent rash of deletions and edits on Yip Man Wing Chun related pages may also be biased in nature, and would request this be further looked at before processing additional deletions. I'm still very new to editing Wikipedia, so my apologies if I've rambled on too long while attempting to provide sources and a refutation for this deletion. 樂牧師 (talk) 04:21, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ewingchun is not a reliable source anyone can write on it. Australianblackbelt (talk) 07:47, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And Wing chun illustrated will write about anyone who teaches wing chun. Australianblackbelt (talk) 08:51, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a blog post by "Wooden Dummy" on the "My Way of Wing Chun" website will "meet the criteria for secondary verification of status". A brief bio page on another website that anyone can post to also does meet the standard of an independent and reliable source. I don't know about the reliability or independence of "Wing Chun Illustrated", but an article in it by someone in Leung Sheung's lineage is not sufficient to show that WP:GNG is met (and also may not be considered independent). Papaursa (talk) 12:03, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't expect a blog post to be a verifiable source, however the page does preserve images from a genuine article from 1977. "Secrets of Kung-Fu vol. 1 no. 10, pp. 24-27 (Oct 1977)" I also do realize my own implicit bias, as previously stated, and as such, do not expect my own claims to be taken as "proof" in any way. Just trying to provide what sources I can that are available in English. 樂牧師 (talk) 06:19, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Papaursa: Just to clarity are you saying ewingchun.com which anyone can write on is a an independent and reliable source? Australianblackbelt (talk) 05:32, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@彩虹牧師: the recent deletions and editing to Ip Man students was not bias they where made because of lack of reliable sources, every person that has had their photo taken with Ip Man has claimed to be a Grandmaster of wing chun hence it is a case of WP:NOTINHERITED If the sources are there the content stays. Australianblackbelt (talk) 06:08, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm aware there's a lot of fakery in the Wing Chun world, sadly. However, Leung Sheung is well known to have been the first disciple of Yip Man, and was encouraged to teach by him. The big issue is that Leung Sheung never really sought publicity; he was an immensely humble and quiet man (and I believe he would even dispute being called a "Grandmaster", simply because that kind of talk didn't suit him, from the firsthand accounts I've heard). I'd also like to clarify that I am not accusing you personally of bias, but rather was noting quite a few edits by numerous people that seemed to lean towards personal bias rather than a genuine interest in improving Wikipedia. I myself do my best to refrain from editing when I could be considered to have a personal tie toward any of the subject matter, which is one reason I've refrained from cleaning up this article myself. 樂牧師 (talk) 06:19, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@彩虹牧師: Jim Fung is one of those fakes but since he has been published in national news sources in Australia his article stands. In order to establish notability which is another word for famous, the subject needs to have enough credible third party sources, national and international news coverage is the main way to verify notability. Martial arts magazines alone do not establish notability but they can serve to complete the content of an article. William Cheung is far less legitimate than Leung Sheung but he has attracted the most international media coverage than even Ip Chun himself, at one stage he was more famous than Ip Man because he claimed to have taught Bruce Lee to fight and the world's media believed him. The ones that are to blame for Leung Sheung not having enough news coverage are his students because it should not be up to the Grandmaster to seek out his own publicity. What you can do is on every birthday of Leung Sheung is to create a celebratory event in his name and invite national media outlets like China Morning Post, if you do that every year I guarantee in three years maybe even two there will be enough to establish notability for wikipedia. If you invite a celebrity or a well known state political figure this will surely attract free publicity. Good luck. Australianblackbelt (talk) 08:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:36, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chu Shong-tin[edit]

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

Article only one credible source Australianblackbelt (talk) 19:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable enough for an article. SportsOlympic (talk) 22:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

reply. @SportsOlympic: you are an editor that believes that a local news source is enough to establish notability hence anyone can get a Wikipedia article according to you. Australianblackbelt (talk) 05:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not appear to have attracted the requisite secondary coverage required for WP:GNG. Jamesniederle (talk) 12:05, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My search did not find multiple examples of significant independent coverage of him. I found several articles by his students about training with him, various videos of him demonstrating techniques, and ads for his dvds--but none of that counts as independent coverage. The short South China Post article about him recovering from cancer is the closest thing I saw and that's weak coverage as it's based on talking to Chu, his son, and a student. If someone finds more significant coverage please ping me. Papaursa (talk) 01:00, 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. T. Canens (talk) 22:24, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Khushi Ravi (actress)[edit]

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

This actress has starred in two films. In the first one, she does not play a major role because the reviews do not mention her name ([48], [49]. This is a case of WP:Too soon. The article should redirect to Dia (film). TamilMirchi (talk) 19:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 19:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 19:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In her first movie she was credited as Sushmita. The name is mentioned in the source. After Dia (film), she became talk of the town, got lots of media coverage and one of the most searched actresses in Kannada. That is why, I spent my time in writing this article. Never mind if you delete it now! Happy deleting 😀

User:NinadMysuru 9:03, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete if someone does not get mentioned in reviews they do not have a significant role. We need to start actually applying our guidelines for inclusion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnpacklambert: kindly see here [50][51] she was credited as Sushmita in her debut movie playing a lead role. User:NinadMysuru (User talk:NinadMysuru) 23:10, 25 October (UTC)
  • Delete I do not see anything in the article that would let it meet the WP:NACTOR criteria. ─ The Aafī (talk) 20:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR nor does it meet WP:GNG. Three of the five films in filmography are to be released. Also, there are lines promoting the subject like "She was one of the most searched film stars in internet of the year 2020" which don't help in anyway to make her notable.--Camella Gandhi (talk) 21:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails NACTOR/GNG Spiderone 18:47, 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Chung[edit]

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

The only source INSIDE KUNG FU is not enough to establish notability Australianblackbelt (talk) 17:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you find any other reliable sources in your WP:BEFORE ? imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Reply All I could find were mentions in martial arts club websites. Australianblackbelt (talk) 21:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not appear to have attracted the requisite secondary coverage required for WP:GNG. Jamesniederle (talk) 12:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete None of the article's sources can be considered significant independent coverage. He co-authored the article in "Inside Kung-Fu", the second source is from a martial arts school, and the third is a local PR release. My search found a number of people named Kenneth Chung, but I didn't see significant independent coverage for the martial artist. Martial arts halls of fame do not indicate notability, nor does rank or lineage (WP:NOTINHERITED). I'm not seeing anything that shows WP notability. Papaursa (talk) 00:37, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:37, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Chong[edit]

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

the only source is a club website Australianblackbelt (talk) 17:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article lacks reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, person exists but does not seem to meet WP:GNG. Article as it is relies on a single source of questionable reliability (appears to originate from some magazine). ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 08:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not appear to have attracted the requisite secondary coverage required for WP:GNG. Jamesniederle (talk) 12:05, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. The article's only source is a compilation of information reportedly told to Chang and that he passed on. He doesn't appear to meet any notability criteria at WP:MANOTE, so there's nothing that shows WP notability. Papaursa (talk) 00:46, 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 Fishrot Files. T. Canens (talk) 22:25, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jóhannes Stefánsson[edit]

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

Case of WP:BIO1E. No notability outside of the scandal. Should be a redirect to that page. Onel5969 TT me 17:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:21, 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 has tended towards the agreement that Simpson meets the notability guidelines for rugby league, and possibly also the general guidelines. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alwyn Simpson[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY (sorry, meant WP:RLN), entirely reliant on a single source, searches turn up next to nothing. ToThAc (talk) 15:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ToThAc (talk) 15:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ToThAc (talk) 15:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ToThAc (talk) 15:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the newly(?) developed consensus that 1 game doesn't cut it when other coverage is absent. Geschichte (talk) 19:01, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Limited appearances at the top level and no significant coverage. I’m not that knowledgeable about rugby league but I’d consider rolling in the following articles of similarly inadequately covered former players who haven’t received coverage beyond databases or mentions in articles about a single game:
  • Comment. Funnily, they were all created by Mulman82. I think new page patrollers could use more power in requesting speedy deletion per WP:SNOW, especially for BIO articles with such little details as all of these in question. Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 21:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete one game with no identified coverage does not cut it at all. The fact that we have acted like it did is just ludicrous.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:NFOOTY is the wrong criteria for rugby players and shows a lack of WP:BEFORE from the nominator. However, the votes from Geschichte and Ytoyoda are well reasoned (though I'm not going to express an opinion on whether I agree with them without doing my own research) so I would be opposed to a procedural close due to that alone. Smartyllama (talk) 20:47, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per the longstanding consensus that one game is enough to cut it. [52] duffbeerforme (talk) 04:09, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I want to note the language at Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby league/Notability, which reads: Any current or former rugby league player who has played none or limited first grade rugby league should not be eligible for an article unless it meets the general notability guideline including reliable secondary sources. However, normally these players only have information listed on their club's official website, which is a violation of Independent of the subject in the general notability guideline. There are a couple of "where are they now?" article and mentioned of his debut, but I don't think there's enough for WP:GNG. Ytoyoda (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is no such "longstanding consensus". Most subject-specific guidelines are related to presumption of notability, not a guarantee thereof. In the end WP:GNG and WP:BIO take precedence. Best, Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 21:37, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin - the IP above has not made many edits outside this topic Spiderone 15:02, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any chance on keep voters expanding the article, if they say it passes RLN?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 07:50, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The person only played in a single game and the article doesn't pass WP:GNG. So, this seems like a clear delete case to me. Personally, I'm glad things are moving away from articles about athletes like this one being notable. There's zero reason they have a special pass when it comes to the notability guidelines. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expanding on my Keep. Coverage dedicated to Simpson exists. Such as Simpson in dream return to big time in the Courier Mail, 3 July 2009. ([53] pressreader has change their readability). and LOOK WHO WE FOUND! ALWYN SIMPSON by RUSSO, STEVEN in Rugby League Week;9/10/2015, p39 [54]. and "Alwyn who? Bennett calls up park winger" by JAMES PHELPS in Sunday Telegraph, The (Sydney), 09/09/2007. and Rookie earns shock call-up by Steve Ricketts in Courier Mail, The (Brisbane), 08/09/2007. and D'OH! SIMPSON'S DEBUT A DAY TO FORGET by Middleton, David in Rugby League Week, 19/09/2007, p24 (short article). Further coverage will exist in year books and records and the such. Simpson satisfies GNG as well as the RLN.
In addition to that none of those calling for the deletion of this verified content has given a good reason why it should be Deleted when alternatives exist such as redirecting to List of Brisbane Broncos players. That does not require deletion, provides a usefull redirect and preserves valid content for when someone is able to do a dead tree source and expand the content. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's questionable that List of Brisbane Broncos players should even exist in the first place. Let alone be dumbing ground for every random athlete that has played for them no matter how minor. Really there should just be a short list of the top, notable players in Brisbane Broncos. Unfortunately, that articles a mess though. Although, it does have a list of players anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:20, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The list of sources might seem impressive, except 3 of them are about the one match he played in September 2007, another is about a comeback that didn't quite happen, and the third is a "Where are they now?" article, where the subtext is that he's not really that well covered (people who receive consistent coverage generally don't get the "Where are they now?" treatment). That doesn't seem enough coverage to create a useful, more-than-just-a-stub article. Ytoyoda (talk) 16:19, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamant1:, that's just a IDON'TLIKEIT argument. The article exists and is a valid page to redirect this one to. Deus et lex (talk) 10:16, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Deus et lex: Not really. It's work/tedious to redirect an article to another one that is unreferenced/will likely just be deleted. Especially if the thing your redirected isn't discussed to any length or referenced in the redirect target. Also, "Redirects are used to help people arrive more quickly at the page they want to read" and I just don't think someone going to List of Brisbane Broncos players is going there for specific information on a player. That's not the point in lists anyway. The main point in them is as a broad over view and navigational aid. BTW, generally citing IDON'TLIKEIT is a pretty weak argument. It's also needlessly personalizing this when it shouldn't be a personal. Especially in this case. I'll use it when someone specifically says they want to the article to be kept because they like it or something along those lines, but that's about it and it's not how I approached it. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:07, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Edits since nomination demonstrate Simpson meets GNG, as well as the subject specific notability guideline. Jevansen (talk) 03:47, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relisting to allow discussion of the sources provided here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 17:06, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Redirect - I'm satisfied that there are sufficient sources to meet WP:GNG; if the consensus by the closing moderator does not support keeping, then a valid redirect page exists at List of Brisbane Broncos players and no argument has been cited to suggest that would be inappropriate. Deus et lex (talk) 10:16, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He debuted in a final and while he'll be a permastub, I think there's been just enough written on him to have a valid article based on sources like [55] [56] along with the references in the article, along with other mentions like [57], a match report that doesn't count towards notability but can be used to flesh out the article. (This is an image of him playing in his match.) SportingFlyer T·C 20:11, 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. Ultimately, the sources provided don't convince most people here: the "delete" side explains why they consider them insufficient, to which the "keep" side makes no substantial replies. Sandstein 15:47, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Man-At-Arms[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded by a WP:SPA vandal ([58]) who IMHO should be blocked per WP:NOTHERE and PROD declined even through prods removed through obvious vandalism should not be consider invalid. But whatever, let's discuss it here, maybe someone can actually rescue this? Or at the very least I guess some redirect may be stamped on this. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Toys-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 14:18, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is a major problem with this article. The article is one of the main characters in Masters of the Universe, however as per the actual Masters of the Universe page it needs major improvement. Is there enough evidence our there for a separate page? WP:Before is an issue as the original is pre-internet.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 10:04, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't understand the accusations of vandalism against User:IQNQ. He's a new editor with less than 20 registered edits. It's not unreasonable to believe these were done in good faith, as he clearly indicates he believes their notability is obvious. Calls for a block are inappropriate based on this activity. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The user might be brand-new and inexperienced, but these were what we usually define as vandalism. Laughable! This is an important article![59] Laughable! This is an important article![60] Laughable! This is an important article![61] Laughable! This is an important article! [62] Laughable! This is an important article![63] Laughable! This is an important article![64] etc, etc...GizzyCatBella🍁 05:33, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aye. This is not vandalism? Laughable... :P --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:36, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Argento Surfer, the spiteful comments by GizzyCatBella and Piotrus against me are very hurtful. If anyone is a vandal, it is those who seek to expunge profound knowledge of great notability from an encyclopedia. IQNQ (talk) 08:12, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you guys think calling a PROD "laughable" is vandalism, you need to get out more. There's been enough pushback against some of your nominations that it shouldn't surprise you when another editor joins in to say that you've tagged a subject they believe to be obviously notable. Though IQNQ's over the top description of this as "profound knowledge of great notability" does make me think twice... Argento Surfer (talk) 13:15, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this "new user" is likely yet another sockpuppet of User:A Nobody. It fits their usual MO of claiming everything is "important" and repeated keep !votes with very poor rationales. TTN (talk) 13:23, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ping User:Sandstein regarding the above, I am not familiar with this but perhaps you are or know who is, in lieu of going for a full SPI? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus, no idea. Sandstein 06:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
TTN, will you file a WP:SPI? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say only if they come back or continue to edit elsewhere. If they don't return to defend themselves, then that is more than enough to confirm I'm correct. TTN (talk) 18:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
TTN I will start one, given that the user is spamming votes that can can confuse an AGF closer who may not be aware of the pattern. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:53, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters. He's notable to the fiction, but I'm skeptical about enough direct coverage being found to show independent notability. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I endorse the renamed before redirect described by Zxcvbnm below. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:12, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a laughable nomination. Man-At-Arms is a superhero that is central to the Masters of the Universe, one of the largest franchises. He is covered at length in this article by Ricardo C. Ainslie, Ph.D. and this book by Brian C. Baer. IQNQ (talk) 08:10, 8 October 2020 (UTC) (Indefinitely blocked user)[reply]
    • The coverage by in Ainslie is a pure plot summary: "Man-at-Arms, the father of Teela (a constant female companion of He-Man), creates a robot... “I’ve given him the power to be invincible,” states Man-at-Arms... Man-at-Arms reassures him, showing He-Man a... As Man-at-Arms is being thrown about, on the verge of annihilation, he cries... He-Man and Man-at-Arms manage to put Roboto’s heart back..." And he doesn't even get a dedicated plot summary, just mentions in passing here and there. The book is little better, through it does have a few sentences about his design, but I don't see anything that goes beyond description and is in-depth analytical, through you are welcome to quote content you think is worth discussing. In particular, it would be nice if you could cite a reliable source for the claim that " Man-At-Arms is a superhero that is central to the Masters of the Universe". Who said this? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:20, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - Topic lacks coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 13:15, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Man-At-Arms (Masters of the Universe) and Redirect Does not seem to pass WP:GNG. The current title should be redirected to Man-at-arms. "Duh! He's one of the main characters of X!" may work for Wikia, but not Wikipedia.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it seems to pass WP:GNG. Deleting things people don't like may work for The Islamic State or ANTIFA, but not Wikipedia. --Moscowdreams (talk) 15:58, 11 October 2020 (UTC) (Indefinitely blocked sockpuppet)[reply]
  • Keep: I added real-world information about the inspiration, design and development of the character using three books: How He-Man Mastered the Universe: Toy to Television to the Big Screen by Brian C. Baer (McFarland, 2017), Creating the Filmation Generation by Lou Scheimer (TwoMorrows, 2012) and The Art of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe by Steve and Tim Seeley (Dark Horse, 2015). I believe that this demonstrates notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 17:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - In light of the extended source coverage provided. At the very least, there is more than enough here to make the content mergeworthy. Darkknight2149 19:06, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per @Toughpigs: or rename per @Zxcvbnm:. --Rtkat3 (talk) 23:15, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep or merge with praise to the short "development" section in the lead, giving some out-of-universe context, albeit short and arguably still a WP:TRIVIALMENTION. For a stronger keep I'd like to see something that describes the character's reception and legacy, for WP:NRVE. But there is verifiable WP:NOT#PLOT information about development here that is worth preserving, whether at this article or at a suitable merge target. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:52, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all the coverage in the sources seems to be name drops, brief mentions, or otherwise don't support notability. For example, the first source doesn't even discuss him. The second is a name drop and doesn't discuss him. The sixth doesn't discuss him either. The seventh just says he "helped He-Man in his battle against the evil forces of Skeletor." The 8th is another name drop. So is the 9th (in a picture caption none the less, not even the context of the article). The 10th source is a dead link. All those sources are a text book example of sources that fail WP:GNG. It's pretty clear whoever posted them didn't bother to actually check any of them. Likely they just posted links to whatever came up in a Google without putting anymore thought into it. Clearly, the other keep voters didn't actually review them before voting keep either. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "all the coverage", you didn't address the three sources that I added, which are #3, 4 and 5. I didn't take out any of the weak sources; I just added three stronger ones, which demonstrate notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 12:41, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because I don't have access to them. Although, I doubt any of them have in-depth coverage of this character. Especially considering nowhere on the net seems to, or really any. Plus, from my experience your usually pretty lose about what you consider in-depth. If you have access to the books you could post the in-depth paragraphs though, or, I guess we are just suppose to take your word for it that they are adequate. It's fine if others want to, but I rather not. Especially considering your "good quality" comment about the sourcing in University of Boumerdès. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:50, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Did you try Google Books? Here's one of them. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:11, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While this is a step in the good direction, do those sources contain any in-depth discussion of the subject? Few sentences is rather in passing, and GNG requires in-depth coverage. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:11, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tell us why are they good sources? Setting aside that they have been found by a sock, I have alraedy discussed above why they are insufficient - they contain only briefd passing plot summaries, no analysis of the character. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:11, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
unrelated discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The first source doesn't have anything about the character in it. Not even a name drop. I'd love to know how that's a "good source." I'm sure none of your other sources discuss Man-At-Arms either. The article isn't about He-Man Mastered the Universe. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The first source doesn't have anything about the character in it. Uh? A search for "arms" turns up several mentions in the first source, and the second occurrence is real world context about the character's design. Between this and my response to you directly above, you're incorrectly assuming a lot of bad faith here. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My bad. I was reading an article with the same title that I thought was the source Right cite was talking about. So, it seems like your the one not assuming good faith. Anyway, I've been involved in a few AfDs with the user and it's just a fact that they aren't that concerned about notability guidelines or in-depth coverage. Right cite has said as much. I see nothing wrong with pointing it out when the person themselves doesn't deny it Etc. Etc. Personally, I'm pretty open about not being a big fan of the notability guidelines for athletes and I have zero problem with other people saying so, because it's just a fact that I'm into them. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, it seems like your the one not assuming good faith. Pfft. How so? The only assumption I made was that you actually reviewed the correct source before disparaging it. WP:CIR. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was mostly the whole "Uh?" thing. Which came off as needlessly sarcastic. I'm not sure what competence has to do with this. Everyone makes mistakes once in a while and my comment about Right cite had nothing to do with their competence level or lack there of. I assume it's a personal choice on Right cite's part to not care so much about the guidelines. People who think everything should be included in Wikipedia tend not to. Really, it's their prerogative. Your instigation of this discussion has made the whole way more of a thing then it is or that I care about. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:05, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your instigation of this discussion I didn't instigate anything. This is not my nom, this is not my !vote, and I was not the first to respond to this !vote. I responded to your incorrect evaluation of the source (which is why I mentioned CIR, which was directed at you). That incorrect evaluation leads directly to your comment that I'm sure none of your other sources discuss Man-At-Arms either. Since your initial point was incorrect, perhaps you should reconsider the conclusions you drew from it. While you're at it, perhaps you should stop assuming sources you can't (or won't bother to) access are invalid. You've done that to two editors in this discussion. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:38, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your the one that messaged me about my evaluation. I didn't message you. So, you instigated the current discussion we are having about things. The person who "instigates" things is the "instigator." That's just a fact and it's pointless to argue about it. Obviously I wasn't saying your the one that started the AfD. Anyway, I was inccorect about that source. I can't really say if I'm wrong about the other ones though. Since I don't have access to them. Plus, I based my opinion that they probably aren't in-depth on a large amount of personal experience dealing with both of them. If 99% of the time someone doesn't cite reliable in-depth sources, there's a good chance the sources they posted in this AfD aren't going to be either. Both of them are rank and file inclusionists and both are rather lose with the guidelines, because their main concern is keeping articles. Neither denies it either. I'm not attacking them or anything by saying so. The reality is it's much harder to keep articles if your a guideline hardliner. Again, that's just a fact. So, I'm not reconsidering anything. Last I checked, we can have opinions about things anyway. Plenty of people on here, including the two people your taking with issue with me commenting about, have way more bat crazy opinions then mine. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
we can have opinions about things anyway. Criticizing a source without knowledge of it isn't an opinion. It's a prejudice. I'm not attacking ... anything You're voting delete and challenging keeps based on the person providing the source, not the source itself. I'm not reconsidering anything. Not even striking your incorrect claim above? Or evaluating the source from Tough Pigs that I linked for you? Astounding. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:19, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Look, people say things. Get over it. That's what everyone tells me to do when I have a problem with the critical things people on here, including ToughPigs, say about me. So, just deal with it and move on. If I have to, you should. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Piotrus. The sources don't satisfy the WP:GNG. A closer look shows that they barely mention the character and some coverage being touted doesn't mention the character at all. There's a chance that the passing mentions still provide something worth discussing as part of another notable article. This isn't notable by itself and should be deleted or merged. Jontesta (talk) 15:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow discussion of the sources presented in this AfD, which is what the outcome hinges on.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 17:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge striking my keep !vote above. I wrote above that there were a few trivial mentions to barely meet the WP:GNG. But a closer inspection of the sources shows that some of the sources don't mention the subject at all. I remain of the belief that a merge would be an acceptable compromise, as what little sourceable material would be better as part of a proper article instead of a stub (plus unsourced garbage). But I'm watching the discussion shift, and I'd support deletion if it helps form a consensus. Shooterwalker (talk) 05:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I took out the weak sources; all of those facts are covered by the Scheimer, Baer and Seeley books that I added. Why are these three sources insufficient? — Toughpigs (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ping Shooterwalker. I think the problem is the depth of the coverage. The fact that he was designed as a 'father figure' is interesting and a good start, but if all we have are 2-3 sentences in sources, and the rest is plot summary, he fails the requirement for in-depth coverage. At best, I'd suggest merging the tiny reception-like paragraph (that you added to lead) into some other relevant article, maybe about the main franchise, or the list of characters that mentions him. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:32, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The coverage here really is one or two sentences at a time, which is the definition of WP:TRIVIALMENTION mentioned in the WP:GNG. It's close enough to the borderline that I think a merge is actually the better call, but this article is likely to never have the depth of coverage you'd need for a stand-alone article. My revised comment is driven by my distaste for no consensus discussions which allow disagreements to fester, and my preference to cover primary material as a brief section in uncontroversially notable articles with lots of quality sources. Deletion looks more likely than keep based on my read of the current discussion and the lack of sources, but merge really would be a good compromise if we could pull people together. I hope that explains my revised comment. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:04, 29 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bakers, Kentucky[edit]

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

Not mentioned in Rennick's Caldwell County directory, but his index refers to this place as a locale (geography), the definition of which is a place without permanent human population. Thus, it fails WP:GEOLAND, as it couldn't have been a legally recognized populated place, if it was a locale, as populated places and locales are exclusive definitions under the USGS standards. Topographic maps show one to three buildings at a point on the Illinois Central railroad. Listed as a station on the Illinois Central. Geographical context suggests it is the station briefly mentioned here. Appears to be unrelated to a Baker's Station that was a British outpost in the late 1700s, which appears to have been further east in the state. This is the correct place, based on the closeness to Crider. The sum of the evidence suggests a railroad station with no accompanying community. WP:STATION is just an essay, so I won't quote it as a rationale for deletion, but it is relevant. So GEOLAND is failed, and I can't find any coverage that would qualify to push it past WP:GNG. Hog Farm Bacon 16:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 16:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 16:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete A 1930s topo shows a very short siding and probable station building; more recent maps and aerials show this vanishing, leaving nothing besides the adjoining farmstead. Interestingly the maps and aerials both show the appearance in the 1950s of an extensive quarrying operation to the southeast of the old station, which appears to provide the sole raison d'etre for continuing rail service, but the "Freedonia Valley Quarry" (for so it is labelled) fails to acknowledge its proximity to the former station. In any case there's no evidence of a town in any era. Mangoe (talk) 20:32, 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. Rlendog (talk) 20:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Loubardias[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a single-market local radio broadcaster, referenced entirely to primary sources (an alumni graphic on the self-published website of his own alma mater and a staff profile on the self-published website of his own employer) rather than any evidence of reliable source coverage about him and his work. As always, local radio personalities are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- to be notable enough for an article, he would either have to have a stronger notability claim than just existing, or much stronger coverage about him in third-party reliable sources than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:00, 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. Disregarding input by CanadianBBQ who has been blocked for UPE. Sandstein 11:38, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Eric[edit]

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

Insufficiently notable performer allegedly "best known for his recurring role as Scotty in the HBO Max series Search Party", a part so insignificant that it is not even mentioned in the Search Party (TV series) article. Also, IMDB does not list it as recurring so even this could be an exaggeration. He has won a high school theatre award, met some famous people and worked in some famous places. That's not enough. Notability is not inherited. This seems to be promotional. DanielRigal (talk) 16:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 16:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 16:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of notability whatsoever, seems to have had a few minor uncredited roles. No coverage in reliable sources, so fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. 192.76.8.82 (talk) 17:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As a direct response to the above comment:
A primary, very reasonable justification for this article stems in large part from the verified, credited, notable, and widely-viewed recurring role in Search Party (HBO Max). The suggestion that the actor only has several “uncredited” roles is incorrect, as the Search Party appearance is credited on IMDb.
The article in its current form contains several reliable sources, including the New York Daily News, MSN (aggregated), and others. Regarding the New York Daily News, I certainly wouldn’t call a renowned paper founded in 1919, and with a daily distribution of 200,000+ physical newspapers, "not reliable.” The actor also has 10+ Brazil-based publications because of the actor’s following in the country. However, these articles are all in Portuguese and are thus irrelevant for the purposes of this article.
To speak directly to WP:NACTOR, this article actually adheres perfectly to point number two in these guidelines, which reads, “Has a large fan base or a significant ‘cult’ following.” After the actor’s appearance in Search Party, which aired in June 2020, he has amassed 32,000+ Instagram followers, and has become verified on Facebook and TikTok. If these massive tech companies were able to identify this actor’s public figure status and subsequently verify the individual based on his large following — indicating on their platforms that they have deemed this individual to be noteworthy and deserving of verification — then surely Wikipedia can uphold this article. I do not see how this is a stretch in the slightest, and I am genuinely surprised by the opposition here. Regarding WP:NACTOR, this article passes with flying colors. --Derekbeagle (talk) 01:01, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The role they have called into question is a two-episode recurring role in a major television series on HBO Max. The credited episode is the episode in which the character is most featured and spoken to by name, whereas there are no credits simply for other "appearances" elsewhere in the season. Moreover, the official series Instagram profile, which follows the cast and creative team, does, in fact, follow Harold Eric. Does this matter? No. But because the argument for deletion calls into question the validity of the role/involvement as being "so insignificant," this is nonetheless further evidence that the involvement was notable. Furthermore, the series features Harold Eric in its own advertisements, as well as on its Instagram page, which is yet another clear indication of the actor's notable involvement.
Regarding the "high school theatre award," this scrutinization is unwarranted, and the manner in which this argument is presented is dismissive. One need only Google "Jimmy Awards" to see the noteworthiness of this event beyond being just some "high school theatre award" in the United States theatre industry. In fact, PBS produced a television series titled Broadway or Bust specifically about this event. This nomination was no small feat. Furthermore, the New York Daily News published a full feature on Harold Eric in 2013 regarding this event, which should underscore the fact that this event is far from insignificant.
Regarding this being "promotional," the user calling for deletion marked the article for concerns about "tone," which were addressed in an earlier revision to avoid any concerns about this being promotional. However, this was apparently not enough for the user. Despite that, this is written in an objective and straightforward manner, regardless of what anyone could feel about noteworthiness.
Likewise, the claim that the subject "met some famous people and worked in some famous places" is an unfair and, frankly, dismissive characterization of the work. Wikipedia is intended to be straightforward with details and information, and the fact of the matter is the subject shared stages and studios with countless stars, specifically as a backup singer for live performances and albums. As indicated in the listing, the subject performed at Elton John 60, among other major concerts and events, which was a sold-out, record-breaking event at Madison Square Garden. However, highlighting every event and the work/process involved is not appropriate for an article, and in its current state, this information is presented in a direct manner.
As stated in a prior revision on the page, the credentials and noteworthiness of the subject in question were deemed sufficient by both Facebook and TikTok in recent weeks, such that both platforms – through their independent verification teams – verified Harold Eric based on his credibility as a public figure. The profiles have been hyperlinked in this paragraph as proof. If a blue check was warranted for this independently reviewed and validated public figure, who also boasts over 30,000 Instagram followers, I do not understand why this page would be considered unjustified. As mentioned in a reply to an earlier vote, this speaks directly to WP:NACTOR, and this article actually adheres perfectly to point number two in these guidelines, which reads, “Has a large fan base or a significant ‘cult’ following.” After the actor’s appearance in Search Party, which aired in June 2020, he has amassed 32,000+ Instagram followers, and has become verified on Facebook and TikTok. If these massive tech companies were able to identify this actor’s public figure status and subsequently verify the individual based on his large following — indicating on their platforms that they have deemed this individual to be noteworthy and deserving of verification — then surely Wikipedia can uphold this article. I do not see how this is a stretch in the slightest, and I am genuinely surprised by the opposition here. Regarding WP:NACTOR, this article passes with flying colors.
As if this deletion form was not enough of an inquiry into the matter, the user DanielRigal, who initiated this deletion form, just opened a Sockpuppet investigation into the profile that originally created this listing, CanadianBBQ, questioning a connection to my account. The SPI clerk will undoubtedly determine that there are no duplicate accounts or any wrongdoing whatsoever. I mention this because based on DanielRigal's incessant revision history on this listing (and determination to see this listing deleted), I am very concerned that there is more at play than just a concern about notability. I do not personally know the user "CanadianBBQ" (the originator of this listing). However, DanielRigal's history indicates a clear pattern of actively taking down any listing that the "CanadianBBQ" user posts, and I am concerned that DanialRigal is unjustly attempting to delete this page solely based on its origins from another user, as opposed to its merits and the information presented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derekbeagle (talk • contribs) 18:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is one accusation buried in all that verbiage that is slightly true. I did indeed discover this article because I had already noticed that its original creator had made some misguided, possibly promotional, articles and I was checking up on what else they had done to see if there was a general pattern there. So, now that I have answered it, let me turn that question around on you. How did you find this article approximately three hours after it was created and one hour after registering your account? I mean, it is an orphan article. You didn't follow a link to it. How did you even know it existed? --DanielRigal (talk) 18:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was sent an unsolicited link to it, and in the interest of ensuring that all information was accurate, appropriate, and properly sourced for a Wikipedia article (long-time reader, first-time writer here), made adjustments thereafter. I have no connection to, nor any relationship with, the originator of the article, and based on the merits of this article, I do believe it should remain active. That being said, I do commend you for your commitment to upholding Wikipedia's integrity in articles. --Derekbeagle (talk) 19:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, to be clear per our policies on WP:COI disclosure you are declaring that you have no relationship whatsoever to Harold Eric Theurer. You do not know him in a personal or professional manner and have no external relationship with him whatsoever. In this case a professional relationship would also include doing any professional work alongside him, e.g. appearing alongside side him in a tv show or commercial, or performing alongside him in a music production.
You claim that you were sent an unsolicited link to the article, which sounds to me to be a lot like WP:MEAT. At the point you started editing the article it had been in existence for only a couple of hours, had no incoming links and would not have even been indexed by search engines. Were you sent the link to the article by anyone who may have a conflict of interest with Harold Eric Theurer, e.g. Harold Eric Theurer himself, his friends or family or his agent? You do not have to give specific answers to these questions, a yes or no would be fine. 192.76.8.82 (talk) 00:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
From the inception of this article, user DanielRigal challenged it. Despite my attempts to alter text and improve citations, the user launched a Sockpuppet investigation, and no wrongdoing was found. Apparently, this result wasn't sufficient for either of you, because now, as legitimate discussion about the merits (or lack thereof) of this article takes place on this page, which is specifically what this page is for, you are now throwing other accusations into the mix. Quite frankly, I would like to direct you to Wikipedia's Harassment Policy, as DanielRigal admitted that he targeted the article originally based on a personal determination to investigate the originator, and based on the policy which refers to "intentionally target[ing] a specific person or persons," this activity is questionable. Moreover, these actions by DanielRigal and you are specifically "mak[ing] editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target," and "undermine[ing], frighten[ing], [and] discourage[ing] them [me] from editing." This may not be your intention, but it is the effect.
Moreover, you have made an accusation about the subject of this article on DanielRigal's Talk Page, specifically making the accusation that the subject of the article is conducting shady Wikipedia practices. This is incorrect, targeted, and unjust harassment that has been ongoing since the inception of this article. All further discussions should be based on the merits (or lack thereof) of this article. Rather than continue this targeted harassment and accusations, I strongly recommend that you allow the rest of the Wikipedia community to weigh their unbiased and independent thoughts and opinions on this article, as opposed to conducting your current process of leveling incorrect accusations and making personal attacks. This page is specifically for discussion about the merits of the article, and if the community deems it unfit, then that will be the proper outcome. The wrongful accusation process and line of questioning that DanielRigal began, and which you seem determined to continue, is wholly unjust.
Likewise, in good faith, I will ask you to remove the incorrect accusation you have listed on the aforementioned talk page, as not only is it untrue, but it verges on slander against the subject of the article.
I will not be entertaining any further questions, nor will I offer any further replies. Instead, I leave the fate of this article up to the community. Please allow the Wikipedia editor community to do their work, and refrain from any further accusations. --Derekbeagle (talk) 04:57, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I make random articles of notable people and places and things that I find on the internet. I do not discriminate and I publish content based on the information that I am able to source from the internet. I've watched Harold Eric on television. Also, I would like to point this that I have no connection with user Derekbeagle. I appreciate the efforts put by everyone to build a platform like Wikipedia. I'm just another guy who like to read and write about random things. "In the long history of humankind (and animal kind, too) those who learned to collaborate and improvise most effectively have prevailed." - Charles Darwin — Preceding unsigned comment added by CanadianBBQ (talk • contribs) 00:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, with no prejudice against reviving the article in the future - Charitably, let's go with the too soon standard. The fact that the article keeps referring to the actor by his first name, and one of the voters above has done nothing in WP outside of this article, shows fan-style writing and possibly a personal connection. Supporters above have argued valiantly that WP:NACTOR has been satisfied, particularly the "significant cult following" requirement, but the number of Instagram followers is a useful measurement at Instagram, not here. Mr. Eric has indeed won some awards, but little evidence has been presented for whether those awards are notable in themselves. Mr. Eric has received some minor coverage for bit parts but that does not satisfy the general notability requirement at WP:SIGCOV. If Mr. Eric racks up some more notable achievements, and if those receive reliable and significant coverage, he could qualify for a Wikipedia article in the future. DOOMSDAYER520 | TALK | CONTRIBS 20:22, 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. Fenix down (talk) 15:24, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Folarin Balogun[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY, hasn't played in a professional game or senior national team game yet. Fram (talk) 15:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 15:24, 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. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 00:28, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Liu Chang (actor)[edit]

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, WP:NACTOR or WP:NSINGER. Article is unsourced and WP:BEFORE turned up nothing that meets direct and indepth WP:SIGCOV from WP:RS / WP:IS. Wikipedia needs to follow sourcing and notability guidelines strictly for BLPs.   // Timothy :: talk  15:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  15:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  15:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  15:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ad Meliora: I did re-write this article, so please reconsider your opinion on this AfD. Thanks VocalIndia (talk) 13:20, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
VocalIndia Thank you for your contribution. I'd like to point out a few principles: 1. WP:GNG requires indepth WP:SIGCOV from WP:RS / WP:IS. 2. WP:INHERITED is not a good argument, i.e. being associated with something notable (e.g. appearing in a notable film) does not automatically make the subject notable. The subject must be notable in its own right. 3. WP:NACTOR does not supercede WP:GNG but is merely a helpful rule of thumb. 4. Everthing that's notable for regional Wikipedia projects is not necessarily notable for English-language Wikipedia.
Now specifically with respect to this article, unfortunately, even after your new edits, I am not convinced the subject meets WP:N. Further, per WP:NFILM, just being released does not make a film notable. This is an encyclopaedia, for listings database, there's IMDB (which, by the way is not WP:RS / WP:IS.). Tomb of the Sea Side Story: Hua Mei itself will be nominated for deletion as none of the Chinese sources cited are WP:RS / WP:IS.. — Ad Meliora Talk∕Contribs 12:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He meet WP:NACTOR, had a lead role in the 2018 film Tomb of the Sea Side Story: Hua Mei (沙海番外之画媒), and 2020 TV series Reunion: The Sound of the Providence. A basic Google search show that these dramas did all air. The series don't have WP articles, but that is not an indication of non-notability, they simply have no been created yet. Trying to find English-language sources for a Chinese subject and automatically brushing aside native-language sources is truly narrow systematic bias. I fond enough sources in Chinese to say that he meets WP:GNG, see [65], [66],[67], [68]. Btw I will create WP article for his film and TV series and add this sources to the article. Cheer VocalIndia (talk) 09:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have created his film article Tomb of the Sea Side Story: Hua Mei, also added sources, tone down promo and major expanded to the article. I think there is sufficient evidence that he meets WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR.VocalIndia (talk) 13:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (undecided) - A search for his Chinese name, 劉暢, reveals a lot of results in what appear to be entertainment news websites in that country. He definitely has a lot of media coverage in his own right. Since I cannot read Mandarin I am unable to determine if those sources are sufficiently reliable, but I recommend that this discussion proceed in that direction. ☆ DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) ☆ 22:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:27, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:36, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May Club[edit]

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

A previous article instance was deleted at AfD in 2013; this new instance was created in 2018, but the points made in the earlier AfD seem as applicable to this one, which is a game-play summary referenced to a game database entry. JimmyBlackwing proposed a PROD deletion with this rationale: "Article was previously deleted and was recreated in 2018 in poor condition, with ongoing notability concerns ever since. It has no references, and Google brings up no usable sources and no evidence that this passes WP:GNG—as was the case when the article was deleted in 2013." Because of the prior AfD, I removed the PROD and opened this 2nd AfD, for which I agree with JimmyBlackwing's PROD rationale. There is a ja.wiki article but it is no better referenced, and searches are not finding better. AllyD (talk) 15:06, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 15:06, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 15:06, 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 merge to Dreams (Fleetwood Mac song). Views were split between "keep" and "merge" in the first part of the debate, then "merge" and "delete" with the second. I am unimpressed with the I like it! !votes to keep, which I have ignored for the purpose of consensus. There were several strong arguments for WP:BLP1E, tilting the result towards merge. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:16, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Apodaca[edit]

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

This article would be the prime example of applications of WP:BLP1E. No lasting claim to notability, sustained coverage unlikely, and mostly covered in relation to run of the mill "viral guy" type of coverage. Fails WP:GNG, should be deleted. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 00:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 00:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very few people get covered in the NYTimes, let alone an entire standalone article [71]. He's a prominent social media star, this recently created page has some 10k views, and combined with the coverage of multiple outlets, I'd say he is notable. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He is known TikTok Star with millions of followers [72] and the article is well written with references in reliable sources that provide significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Charmk (talk) 04:18, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Coverd by tons of news outlets, some huge. Known by virtually anyone under 35 if they use social media daily. No chance this article is getting deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.69.153.170 (talk) 08:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Whilst I agree the article isn't very well written and the IP's Keep !vote isn't very... convincing, he still appears to be a notable figure with a reasonable amount of non-trivial coverage. 11:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)Foxnpichu (talk)
  • Delete this subtitle of the NYT article really shows that is the epitome of WP:BLP1E. Hekerui (talk) 07:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe he is notable enough to meet wikipedia's standard for BLP. Perhaps the article could be improved with additional information like his impact on the sales of Ocean_Spray_(cooperative), or the resurgence in popularity of Fleetwood Mac's Dream, and it hitting Billboard's Top 100 for the first time since 1977. Either way at this time I do not believe the article should be deleted. PCRONtalk 13:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Clear and unambiguous case of WP:BLP1E. The article should be merged with Dreams. "Keep" comments here seem to be by fans who are wildly overstating his notability. PorkHeart (talk) 15:05, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteNo notability. Flash in the pan social media user who had 15 minutes of fame by skateboarding while listening to a song. Most of the keeps seem to be fans of his, judging by the comments.24.50.181.111 (talk) 14:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is significant COI concerns regarding the article creator's contributions who has made significant edits to Apodaca's agent's clients over the years and I believe this article may have been created for promotional purpose. It has been reported to conflict of interest noticeboard I suggest this AfD be relisted so that it remains open while COI/N discussion takes place. Graywalls (talk) 08:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
update - article creator Lazer921 (talk · contribs) indeffed as a result of COI/N for Undisclosed Paid Editing Graywalls (talk) 18:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability established by reliable sources including the NYT. Gamaliel (talk) 14:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The "notability established because NYT" keep !votes are ignoring the WP:BLP1E policy. Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Source have covered the person only in the context of a single event, and that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. In the internet era, things so viral, big organisations cover it and sometimes that's it. A video going viral is not a notable event. Maybe Nathan Apodaca will capitalize on this to become a superstar, but it's WP:TOOSOON for that. I hope the closer will take the strength of the arguments into account, not just the number of !votes. Regards, TryKid [dubious – discuss] 21:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete for most likely having been an undisclosed paid article creation, which is not allowed. If such practices are spared a deletion, there's no disincentive for public relations personnel from creating such articles. There's a sort of precedent for deletion of such article. No prejudice against recreation by uninvolved neutral editor at a later time if Apodaca proves to be notable beyond WP:BLP1E. Graywalls (talk) 01:02, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

discussing target while merge is preferred to delete, the target isn't quite appropriate. Perhaps merge and redirect to List of viral videos Graywalls (talk) 14:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This looks like it's trending towards a merge, but it might be worth further discussion. Editors who feel this should be kept may want to consider explaining why they feel the BLP1E concerns are not valid.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GirthSummit (blether) 14:40, 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. Merging isn't possible given the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ebène State Secondary School (Girls). Sandstein 15:44, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ebène State Secondary School (Boys)[edit]

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

I did a PROD on this due to it's lack of nobility that unfortunately was removed because "secondary schools." When secondary schools are not inherently notable per NORG and SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Something the person who removed the PROD seemed to have ignored. So, here we are. What it comes down to is this lacks the multiple in-depth reliable sources it would need to pass either the general notability guidelines or the ones for organizations. Just to repeat, secondary schools are not inherently notable per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Therefore, the discussion should be in relation to the notability guidelines and the quality of sourcing (or lack thereof). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamant1 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mauritius-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The article does not pass GNG or NORG. BEFORE showed only sparse routine run of the mill local coverage, nothing that establishes notability. The single reference in the article does not meet WP:IS or WP:SIGCOV.   // Timothy :: talk  22:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 00:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the girls' school - there does appear to be Mauritian sources which discuss the school. SportingFlyer T·C 11:43, 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 15:43, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ebène State Secondary School (Girls)[edit]

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

I did a PROD on this due to it's lack of nobility that unfortunately was removed because "secondary schools." When they are not inherently notable per NORG and SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Something the person who removed the PROD seemed to have ignored. So, here we are. What it comes down to is this lacks the multiple in-depth reliable sources it would need to pass either the general notability guidelines or the ones for organizations. Just to repeat, secondary schools are not inherently notable per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Therefore, the discussion should be in relation to the notability guidelines and the quality of sourcing (or lack thereof). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamant1 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mauritius-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The article does not pass GNG or NORG. BEFORE showed only sparse routine run of the mill local coverage, nothing that establishes notability. The single reference in the article does not meet WP:IS or WP:SIGCOV.   // Timothy :: talk  22:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 00:50, 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 redirect to Alessandro Nunziati. Sandstein 15:42, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Vampyr's Shadowsreign[edit]

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

NN band GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Italian metal band, formed by the Theatres des Vampires guy. While that band is notable, I think this side project is not. The article is "sourced" solely to Myspace which is always a bad sign. The article used to contain some album reviews but those has been removed from the article (those sites did not look too reliable either). I did a Google search and I found nothing of substance, just the standard worthless sites like youtube, metal archives, etc. While I have found several album reviews / news about the band, they are all featured on blogs / sites of dubious reliability. I think this band is not notable. A redirect to Theatres des Vampires is all this title is worth imo. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Alessandro Nunziati, no good evidence of notability of this band, but the musician it's named for does seem to be fine. ~ mazca talk 14:42, 29 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 move to Draft:List of Iowa Writers' Workshop people. As views are split between keeping, deleting and incubating, the latter seems like a reasonable compromise. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:29, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Iowa Writers' Workshop people[edit]

List of Iowa Writers' Workshop people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTADIRECTORY Graywalls (talk) 20:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 20:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 20:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 20:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 20:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. From to the linked rationale: "For example, an article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable. Likewise an article on a business should not contain a list of all the company's patent filings." Can the nominator please explain how this is applies to the nominated page? pburka (talk) 20:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Iowa Writer's Workshop doesn't have its own article and receives a little mention in the article it redirects to. Fails WP:NLIST and WP:NOTDIR. Ajf773 (talk) 20:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a program within a university's liberal arts school. It did have it's own. I moved it to the university's college of liberal arts page. Graywalls (talk) 20:52, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've undone the redirect; the topic seems sufficiently notable on its own. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    My delete vote stands as it still fails NOTDIR and NLIST but I won't challenge the redirect. Ajf773 (talk) 22:41, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A random list of alumni and faculty does run afoul of WP:NOTDIR #7 (Simple listing), especially when the only sources are primary. NLIST is a pretty low bar to get over, and this doesn't even seem to do that. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clearly a navigational list that passes WP:LISTPURP, just as we categorize notable faculty and alumni by school per WP:NOTDUP. This list includes both, while the corresponding categories have those two groups separate. Either way, these lists and categories are standard practice. postdlf (talk) 23:06, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There's minimal navigational aid here; this list provides no encyclopedic content, and it's unsourced (which itself makes it a massive BLP violation). This is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of its entries, and a list collating them together (especially with no other information) is precisely what NOTDIR is about. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:37, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Very little of what you just said is correct and what is isn’t relevant to deletion. postdlf (talk) 01:16, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge into Iowa Writers' Workshop article. Netherzone (talk) 23:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC) Change to keep Netherzone (talk) 03:11, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what? There's really nothing to merge.. this is just a long list Graywalls (talk) 02:34, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think we delete “long lists”? You cited NOTDIR but did not apparently read its preface, or WP:CLN. I’d say it’s too long to merge, particularly when we look at how many entries are in the faculty and alumni categories. postdlf (talk) 13:21, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Graywalls: for example, a selection of the faculty and alumni could be merged with the Iowa Writers' Workshop article, since that section directs to this list. Certainly not all the names, but a representative selection. As it is, the only writers who mentioned in the Iowa Writers' Workshop article are those who have won Pulitzer prizes, but many who were/are part of the program who are not PPrize winners are notable and really important. Netherzone (talk) 15:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Iowa Writers Workshop is a very well known program. It's not my field, but I'm certainly aware of its prestige. It's common to list people by educational affiliation, and this workshop has many notable alumni and faculty. There's no need to reference individual entries as long as the relationship with the workshop is described and sourced in each linked biography. pburka (talk) 14:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest Convert to Category(s) but that would be a lot of a lot of work. Perhaps there's an automated way to do that? --Paul Carpenter (talk) 13:06, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • There already are categories, this was raised in the discussion above. Beyond that, see WP:NOTDUP. postdlf (talk) 13:26, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm just not sure the article is doing anything the Categories couldn't. WP:NOTDUP suggests that it could, it just doesn't yet apart from the odd redlink. Maybe it'd be better to Keep and give it time to develop in that sense. --Paul Carpenter (talk) 14:05, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree. Red links are one of the significant advantages of lists over categories. (Although the red linked entries should be referenced.) pburka (talk) 15:32, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:32, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep generally per Postdlf. Good navigational list. The Iowa Writers' Workshop is probably the most prestigious writing program in the US; it is quite reasonable to have a list directing our readers from the notable program to its many notable alumni. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:50, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:37, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • incubate I know I'm going against everyone here, but the article only has two links to primary sources that list a tiny fraction of the names listed on the page. That makes the list original research and unverifiable. WP:TNT. It probably is notable, but it is currently useless and falls well below standards. I think it should be moved to draft space and editors interested in bringing it up to standards can do so there. Footlessmouse (talk) 18:45, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be specific, I counted around 70 names on the list from references while there are many hundreds of names on the list in this article. Also, the article throws in things like (did not graduate) which are in no way verifiable. Editors should completely start over, use secondary references, and maybe organize into wikitables. Secondary references should be provided that, at the very least, establish notability for the list, that is, the secondary source should explicitly talk about the prestige of the program to an extent that it establishes the notability of the program's alumni. Footlessmouse (talk) 18:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Claiming that the list is unverifiable and OR is a non sequitur just from the fact that it does not presently include citations. In most cases with such lists, the information is cited at the linked articles, and then it's just a question of migrating the sources over if the preference is to have the list directly sourced. You've also conceded that the list already sources 70 individuals directly (which is more than enough for a standalone list), yet are somehow claiming that we still need to delete it? That doesn't make any sense. The rest is all a matter for development and cleanup. postdlf (talk) 22:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last point raises blp issues requiring further discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 14:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. This plainly violates BLP in that claims that a living person (as many of the included attendees or faculty are) is not allowed without sourcing, even for neutral or positive information. This is an absolute requirement in BLP-impacting articles, even lists, per WP:BLPLIST. As there are no sources at all for the overwhelming majority of the article, it cannot be allowed in mainspace. Draftify per WP:ATD until there is some solid sourcing. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it does not "plainly violate BLP", and you miscite and misinterpret policy and guideline above. If the consensus is sourcing should be included directly in this list rather than just in the linked articles (which is not a requirement of BLPLIST, nor BLP) then that can be copied over from where it is justifying inclusion in the corresponding categories (there are a total of 706 articles in Category:Iowa Writers' Workshop alumni & Category:Iowa Writers' Workshop faculty). Again, a matter for cleanup. postdlf (talk) 21:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To quote the actual policy: All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. I trust you think I've now cited the actual policy correctly? The list has been challenged and whether living people are eligible for inclusion is up for debate. There is no question that the material is unsupported by citation. Please tell me how that "misinterprets" policy? If you really cared about this list you would stop bludgeoning this discussion and improve it. Such improvement should take place not in main space, hence draftification is the proper remedy to allow cleanup. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, nominating a list for deletion because of NOTDIR is not the "challenge" that policy is thinking of. If you think individual entries are incorrect or false, we can talk about that (though you need to look at their articles first), but otherwise the exception would swallow the rule (material does not become "contentious" just because it is unsourced at present in a given article), and anyone could just bootstrap a BLP wrecking ball onto whatever unrelated disagreement they were having. postdlf (talk) 13:53, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Postdlf: you are taking these draftify and incubate proposals as if they are somehow insulting. We are not saying the page be deleted with its history, but that it needs serious work. And you might want to look up the rules about OR and such again, it doesn't matter if the sources are in other articles, if this article makes a claim not supported in this article, that is original research. There is nothing wrong with having it go back as a draft to have editors, as you say, transfer all the citations over and work on the list. Also, yes most certainly does violate WP:BLP, which requires contentious claims be cited every time they appear, even if it is repeated in multiple places. Footlessmouse (talk) 03:54, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add WP:NOTSOURCE, Wikipedia is not a reliable source and users are not following Wikipedia links to verify information. Footlessmouse (talk) 03:57, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete, WP:CSD#A7 (nomination withdrawn) (non-admin closure) davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Malyk[edit]

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

AFD instead of WP:CSD#G11 or quickly moving it back to draft: space to prevent re-creation without discussion. Edit summary of this edit says Malyk Writes moved page Draft:DJ Malyk to DJ Malyk: He's a DJ, so he deserves a wiki article to enhance his audience. And it'll make easier for people to know about the life of DJ Malyk. I'll provide additional information on this article, and will be improving the article, day by day which justifies a G11 deletion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 13:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 13:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Information: Another editor put a G11 tag on the page recently. A non-logged in editor whose only edits are to this article removed it. Had I seen the G11 template, I'm not sure if I would have "let it go" or replaced it with this AFD. I obviously want this gone, but I think the AFD process will send a stronger message and provide better protection against re-creation. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 13:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy delete as per my original tag, which I've restored. This is pointless to even discuss (but thanks for trying to get it gone!) Praxidicae (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. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:35, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abhilash Chandran R[edit]

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

Fails WP:RS. Both the sources given don't talk about him. Can not locate any other source. Also can't find any relevant source to verify the credible award he got. Palmsandbeaches (talk) 12:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:08, 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. T. Canens (talk) 22:27, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lubna Amir[edit]

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

Did a single major film so far. The second mentioned film itself hasn't have any significant coverage. There are no other major works or significant coverage to pass WP:ACTOR / WP:GNG - The9Man (Talk) 12:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. - The9Man (Talk) 12:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - The9Man (Talk) 12:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:46, 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. There is a significant amount of paid promotion and sockpuppetry (see SPI) surrounding this article, which is about a film whose only distribution is through Amazon Prime Video, which allows almost anyone to publish videos on their platform. The consensus is clear that the film fails to meet the standard of notability documented at WP:NFILM. Mz7 (talk) 02:41, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tallukh (film)[edit]


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

paid for spam with no real critical coverage, fails WP:NFILM Praxidicae (talk) 11:55, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:02, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:02, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Active articles listed here are from genuine Indian newspapers and legal sources. With all the copyrights and trademark official and legal, it should not be deleted because legally its proved original. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhairya Gupta Actor (talk • contribs) 10:09, October 15, 2020 (UTC)
— Dhairya Gupta Actor (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. Cabayi (talk) 12:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Striking per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dhairya Gupta Actor. Mz7 (talk) 02:42, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cabayi (talk) 12:34, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - to pass WP:GNG and WP:NFILM, ideally, we would need at least two reviews of reasonable length from reliable secondary sources. I couldn't find any. If someone does find some, please ping me Spiderone 17:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those are reviews. They are both run of the mill press releases. Spiderone 08:13, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Striking per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dhairya Gupta Actor. Mz7 (talk) 02:42, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.nagpurtoday.in/amp/tallukh-a-film-shot-in-nagpur-to-be-release-on-sep-11/07311451 it is possible that some of the wiki editors aren't satisfied with all the info but that does not change the fact it is recognized by asianmoviepulse that is a notable platform as well as nagpur today that is also a notable news section. Passing the WP criteria we have articles independent of the subject. As well as verified editors of respective pages have published them — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4042:4E8E:BC18:0:0:5B4B:EA0C (talk) 12:59, 23 October 2020 (UTC) — 2409:4042:4E8E:BC18:0:0:5B4B:EA0C (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Those are both press releases. Where is the significant coverage? Also, why are there no reviews? Spiderone 20:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom and SpiderOne (though I would expect three as a minimum), does not meet WP:NFILM. Waggie (talk) 17:56, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:User:Waggie i would like you to please consider it a margin and keep the article as it is just one article below your expectation. We can get one more article about the film if given some more time, if that satisfies the eligibility. 2409:4042:102:839A:DD5B:F36E:43C0:58DF (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:46, 26 October 2020 (UTC) — 2409:4042:102:839A:DD5B:F36E:43C0:58DF (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

It's not one below expectation. Waggie expects three independent reviews and this film has exactly zero Spiderone 23:14, 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 redirect, since some of the content seems to have been merged. Geschichte (talk) 12:37, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doraemon in Vietnam[edit]

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

The same case as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doraemon in India. A popular brand no doubt but not reason enough to warrant a separate article for THAT country. I have already selectively transferred a few notable bits from the History and Reception sections to the main Doraemon article. The rest is general coverage of each film's Vietnamese name, air date and other non-notable trivia. Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:SPLIT and WP:NOTFANSITE. TheRedDomitor (talk) 12:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TheRedDomitor (talk) 12:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TheRedDomitor (talk) 12:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. TheRedDomitor (talk) 12:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per previous consensus; since the notable info has already been transferred to the main Doraemon article, this can be deleted outright now Spiderone 12:40, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:31, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sea Hagg Distillery[edit]

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

Non-notable distillery. scope_creepTalk 12:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Coverage consists of local sources and a travel article about 3 similar facilities in the area. 1292simon (talk) 11:17, 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 with no prejudice for recreation of a good version. Geschichte (talk) 12:41, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lung Kim Sang[edit]

Lung Kim Sang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
While AfD is not cleanup, there've been several attempts to cleanup this ghastly mess of an article over the years, all to no avail. It has seven separate tags, going back several years, none particularly addressed, including (per the talk page) serious questions as to the notability of the awards underpinning such notability as the article claims. Much of the article was written, and remains, in untranslated Chinese, and far too many of the references are primary or unreliable.

But as much as anything else, its turgid, poorly translated prose, combined with so much that's trivial and/or irrelevant in a huge 120+ kilobyte article, makes this a prime TNT candidate, and that's the chief rationale for this AfD. I would hope and trust that before advocating keeping the article, anyone so moved attempt a meaningful cleanup. (No prejudice, of course, against a properly sourced replacement article written in a properly encyclopedic style.) Ravenswing 11:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 11:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What the hell is this article? I can't judge on his notability but many many many work is needed to bring this article up to better standards though. VocalIndia (talk) 16:32, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The fact that the infobox image caption says "2010 and 2011" and the identical image in the Chinese Wikipedia article says "2019" may be indicative of the English article's accuracy. ~EdGl talk 13:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, it's just a horrid mess top to bottom. Probably the worst article I've seen in 15 years that wasn't an immediate G1 candidate, and worse than almost all of them. Ravenswing 18:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's impossible to rewrite after I checked. VocalIndia (talk) 01:37, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: Perhaps so, but I'm not staking the nomination on the subject's notability: I'm stating that the article is unsalvageable without a vast amount of work that I don't believe any editor would be willing to undertake ... and certainly in the last several years, no one has. Someone willing to write a properly sourced and encyclopedic article on the subject, from scratch, could do so with my great goodwill (little though it would be required). Ravenswing 16:28, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepI thought this was a machine translation but the google translation of the zh.wiki article is perfectly clear. As the subject is notable it would be preferable to get rid of the current version entirely and use the zh.wiki article as basis for a complete rewrite. I’m happy to do this is the outcome is “keep”. Mccapra (talk) 05:36, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stubify 99% of the poor content was added by a single IP editor. The version of the article before the changes isn't the best either. Stubifying this would probably be the best option. Jumpytoo Talk 05:17, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Problem with this is that we can't enforce "stubifying." If the IP or anyone else wants to dump the crap right back in, we can't stop them. Ravenswing 05:29, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
agree! this old version is better ! VocalIndia (talk) 05:34, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyone could add it back as well if we TNT the article & it gets recreated (since topic is notable). We have ways to handle editors who add bad content to the Wiki. But I don't see any good reason to delete the article as stubifying can salvage it, and Mccapra has offered to rewrite the article. I feel like clearing it to the infobox + "Loong Kim Sang (born 4 November 1944) is a Cantonese opera performer" + a source would be a good start while the article gets back on track. Jumpytoo Talk 05:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well I’ve copied it to my sandbox now and I’ll be making a start today. I may be some time..... Mccapra (talk) 07:37, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much. We are waiting your version ! Wikipedia needs more people like you!VocalIndia (talk) 10:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: My goodness, what the hell is this article? It is thoroughly unreadable in its current state. I strongly doubt the article can be rewritten given its broken state. I suggest TNT for this crap, hopefully we'll move Mccapra's better version in the place of this abomination of a Wikipedia article. JavaHurricane 08:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment ok I’ve struck my keep vote above. The article subject is very clearly notable but there’s no point in keeping the current article. I hope to have produced something serviceable in a couple of weeks. Mccapra (talk) 10:33, 29 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) 20:46, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

National Strategy for a Sustainable America[edit]

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

No outside sources; amalgam of defunct organizations with no tie to the title White 720 (talk) 03:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what this article is meant to refer to. It is entitled "National Strategy for a Sustainable America," (NSSA) which in theory would refer to a strategy or campaign by this name. The first sentence describes it as "National Strategy for Sustainability" as implemented in the United States. It also refers to a "President's Council on Sustainable Development" in the 1990s and to a "Director of Sustainable Development" that existed as of 2010, but does not assert that either of these entities are related to the NSSA or that the NSSA ever existed by that name. There is one outside source, the Citizens Network for Sustainable Development (CitNet), whose web site is out of service and whose provenance and notability are neither known nor asserted in the article. CitNet is mentioned in paragraphs 2 and 3, the second of which discusses a Change.org petition that was supposedly popular but has no reported media coverage. Paragraph 4 is an unfulfilled offer by an unnamed person to post more details on this page. Paragraph 5 mentions two other sustainability efforts not necessarily related to the NSSA. In total, I come away from this article utterly confused about what, if anything, the NSSA is and even whether it ever existed. This page reads like speculation and original research instead of an encyclopedic and factual article. White 720 (talk) 03:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cabayi (talk) 10:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is a piece of advocacy in support of a campaign to get US governments to establish a thing that, in fact, they never established. The initiatives of various administrations in the field of sustainability, as outlined in the first couple of paragraphs, may be notable, but this subject can’t be, as it relates to a thing that was never even a coherent but undelivered plan. Mccapra (talk) 12:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG. KidAd talk 21:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a promotional mess that fails GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:12, 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Dietz[edit]

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

Sad but fails WP:MILNG. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I started editing here on the Wikipedia last year and started off by uploading this article, I wasn't aware of there being separate NG for this category until today, so I got right into editing it, I've read through the notability guideline you've linked and I understand why this article is being nominated for deletion, but is there a way I could save this article? I'm not trying to boast or argue in any way but I spent alot of time researching off the Wikipedia and editing this draft and it eventually passed through the AFC review, which I still don't understand how it did either because I thought the reviewer would've known that the criteria was not met from the beginning. Delta fiver (talk) (UTC) 11:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia Delta fiver! I think you've done an impressive job. Consider joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history! WP:Articles for deletion is all about mustering the right arguments with your fellow editors, based on our corpus of policies, guidelines and essays. Don't panic (WP:OHNO)! have some popcorn. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Operation Red Wings. Fails WP:SOLDIER and I don't believe that he has WP:SIGCOV in multiple WP:RS to meet WP:GNG. Of the other members of the Operation Red Wings team Michael P. Murphy was awarded the MoH and has had multiple things names after him, Marcus Luttrell survived and has SIGCOV, while Matthew Axelson is just a redirect to Operation Red Wings. Mztourist (talk) 11:41, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe that it does pass WP:SOLDIER: Played an important role in a significant military event such as a major battle or campaign. In this case, Operation Red Wings. In addition, he was a major character in a movie, has a road named after him, and there is a statue of him. I think this all amounts to WP:SIGCOV in multiple WP:RS to meet WP:GNG. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment was Operation Red Wings a "major battle or campaign"? Or just a minor skirmish elevated in US sources to justify their large loss of life? Mztourist (talk) 03:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Although at first it wasn't the intention, operation Redwings eventually became a campaign for the destruction of the local militia and Ahmad Shah, which eventually started operation whalers that forced Shah and his remaining fighters to leave the region and retreat to Pakistan. Delta fiver (talk) (UTC) 08:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Definitely passes GNG, could pass WP:SOLDIER because of his role in Operation Red Wings. A quick newspapers.com search comes up with tons of stuff. There is an annual rodeo in his name, there is a statue, there is the movie role, there is a road named for him. This is definitely significant coverage, and there are literally hundreds of secondary, reliable sources that cover him.Jacona (talk) 03:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cabayi (talk) 10:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's a highway named after him, a strong indication of notability, as generally only notable people get highways named after them. If someone sees the signs along the highway indicating the Petty Officer Danny Dietz Memorial Highway they may want to find out more about him, and the article fulfills this.Jeffrey Beall (talk) 15:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He won the Navy's highest stand-alone medal, and has a highway named after him. Bearian (talk) 17:52, 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. Fenix down (talk) 11:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Southampton Saturday Football League[edit]

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

Seems to be a non-notable amateur league much like Bournemouth Saturday League. Fails WP:GNG.

WP:BEFORE search yielded:

  • [75] - passing mention
  • [76] - passing mention
  • [77] - brief mention because they spoke to the secretary of the league
  • [78] - blog
  • [79] - blog
  • [80] - blog
  • [81] - passing mention
  • [82] - mentioned once

All mentions are trivial and do not count as WP:SIGCOV. Spiderone 10:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 10:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - very low-level amateur league of local interest only. A vestige of a drive in the early days of WP to essentially create articles on every Saturday men's football league in England..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 17:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Hampshire Premier League with a note there, being as it's a feeder league. As it could possible be a search term. Govvy (talk) 12:10, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I do not think this has the level of notability required for an article. Dunarc (talk) 20:07, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subject is not notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Fatzaof (talk) 08:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 10:44, 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) 20:41, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Con rispetto parlando[edit]

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

Yet another film, tagged since April 2013, that is basically an IMdB mirror. A WP:BEFORE turned up film database sites, youtube videos, and other wikis. Nothing found that could help this film pass WP:NFILM, as it needs at least 2 reviews and none are to be found. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia...not a film database site. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If it wasn't a notable film an author wouldn't have written over a page on it [83]. Has coverage in all of the typical sites for Italian film and several mentions in books, not to mention has a notable cast and director.† Encyclopædius 11:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC++)
  • Keep. I see enough sources that discuss the movie. Is something going on here? I see the nominator in quick succession made AfD nominations for Meri Jung Ka Elaan, Con rispetto parlando, Una Lettera dall'Africa and Stray Bullet (1960 Mexican film), all started by the same user and all non-English mainstream films that obviously would have been discussed by the local media, as this one was. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:21, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes, all of those films had 'film notability' tags on them and I almost exclusively send only articles with those tags to either PROD or AfD as I don't believe that articles should have that tag for years, as all of those articles do. Also,if an editor creates an article and someone comes along and tags it for notability, why do they not address it as soon as it happens? If one person questions its notability, another user is bound to come along and also question it and that editor might find nothing to help it pass the guidelines so they put it up for discussion, as I have done. If these films can be saved by adding something to pass WP:NFILM then great. The notability tag gets removed, which is my goal. Not sure why so many people cannot understand that these articles are being sent for discussion because of a tag that someone else placed on the article. Boggles the mind that an author of an article will leave a notability tag for 10 years (as some of the articles that I have put up for discussion) without even once trying to address the issue. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think I have every article created on my watchlist?? I've forgotten the vast majority of what I created. If somebody tags an article I don't know about it.† Encyclopædius 06:45, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cabayi (talk) 10:20, 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. (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī (talk) 14:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Woodlands Hotel[edit]

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

This hotel doesn't appear to be sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia standalone article, and it doesn't meet WP:NCORP. A WP:BEFORE search brings up numerous trip or travel websites promoting it, so there's no doubt it exists, but there just isn't "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". Normal Op (talk) 03:33, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 03:33, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 03:33, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I declined a prod on this a month ago because I found some sources (now in the article). I'm iffy on notability as well, but wanted to point out that this is not really a hotel—or, if it is, it's not notable for being a hotel. Its main claim to fame is as a restaurant. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. To add to AleatoryPonderings's note from above, in the Indian context, often times, hotel is used synonymously with restaurants. Specifically regarding Woodlands, this particular hotel has some heritage notability as well. I see that a couple of books have also been added to the references list. Ktin (talk) 07:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - possibly notable as a restaurant. Bearian (talk) 17:57, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The most common usage for the word "Hotel" in India is for restaurants. Often lower budget Hotels are termed as lodges or guesthouses. I understand that single restaurant is rarely notable, but this specific restaurant seems to be notable meeting WP:GNG as per WP:SIRS. It has a long history and popularized a specific cuisine in a pretty large metro city of India. It has received significant coverage in number of RS books and is one of top tourist destinations for anyone visiting the city. Roller26 (talk) 14:04, 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 keep. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:37, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Day Pitney[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. All the refs from 9 onwards simply acknowledge that some legal names have worked at the company. The earlier refs are press releases and similar that confirm the firm exists, that it has been involved in take-overs but nothing about the firm that helps to establish notability. Searches find adverts and listings etc but nothing that gets close to WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   19:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  Velella  Velella Talk   19:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Velella  Velella Talk   19:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm inclined to think that there must be more to be found on the predecessor firms, Day, Berry & Howard LLP and Pitney Hardin LLP, which were both quite old at the time of the merger. I would move to draft with a draft note indicating that this is an area suitable for expansion, if sources can be found. There is some interesting coverage of the merger by Above the Law, which basically notes that it papers over the respective weaknesses of the two firms, without really making them competitive with bigger firms. BD2412 T 19:45, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • !Vote changed to leaning keep per improvements and indications of further room for improvement. The article still needs to be refactored to more clearly represent the full history of the predecessor entities as elements of the current entity. BD2412 T 03:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree with BD2412, I'd move this to draft and let someone potentially improve it rather than delete. I don't have time or interest in working on it, but just a quick search reveals that there does appear to be meaningful media coverage of this firm, so it's not completely unthinkable that it would warrant inclusion. Here are some potential sources that someone could pull notable references from if they wanted to improve this article:
https://www.law360.com/firms/day-pitney/articles?article_related_content=1
https://www.daypitney.com/news. (Not the press releases, obviously, but the media articles referenced)
DocFreeman24 (talk) 21:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Velella compliance with WP:BEFORE isn't always trivial. As BD2412 pointed out the firm(s) have gone through many name changes over the years. Real compliance with BEFORE would have required you to do meaningful web searches on all of them.
FWIW I added some references, and additional material... Geo Swan (talk) 02:50, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course! Geo Swan & BD2412, this is much improved! Major kudos for all your work on this article. I vote keep at this point! Well done and thank you for taking the time! DocFreeman24 (talk) 01:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:ORGCRIT. KidAd talk 21:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Added material and sources since nomination demonstrate compliance with WP:GNG, so any other guidelines are immaterial. Historically significant law firm associated with prominent attorneys. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:35, 31 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. No-one seems to question the fact that there is substantial coverage in reliable sources, but some editors argue that the fact that the sources are regional or local means that they should be disregarded in the discussion of notability. None of the editors arguing for this view, however, have pointed to any Wikipedia policy or guideline that support this position. WP:GNG requires that the sources are reliable and independent of the subject, not that they necessarily are national. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:40, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy van der Poel[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Some articles in the local newspapers[[84]] (her village is some 10km from Leiden), but no participation in senior international championships, no national titles, and in the end very few sources in general[85]. Fram (talk) 09:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 09:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 09:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets GNG, and WP:BASIC. It's about coverage not about results. Enough references in newspapers. Selection of 8: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. SportsOlympic (talk) 10:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • All very local articles (Leidsch Dagblad and Leidsche Courant). If every person (and local shop, street party, ...) who gets some coverage in their local newspaper would get an article, there would be no end to it. Oh,3 and 4 are the same reference, by the way. Fram (talk) 13:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • What do you mean with "very" local? If you take a look at those newspapers, you see they include all the main national and international news. But however, tt doesn't matter if it's an article in a regional newspaper; as long as it is a reliable, intellectually independent WP:SECONDARY source independent of the subject. See also the discussion Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 36#Is everybody reaching GNG notable. The newspapers used as sources are well established newspapers as they even have at the English Wikipedia their own pages: Leydse Courant, Leidsch Dagblad. Also, Van der Poel is not a random local speed skater as you do suggest. She was part of the national team, competing at the highest division speed skating competitions in the Netherlands. SportsOlympic (talk) 14:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I did not suggest she is a "random local speed skater", but apparently being on the national team in the Netherlands still only gets you articles in your local newspaper. Yes, such local newspapers also bring national and international news, but in addition to that, they bring items only of interest to readers from their locality. That's why a Leiden skater gets articles in Leiden newspapers and not in the ones from Nijmegen or Eindhoven or Maastricht. Fram (talk) 14:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, love that, they write in deeper about her background and family etc. so ideal to write a Wikipedia article. No need to look further. But you will find already via Delpher.nl in other newspaper >50 articles where they write something about her. SportsOlympic (talk) 15:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Something", indeed, they mention her in results or in one sentence ("Van der Poel won X" or some such). So, like I said, she doesn't get articles (or truly significant attention within a larger article) in newspapers outside her hometown (well, the town close to her village, and where she studied). I have only looked at the first 10 results via that link, feel free to link to ones I may have missed which truly are about her. Fram (talk) 15:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • Saw some sections written about her in those newspapers, but not going to outline here as the above mentioned news articles are better. It shows she has been of interest in many other (national) newspapers. SportsOlympic (talk) 18:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Çomment. A passing mention in a national news source is not enough it needs to be entirely about her, local news sources are not suitable to establish notability. Australianblackbelt (talk) 23:34, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Australianblackbelt: please show the guideline that states that local secondary sources are not valid. (And in your first sentence "it needs to be entirely about her" is not correct per WP:BASIC (even explained in first bullit)). SportsOlympic (talk) 07:43, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. @SportsOlympic: what I am saying is that a local newspaper is not enough to establish notability even if it is entirely about the person, if it was acceptable I could create dozens more mages. An article needs to be all about the person in a national news source to first establish notability then you can use local news to complete the wikipedia article. I have created many pages and this is the biggest hurdle in establishing a persons notability. If you find a news article outside the person's country thats considered international news which is better than national. Australianblackbelt (talk) 08:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • It’s not “a”, but multiple. But reliable secondary sources, local or not, are counting for Wikipedia articles. That are the basic guidelines. SportsOlympic (talk) 14:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:35, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
’’’Reply’’’. @SportsOlympic: What do you mean local or not?? Point is local news doesn’t establish notability period if they did I could write loads of articles on people in local papers god knows I’ve tried. Australianblackbelt (talk) 02:10, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As long there are multiple articles published in reliable, independent secondary sources independent of the subject (could be well established local secondary sources) it counts for notability. Other good example of an article I created of a person based on regional secondary sources: Arnol Kox. SportsOlympic (talk) 06:22, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SportsOlympic: One of the tons of reasons we don’t except local news sources is that every local mayor on the planet would be on Wikipedia because they are in the local papers every month. Don’t get upset if someone nominates Mr Kox’s page for deletion cause it would get deleted 100% Australianblackbelt (talk)
@Australianblackbelt: that is your opinion. Because if that would be the case, it should be in the Wikipedia guidelines. But it isn’t. Your example about mayors: see written at WP:POLOUTCOMES “Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD, although the article should say more than just "Jane Doe is the mayor of Cityville".” SportsOlympic (talk) 20:57, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per extensive coverage the Leidsch Dagblad. Nominator errs thrice: [1] This is a regional not a local newspaper [2] If it were local coverage -- something would be wrong with it. [3] Given the proof of WP:GNG, chooses to argue instead of withdrawing. gidonb (talk) 10:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • A newspaper which is only aimed at part of a Dutch province is a local newspaper, no matter what that article claims. Your point 2 makes no sense. Fram (talk) 10:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I rest my case. You WP:BLUDGEON for the sake of saying just anything, instead of withdrawing. gidonb (talk) 10:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm sorry, but "If it were local coverage -- something would be wrong with it." simply makes no sense at all. Fram (talk) 10:47, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's a hypothetical. Even if it was a local newspaper, the sources should still be considered. You argued about this -- I answered. The newspaper, however, is a regional one. As to the part that seems to confuse you about the Netherlands: this is one of the most densely populated countries in the world and the Leiden region is in its main conurbation, the Randstad. As a result, regions here will have a smaller area. Newspapers serve people, not soil. gidonb (talk) 10:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm a Belgian, I'm not completely uninformed about the Netherlands, thanks. I'll not try explaining why what you wrote has the opposite meaning of what you wanted to say. Fram (talk) 11:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • In this case you could have known that the provinces of the Netherlands aren't terribly important, as the Netherlands is a unitarian country. I'll use the province sidetrack, however, to explain it a bit differently. South Holland is the most populous province of the Netherlands, one of 12 provinces that contains between a fourth and a fifth of the population. Regions within needn't be enormously large in area. And if that did not help maybe the next respondents will explain it in a way that makes more sense to you. BTW you do not need to be convinced by or argue with all who disagree with you. In fact, the latter is strongly discouraged. gidonb (talk) 16:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete coverage in a local newspaper does not show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:22, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Now that that’s clarified that they are local news I don’t believe subject is notable. A regional newspaper is not a national one. Australianblackbelt (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don’t forget, as I said above, there are also multiple sections written about her in national newspapers. SportsOlympic (talk) 21:02, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is in the nature of local news to focus on local citizens who win something, regardless of the age level of the competition. Now, this speed skater was a junior competitor who also accomplished something on a national level, but not an international level. And there is not exactly a shortage of Dutch speed skaters who have went on to international level. This is why local news coverage doesn't necessarily bestow notability on people. Geschichte (talk) 13:27, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:04, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gilmour Racing[edit]

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

Completely unsourced and non-notable. No evidence exists of significant coverage. The team is a minor privateer entrant in a small regional series and receives, as far as I can determine, absolutely no attention. 5225C (talk • contributions) 09:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. 5225C (talk • contributions) 09:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. 5225C (talk • contributions) 09:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-r'elated deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Fails WP:NOT, I could not find any IRS. The lack of any significant updating since 2012 is also telling. Cabrils (talk) 04:44, 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 Starship (band). Eddie891 Talk Work 21:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Abrahamian[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND, couldn't find evidence that he has notability outside of the band he played in. Suonii180 (talk) 10:20, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:29, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:36, 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. Note that the article has changed continually over the course of the discussion. Geschichte (talk) 12:47, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Freak Power: The Ballot or the Bomb[edit]

Freak Power: The Ballot or the Bomb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

None of the sources is actually about the film, except the official website and imdb. (t · c) buidhe 21:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 21:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 21:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 21:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It looks like there was an exhibition at the Frazier History Museum and a book by the same name, that was put out by Daniel Joseph Watkins (one of the directors) that received some coverage. ([86], [87], [88], [89], [90]) This documentary looks to be a branching off of this. However that said, even if we were to argue that the exhibition and book could establish some notability, this wouldn't show that the documentary is independently notable. If there's more I may argue that there should be a page for the exhition/book with mention of the documentary, but I want to find more coverage first. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:07, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like the exhibition was at the Lawrence Arts Center as well. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Covered here and here as well. Leaning towards maybe making an article for the exhibit or perhaps Watkins and covering all of this there, since it'd be easier to merge all of this into a biography than try to justify that the film is an offshoot of the exhibit, which could be OR. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:13, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:55, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • An additional review has been posted in the wiki article: Documentary offers an insider’s view of Hunter S. Thompson’s 1970 campaign for sheriff in Aspen. This should push the article to a next place in terms of notability. I will work to deorphan the page by linking to other articles in Wikipedia. I am a beginner Wikipedia editor. As the film enters full release I will continue linking articles. Please help me improve this page and remove the deletion status. Esamsoe (talk) 14:49, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that both of these articles were published in the same source: Aspen Times, and the first one seems like a routine announcement. (t · c) buidhe 15:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another link and audio interview with Aspen Public Radio has been added. This should represent an initial critical mass of links to establish notability for the documentary. Please help me remove the deletion notice from this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esamsoe (talk • contribs) 15:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:34, 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 keep. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Breana Geering[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSPORTS. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just added a couple stronger sources. Geering is notable a professional skateboarder. --Wil540 art (talk) 22:20, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Weak delete as there is some coverage that could begin a discussion on whether she meets WP:GNG or not. To me, there is still not enough to warrant an article on her. Did not participate in any major international competition, and her positions in national competitions are not sufficient to satisfy WP:SPORTSBASIC. Also fails WP:BASIC due to there being little coverage on her, most being WP:PROMO. Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 04:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I respectfully disagree. International competition is not a good metric for skateboarding. Please see this article [91] from Vice. Geering is certainly notable in my opinion. --Wil540 art (talk) 15:27, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wil540 art thanks for the heads up. I updated my vote. International competitions are important to establish WP:NSPORTS, but I see that's not what you mean. You are arguing for WP:GNG here, and I agree up to some extent with you, thanks to the sources you added to the article. However, I'd say there isn't enough coverage to warrant an article on her, although this would change if her appearance on the next olympics was officialized. Best, Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 18:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:38, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Breana Geering is already one of the most prominent female street skaters of her generation. She was the first female rider for Girl (the skateboarding equivalent of signing for Manchester United or the LA Lakers), and she is one of a handful of female skaters to have had a multi-page interview in Thrasher magazine. Thrasher also placed her 6th in their list of the best female and non-binary skaters last year. It's important to remember that notability in skateboarding, like surfing, climbing etc., is often not connected to competitions. I think the article could do with some more sources to establish notability so that this deletion discussion doesn't come up again, but the 6th best female skater in the world (according to skateboarding's premier publication) is certainly notable enough for inclusion. Eklektikos (talk) 00:15, 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) 22:29, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sapna Bhatia[edit]

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

Non-notable Indian entrepreneur. Lack of reliable, in-depth sources. Fails WP:GNG. Stemsresearch (talk) 06:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:26, 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. Kinu t/c 08:23, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Denise A. Rangel Tracy[edit]

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

This article has been sitting in the New Pages Feed for months unreviewed so I’d like to get a consensus on it. The subject does not appear to me to meet WP:NPROF as an assistant professor. PROD by another editor was declined on the grounds that she has won a major award. I’m not sure the award is in fact major, and the notability of the subject seems to depend on this pretty much entirely. Mccapra (talk) 05:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Were it not for the AWM Service Award, I'd be a straightforward delete as I think it's WP:TOOSOON for notability under WP:NPROF. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 05:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As I already wrote at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red#Denise A. Rangel Tracy, I think the service award is the only case for notability here. But I don't think it's enough for WP:PROF#C2, mainly because I don't think service awards in general convey the "academic prestige" asked for by that criterion, but also because it's a bit unselective (they've handed out 31 of these awards since they started 7 years ago [92]) and because AWM is smaller than several other national-level mathematics organizations so its awards carry less weight. The other WP:PROF criteria are clearly out of reach, so we would have to go for general rather than academic notability, and hope that it's for more than just one thing, but the article makes no case for that either. It's a shame, because I want to encourage the creation of more articles on women mathematicians, but the creators of such articles should be encouraged to understand our criteria for notability and to target subjects that clearly meet them. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Academic notability is for people who have achieved distinction in the field, not for people who have only been in a tenure track position for one year.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:50, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:TOOSOON. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I take the awards for WP:NPROF C2 (similarly to C3, C5) as being generally supposed to demonstrate that C1 (or C4, or possibly something like C6) has been met. A service-specific award is unlikely to do that, and I agree with David Eppstein's assessment of the AWM service award in particular. Otherwise WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF - subject appears to have a significant role in AWM, but not to the level of WP:NPROF C6. No sign of other notability criteria. Comment that per subject's faculty profile, they are an active editor on Wikipedia; I hope the AfD does not discourage them. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:52, 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) 12:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Mehboob Rizwi[edit]

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

Fails WP:ACADEMIC ,WP:AUTHOR ,WP:PROF, and WP:SIGCOV. All the sources are linked to Darul Uloom Deoband lacks third party sources. WP:SIGCOV needs to be in WP:RS AND WP:IS which the article lacks.Mumbaigold (talk) 05:13, 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, the nominator without performing any BEFORE is nominating articles related to Deoband seminary, even after their notability is widely established. It is enough for the subject, Syed Mehboob Rizwi, that his book on the history of Darul Uloom Deoband is widely cited. A number of citations can be found here, though not all. And with a different spelling Sayyed Mehboob Rizwi here. Also, the main source of the biographical information is Nayab Hasan Qasmi's book, and it is no way connected with Darul Uloom Deoband. Being a significant contributor to, Monthly Al-Burhan, a known journal started by Saeed Ahmad Akbarabadi, numerous copies of which are in the Central Library of Jamia Millia Islamia and other universities, is enough to demonstrate notability. The article just needs reference improvements, rather than being deleted. ─ The Aafī (talk) 07:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per added citations.----Irshadpp (talk) 11:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the Aafi. Owais Al Qarni (talk) 12:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Fails WP:GNG, but can be argued that meets WP:PROF since his work has been cited. — Ad Meliora Talk∕Contribs 19:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment fails WP:PROF Darul Uloom Deoband is not recognized university in India.His book is not used in academic work to pass WP:PROF.Mumbaigold (talk) 05:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Mumbaigold, A normal google search with different spellings would reveal how much the subject's work has been cited in academic works. Your comment just shows that you are biased towards the Deoband seminary. The Darul Uloom Deoband seminary is a known Islamic seminary and has been one of the major Islamic institutions in India. I would agree that, "it is not a UGC recognized university", but Islamic institutions either primary, secondary or higher, for the time being don't require UGC affiliation because they've their own system, and UGC is completely different. Also, Muslims call it a university because it offers higher religious education. A Google search with, Mahbub Rizwi spelling shows a number of works where Rizwi's works are cited, the Mahboob Rizwi spelling shows more. We can use other spellings as well. Usage in Urdu academic works would be more. I doubt that you are someone's sockpuppet who has nothing to do here but to get the Deoband related articles deleted. ─ The Aafī (talk) 07:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whether Darul Uloom Deoband is a university or not is not relevant to the notability of this subject. This subject's works have been cited. — Ad Meliora Talk∕Contribs 19:45, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: as per the added sources and very clearly nominator not doing WP:BEFORE before nominating. Roller26 (talk) 06:34, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:32, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Family School of Quezon City[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:NSCHOOL, WP:ORG, WP:GNG HiwilmsTalk 04:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. HiwilmsTalk 04:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to not surprisingly lacking the multiple in-depth reliable sources needed to pass either WP:GNG and WP:NORG. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only contributor for this article is a user who claims to be an employee of this school and even dared other users not to revert his edits. -WayKurat (talk) 11:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @WayKurat: Can you clarify? I'm seeing an edit history going back to 2013, with significant edits by multiple editors, including one for October 2013 which has been completely rewritten. Good thing too, since it looked like it might have been copied from another source (see my Note to any un-deleting admin of 14:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC) below). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 14:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. HiwilmsTalk 12:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out @Davidwr:. The editor in question only started editing this article in 2019. -WayKurat (talk) 17:22, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft-delete or draftify: While this article is poorly refernced, I would not be surprised if non-English-language, paywalled, or offline sources exist. Why? This appears to be a school that goes up through the equivalent of a high school in the United States, which suggest strongly but not conclusively that reliable, independent sources exist. That said, I think the project will be better served if this article "disappears" until someone with access to such sources is willing to take it on. I would request that the deletion log indicate that a previous version is available for undeletion to draft- or user-space as a userspace-draft on request, to deter people from creating a new page on the topic that might be just as poorly sourced as this one. Moving it back to the main encyclopedia should be contingent on COI-cleanup and sufficient referencing to clearly support notability. I am also open to a redirect/merge IF a suitable target can be found and the school is or will be soon mentioned in the target. This would have the advantage of providing a search term and keeping the edit history in public view. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 12:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC) Delete per Hiwilms's reply immediately below on Philippine K-12 schools frequently failing WP:N/WP:ORG. The same is not true in the US, probably due to our extensive media coverage of high school sports teams. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 13:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a private K-12 institution. A lot of Philippine schools that offer K-12 do not meet WP:NSCHOOL nor WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES (probably except large universities). It is explicitly stated that "secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist, and are still subject to WP:N and WP:ORG." HiwilmsTalk 13:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The editor with a conflict of interest appears to be retiring. He put a speedy-deletion template on his user page with the edit summary Joshdelgado08 (talk | contribs) at 05:49, 21 October 2020 (I no longer want to edit).[93]
  • Delete per WP:SIGCOV, WP:MILL, and my standards. In a country where some Catholic schools are over 300 years old, this one is barely 60 years old, and does not have a full K-12 complement. It doesn't seem to have more than 1 or 2 factors out of 10 that would make it notable. Please ping me if you find anything better. FWIW, I've stayed twice in Quezon City and am somewhat familiar with the city. Bearian (talk) 18:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Barely found anything about the school. Easily fails WP:NSCHOOL. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 06:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to any un-deleting admin: Should this page ever be un-deleted, some of the earlier versions have a "previously published on paper" look to them, like they might have been copied from other sources. I would recommend NOT un-deleting without either a copyvio check or a precautionary revision delete on older versions, particularly those that contain text added in this major update from 9 October 2013 by an editor who was not the author. The current version does not contain the suspected copyright violations from that version. I have not checked it for copyrights though. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 14:09, 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 redirect to Pee-wee's Playhouse. (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī (talk) 21:14, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Mork[edit]

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

Notability concerns. All of the non-IMDb references are trivial. No substantial coverage to meet WP:GNG, nor any substantial roles to meet WP:NACTOR. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:22, 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. T. Canens (talk) 22:29, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Morelli Law Firm[edit]

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

Law firm that has had a few notable clients, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. I cannot find WP:SIGCOV of the firm. (They like to purchase native advertising like [94] and [95], but this won't help it pass WP:NCORP.) AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Somewhat above average as law firms go, but still far below the threshold for encyclopedic notability. BD2412 T 05:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my standards for law firms. I've been a lawyer since before this firm was founded, and I served in the NYSBA House of delegates, but I've never heard of them. They make lots of money, allegedly, for their client and themselves. Bearian (talk)
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. Geschichte (talk) 12:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KVZK-8[edit]

KVZK-8 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

My research to improve KVZK-TV (KVZK-2) indicates that none of this information is true:

  • KVZK-TV slimmed down to three channels (2/4/5) in 1977
  • There is no AFN broadcast over the air that has come up in any of my searches
  • There is no broadcast channel 8 in any mention of KVZK after reducing its channel set
  • The actual KVZK-TV converted to digital from analog over a decade ago
  • The ERP listed would never have been assigned to an analog station

This is a hoax posted by an editor, User:Sickdearkorat, who was already blocked earlier this year for posting unsourced content. I get it, information on television in American Samoa is difficult to come by. But absolutely nothing here is grounded in fact. I have sent to AfD instead of CSD because this hoax is rather technical, much as with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WWVS-LP. Raymie (t • c) 04:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 04:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 04:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 04:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer for soft deletion:? This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Logs: 2020-06 ✍️ create
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 22:29, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cairns city bus station[edit]

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

An ordinary bus stop (not any kind of building) with no claim of notability. Sources do not meet WP:GNG. MB 04:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. MB 04:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MB 04:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable --Devokewater (talk) 14:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this seems to be an article created by a user with good intentions, but I unfortunately can't find many reliable sources on the bus stop that would establish notability to meet GNG. The page is almost an orphan, the only mainspace page on WP it is linked to is Sunbus Cairns (which even then only links to the infobox), so there don't appear to be any valid alternatives to deletion. I have moved some of the sourced material to Cairns#Bus but there is no need to merge or redirect. The image appears to be a copyvio so unfortunately likely to be deleted. Deus et lex (talk) 01:01, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:31, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Manila Bay–City of Pearl[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTALBALL, no definite construction date nor significant coverage for this specific project in secondary sources. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 03:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 03:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 03:08, 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 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:28, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maison Du Repos[edit]

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

Does not meet notability guidelines. Spyder212 (talk) 01:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:03, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:30, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Bucchieri[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSPORTS. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:55, 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 redirect to Dirty Sanchez. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:27, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Dainton[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSPORTS. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Logs: 2008-09 ↻ restored, 2008-05 ✗ A7, 2008-01 ✗ PROD, 2006-01 ✗ deleted, 2005-10 ✗ deleted, 2005-06 ✗ deleted
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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:27, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EHealthMe[edit]

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

Non-notable company, references to PR releases. Clear fail of WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 07:44, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 18:21, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 18:21, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 18:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:29, 13 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 01:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Along with the Washington Post article (which I can't access, but assume it's reliable under WP:AGF) the Venturebeat [96] and Digital Journal [97] sources allow it to pass WP:GNG. Z1720 (talk) 02:19, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:30, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

North Coast Hardcore: Volume 1[edit]

North Coast Hardcore: Volume 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not finding any coverage for this album outside of user-generated sources and a few blogs. Given that it's a compilation album featuring 10 bands and the record label that put this out doesn't have an article, there's no good redirect target. Has been in CAT:NN since 2010. Hog Farm Bacon 01:50, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 01:50, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 01:50, 21 October 2020

(UTC)

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 University of Colombo. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

University of Colombo School of Computing[edit]

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

I prodded this with "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. ". It was deprodded by User:Atlantic306 with a comment "a valid split from the main article or suggest merge and redirect to University of Colombo". Sadly, this article has no independently referenced content to merge (while it has several references, they all seem to be from the school website or from people affiliated the school), so if prod was disputed, time to discuss a simple deletion, unless anyone can find independent references to suggest this sub-university division is actually independently notable? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:46, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:46, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:46, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:01, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:01, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not going to vote yet but imo it doesn't have to have independent referencing to be remerged to the main article providing that article's notability is already established, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:14, 13 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) 00:03, 21 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 01:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it looks like all the sources in the article are primary and it seems as though there's no in-depth secondary coverage about it anywhere. I agree a merge wouldn't be appropriate either and I don't think it's a good redirect term. So, deleting it sounds like the best option. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Colombo University as a selective merge, only the main points. Not everything in an article has to have secondary sourcing, primary will do if the article already passes notability, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to University of Colombo, in sufficient coverage to justify a separate standalone article. Dan arndt (talk) 02:51, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sambhavna Seth[edit]

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

Non-notable Indian actress, whose only apparent news hits are name-drops (string: "sambhavna seth"). Sources cited are largely scandal-rag-level gossipy stuff. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh.... 05:56, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:58, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Logs: 2010-08 ✗ PROD
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 01:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete appearing in reality shows does not make someone notable for encyclopedia. Found just one WP:RS source, that too talking about her marriage. No reputed source to support other content. Promotional content like details about her youtube channel needs to be first removed.--Camella Gandhi (talk) 20:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:38, 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 no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bound Together[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NORG, lacks significant, independent, reliable and secondary coverage with in depth coverage within publications that have wide audience base. The coverage in major papers like LA Times is rather thin. So, there's no indication that it meets adequately coverage to establish notability to merit stand alone article. Disregard the first AfD. It was for something entirely unrelated with the same name that has been deleted; and this one has been created under the same title. Graywalls (talk) 04:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 04:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 04:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a few alt weekly sources but haven't yet found, for example, a feature on the bookstore/collective in its 44 years. Will be curious to see what others make of it. Nothing substantive found in historical EBSCOhost, ProQuest, Gale federated searches. czar 07:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, do you feel that it could actually meet WP:NORG and what's your !vote? Graywalls (talk) 18:30, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On the fence/lean delete/waiting to see what others find. Could potentially redirect to the Anarchist bookfair article where it's mentioned but eh a bit of a stretch czar 02:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 18:19, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep discussed in detail in more than one independent source Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:13, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:10, 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. Clear consensus that the subject is notable and the article should be retained. Improvements to the article may be discussed in an appropriate forum. (non-admin closure) Dps04 (talk) 08:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rural purge[edit]

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

This article was previously nominated for deletion back in May 2005 and kept. Though 15 years later it remains on Wikipedia and I don't know if it should be purged (no pun intended) from Wikipedia or if there is enough editing that can remove most of the original research that the article has been tagged with since this past June can save this article besides an episode of Mo Rocca’s Mobituaries podcast and possibly the book companion that discuss this topic as references. Pahiy (talk) 00:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 00:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable topic (see GBooks), and content is sourced. Looks like Rural_purge#Replacement_shows should be cut substantially if it's not sourceable, but otherwise I don't see the problem. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is not a strong initial argument when the nominator says I don't know if it should be purged. What we have is a tag accusing this of being Original Research. That is the opinion (and on my personal page, I equate these tags to vandalism, so my opinion of a tag is clear) of ONE EDITOR. We have currently 22 sources, several covering the same territory as the article, the prose in the article has some pretty substantial basis. Essentially the NOM's "I don't know" based on the earlier editor's generalized commentary could prevent a future generation from learning about phenomenon of our history from wikipedia; the number one source of information on the internet. For those placing tags, come up with the goods. Be specific about what you think is wrong and let other editors react to it. After leaving that tag, the editor, probably justifiably, removed an entire section of loosely associated information about a swath of series ending, not all being rural series but shows that generally skewed older. Problem solved, right? Except he left the damned tag. Leaving a tag with no basis devalues the look of wikipedia content, this article and attracts nuisance AfDs like this. Trackinfo (talk) 03:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vague and vexatious banner tags are best dealt with removing them rather than the entire article. I have done so. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. To my broader point; most editors, even an experienced editor as I might claim to be, will generally not mess with tags. Tags languish for years, with no power to cause action. That is unless we have a situation like this, where an editor is unfamiliar with the subject or value of the content and causes a problem like this AfD. There must be millions of tags on articles I don't frequent and don't care about. Kilroy was here.Trackinfo (talk) 03:04, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The title could use work as I wasn't sure what the topic was, going into it. But it's certainly notable – see The "Rural Purge" (1969-1972) and decline of early rural television, for example. Another case of WP:NOTCLEANUP. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable subject meets GNG. Gleeanon 11:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per good available sources in books, including, Reimagining Rural: Urbanormative Portrayals of Rural Life (2016) and The Midwest Farmer's Daughter: In Search of an American Icon (2012) and The Social History of the American Family: An Encyclopedia (2014). Right cite (talk) 11:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I click Google news source at the top of the AFD and find ample mention of this. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mobituaries-with-mo-rocca-when-tv-sitcoms-died-in-the-rural-purge/ gives significant coverage of this notable event. Dream Focus 13:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The subject is covered extensively in Rube Tube: CBS and Rural Comedy in the Sixties (2018). — Toughpigs (talk) 14:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As other have stated, whilst the article could the improved, the subject is definitely notable enough to warrant itself an article. Foxnpichu (talk) 16:09, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This was a very unusual wave of cancellations that forever changed television and more than meets GNG. Nate • (chatter) 17:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is looking to be a Snow Keep, so my comment is probably unnecessary at this point, but just a cursory look shows quite a lot of coverage of this in reliable sources. The article should definitely be worked on a lot (entire sections, like the "Other Cancellations", should just be outright removed as it has nothing to do with the actual topic), but it easily passes the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 23:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As someone who's done quite a bit of work on this article, it's a sprawling but reasonably well-sourced topic. I say sprawling because, although the core cancellations were the rural sitcoms at CBS in 1971, they spanned all the Big Three networks throughout the late 1960s and early 1970s (Lawrence Welk being the glaring example of a non-CBS example) and spanned other shows popular with rural audiences, not just the rural sitcoms—but not all sources are as broad in their definition. Something to keep in mind here is that a lot of other articles link to this one. (I have tried to pull sources already used in those articles to shore this one up.) J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 12:42, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:29, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the Sign of the Ravens[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. I would redirect but feel its own discussion would be most appropriate given Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mithotyn is also now running. Not opposed to redirecting should latter AfD close as "keep". TheSandDoctor Talk 03:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor Talk 03:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor Talk 03:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable album. (The notability of the band itself is dubious to me.) This is the only reliable source I have found. This is nothing in my eyes. Aside from these, all I found were the usual junk like streaming sites, youtube videos, databases and retail sites. Sputnikmusic has a review on the album as well, but unfortunately it's by a user, not by staff. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 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, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:00, 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 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gathered Around the Oaken Table[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. I would redirect but feel its own discussion would be most appropriate given Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mithotyn is also now running. Not opposed to redirecting should latter AfD close as "keep". TheSandDoctor Talk 03:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor Talk 03:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor Talk 03:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:59, 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 merge to Falconer (band). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:26, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mithotyn[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBAND. TheSandDoctor Talk 03:36, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor Talk 03:36, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor Talk 03:36, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Found Metal.de Album Review and Sputnikmusic. I don't count Metal Storm as reliable (this time), since there are no staff written album reviews, only user generated ones. And the biography is copied from their Myspace page. I have never heard about them but I looked them up, and all I found were databases, streaming links and retail sites. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 11:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @GhostDestroyer100: Please correct me if I am wrong, but it appears that the Sputnikmusic source are all crowdsourced reviews though? --TheSandDoctor Talk 20:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @TheSandDoctor: If I am right, there are staff written reviews which are considered reliable. Unfortunately all I have seen there are user reviews. But that doesn't mean anything... I haven't seen every review about every album of every band there. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:29, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @GhostDestroyer100: You are correct that if there are then that would be considered more reliable than at current, but also not every band out there has a Wikipedia article. At this point, we are heavily in WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NRV territory, with a potential of WP:NOTINHERETED where only one member of the group was notable enough to have an article (a fact currently on dispute) --TheSandDoctor Talk 02:58, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @TheSandDoctor: Of course not every band out there has a Wikipedia article, I know that. Anyways, if we take Sputnikmusic out of the equation as well, then we are left with only one decent source (Metal.de) and one decent source is not enough. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:MUSICRS it looks like sputnik is eliminated as RS due to the fact that it isn't a clearly marked staff or emeritus review. I agree that 1 source is not enough. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Falconer (band). Two members from Mithotyn founded Falconer, so the connection is there. Mithotyn seems so borderline, but with a merge, the information would be retained. Geschichte (talk) 05:29, 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) 13:02, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Evan Hansen (film)[edit]

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

Per Wiki guidance: "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines."

Thus, this one does not meet the criteria.

Failed WP:NFF and WP:FUTURE

Delete! Kolma8 (talk) 12:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Variety showing that filming is underway here. The pre-production phase is well-covered which indicates notability for the topic. In other words, when a film's production is well-covered, it tends to mean that its reception will be well-covered too. And considering the subject matter, it's highly unlikely that this film's release won't get coverage. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Draftify as per future film guidelines. There is a widespread misunderstanding of the film guidelines that a film is notable when it begins or finishes production. The guideline is not as clear as it should be, but it says that films that have not begun production are never notable, and that films that have begun production are seldom notable, only if production itself is notable. Normally films are only notable when they have been released and reviewed. This is no exception and does not warrant an article while it is still in the works. In particular, articles on film projects that have not yet been released are typically either promotional, by paid editors for the studio or producer, or fancruft, by people who want to discuss the film in advance. This is a good-faith case where the proponents appear to be enthusiastic fans, but the guidelines are that unreleased films are seldom notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:28, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not true at all. WP:CRYSTAL says, "In forward-looking articles about unreleased products, such as films and games, take special care to avoid advertising and unverified claims (for films, see WP:NFF)." It says that there can be articles about unreleased products as long as we avoid advertising and unverified claims. The article currently has the industry trade papers Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, and Deadline Hollywood covering the film like it does any other film. There is no promotional tone in the article; it is a dry reporting of facts of how the production got underway. There is no effusive language like "award-winning" anywhere. Please strike your stance in line with policy. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:18, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepKolma8 is categorically wrong that the article fails WP:NFF. The article is well-sourced from industry publications, and we have reliable sources stating that prinicipal photography has commnenced. Moreover, the article is related to a film adaptation of an award-winning musical, starring several well-known actors. It would be absolutely ludicrous to delete or even draftify an erticle as notable as this one. JustaFilmFan (talk) 14:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Per Erik and JustaFilmFan. Rusted AutoParts 02:09, 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) 00:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep As per Erik, JustaFilmFan, and Rusted AutoParts. Pahiy (talk) 01:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems like an obvious keep. If an article fails a SNG but passess GNG, then it's still considered notable. That's just how these things work. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I understand that an article about a movie in production could be created by paid editors and full of fancruft, and that might be a reason to delete. But this article is not like that, so the argument appears to be that it should be treated like it's paid editing, even if it's not. — Toughpigs (talk) 03:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as User:MJL. I would like to say, however: JustaFilmFan, if one thing is notable and another thing is created by the same creator, that does not necessarily mean its notable. A perfect example being Among Us. The creator of Among us, Innersloth, used to have an article, but was not notable enough to have its own, and was re-directed to the game. Le Panini (Talk tome?) 14:43, 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. BD2412 T 01:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Music of the Streets of Rage series[edit]

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

WP:FANCRUFT need I say more and I don’t know if this also fails WP:GNG but it looks like it is more suitable for those who are fans of the music of the video game series from the 90s that had a fourth installment released earlier this year but other than that I don't know if this would be enough to save it. Pahiy (talk) 00:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 00:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 00:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Fancruft" is not a valid reason for deletion, per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Furthermore the music of Streets of Rage is rather notable with Yuzo Koshiro being known as one of the greatest composers in video game music alongside greats like Nobuo Uematsu. In other words, this is clearly notable.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 04:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete to Streets of Rage. Most of the sources seem to be about the game and not specifically about the music. Plus, there's already a section for it in Streets of Rage. So, this is needless FORK. It is also pretty FANCRAFT heavy and TNT would likely apply. Once the FANCRAFT is chopped out it would be almost exactly or less then the amount of content in the main Streets of Rage article. So, there's zero reason to keep it. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nominator labelled the discussion about the real life development of the series' music which cites reliable sources as "Fancruft" without actually articulating why the discussion is considered it to be WP:FANCRUFT. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is opinion and not a good enough rationale for merging or even deleting the article. Haleth (talk) 13:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can just read the paragraph to see it's full of FANCRAFT. If you actually have a problem with opinion then you should have a problem with the article. Since that's what every other word in it is. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ARTN says that the quality of writing in the current article is not relevant to the notability of the subject. Notability is determined by the existence of reliable sources. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
True, but it should be obvious that AfDs/AfD discussions aren't just confined to notability. No where in the guidelines does it say they are. Adamant1 (talk) 16:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They absolutely are confined to notability. Look at WP:ARTN and WP:NOTCLEANUP. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTCLEANUP specifically mentions TNT as a justification for deletion and TNT has nothing to do with notability. Its 100% about the quality of writting. Adamant1 (talk) 16:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neither you nor the nominator have explained yet why the content in the article which are cited to another source falls within the definition of WP:Fancruft or WP:OR. Have you highlighted any specific content from the article as examples of material for which no reliable, published sources exist? I also invite you to re-read WP:TNT, which itself I should point out is an essay/opinion piece, not a wikipedia editing guideline. It is established precedent that copyright violations and content where there is evidence of extensive cases of advocacy and undisclosed paid sock farms are blown up or speedily deleted. Are you or the nominator able to identify instances of these issues in this article? Besides these hard and fast examples, the onus for the nominator (and for you since you seem much more active than the nominator on advocating for the article's deletion) to achieve consensus for deletion here, since you invoked the recommendations provided by WP:TNT, would be to argue that the article is in fact "hopelessly irreparable". In an article which extensively covers statements of fact and opinion from several reliable sources, how would you argue that the article does not meet GNG or does not have significant coverage from reliable sources which are independent of the subject topic, which is the primary concern of WP:N and thus AfD discussions? Haleth (talk) 19:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The music on its own I believe is notable enough, as its the main topic of most of the sources. And I believe just because it only really appeals to a small group, its still a group. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, it keeps account of topics and culture. Jean Mercanton is only viewed 5-15 times a month, but its info about a person, that people wonder about. If people like the music from Streets of Rage and want to learn more about it, this is where they'd go. Le Panini (Talk tome?) 14:34, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The nominator's argument is flawed. "FANCRUFT need I say more" is not in line with existing policy; it's a clear call to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The nominator also suggests that the article will be of interest to people who are interested in the subject of the article. This is not a compelling argument. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think TNT would apply. Since 99% of it is OR and a non-neutral personal essay. Adamant1 (talk) 16:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 99% is OR? It has 33 sources. Are you sure you are talking about the same article?ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Furthermore, there are sources like this piece that explicitly say things like "Streets of Rage 2’s revolutionary 1992 soundtrack was ahead of its time" and "Yuzo Koshiro is among the most renowned composers in VGM history". There is no extrapolation here. The sources support the article's existence.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A few things. For one, the Games Rader article is purely a non-neutral opinion piece. References are suppose to be in-depth descriptions of the subject. Which doesn't include the authors personal feelings. Maybe to a slight degree if it's album review or something similar, but that's not the article is. The author of the piece, Joe McNeilly, has only written a few pieces for Games Rader. One of which is called "Portal is the most subversive game ever." Which among other hyperbolic things has the lines "This modern masterpiece shakes the FPS genre to the very core" and "Warning: The text you are about to read contains heady intellectual discourse." No one with any kind of integrity about this would say that Portal (video game) or any other article in Wikipedia should be a place for "heady intellectual discourse." This isn't a "philosophy of gaming" blog and portal being the most supervise game ever is purely a single persons opinions. Same goes for the stuff in this article. It being on gaming blog website is inconsequential to that. Joe McNeilly is not an expert in the field video games. He's hardly even a writer of video game articles. It would be analogous to using a guest writer for Breitbart News (or hell any writer) to justify putting in Donald Trump that he's the best president ever. That's not how Wikipedia or notability works. You couldn't even get away with by citing the person. But in this case, the fawning things about Streets of Rages music are not quoted and they are written as if it's they are the opinion of Wikipedia. Which is simply miss-leading and not true. Although I doubt it, maybe you get away with a very similar article how it is now, but again, most of it would have to be in direct quotes so it's clear Wikipedia isn't taking a stance in any direction. No one is going to re-write it that way though. Nor should they have to. Which is exactly why TNT applies. Ultimately though, notability doesn't come down to some random person saying something is cool or whatever. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see any proof that this "Joe McNeilly" is not knowledgeable about video games. Maybe GamesRadar+ had lower standards 10+ years ago and were down with the posting of parody articles and the like, but there are plenty of his articles that also seem like totally legit reviews. One does not simply discount an article wholesale due to the existence of other articles that might be goofy. They obviously hired him on a site, editorially approved him and told him to write such an article. With the way you are ranting about it, I doubt that would convince you, but those are the facts.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 02:48, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm discounting the article because of it sounds. That there are other goofy sounding articles around the same time by the same guy just add context to the fact that it's not a article. They could have hired a monkey to beat on a keyboard. That's not the point though. That aside, even if the article was a serious one about the music, it isn't in-depth anyway. As most it is off topic. The fact that the focus of this AfD is on a single, clearly not serious or in-depth article just goes to show this isn't notable. Even if it was though, that still doesn't mean it couldn't just be a section of the Streets of Rage article. Plenty of notable topics still aren't forks and I have to hear an argument from anyone why it's not a good option. Just personal opinions about the nominators motivations based on an irrelevant essay and things like "keep because Joe McNeilly sarcastically thinks it's the best music ever and someone told him to write the article." --Adamant1 (talk) 17:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep https://www.gamesradar.com/game-music-of-the-day-streets-of-rage/ And many other reliable sources giving it significant coverage are already referenced in the article. It passes the general notability guidelines, this just a bad nomination from someone who calls it fancruft and clearly doesn't like it. Dream Focus 17:15, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Totally notable. Here are high quality sources not used in the article:
    • Jarman, Casey (12 June 2020). "The Enduring Musical Legacy of "Streets of Rage"". Bandcamp Daily.
    • Park, Gene (May 12, 2020). "Here comes the drop(kick): The sick beats in 'Streets of Rage'". Washington Post.
    • Acovino, Vincent (June 12, 2020). "How 'Streets Of Rage 4' Reimagined Gaming's Most Iconic Rave". NPR.org.
    • Diver, Mike (May 7, 2016). "The 'Streets of Rage 2' Soundtrack Still Sounds Amazing Decades Later". Vice.
    • Twells, John (17 February 2018). "Yuzo Koshiro and Motohiro Kawashima's Streets of Rage 3 OST is a valuable slice of techno history". FACT Magazine.
    • Ombler, Mat (19 November 2018). "Off the streets and onto the dancefloor: the lasting impact of Streets of Rage's soundtrack". Eurogamer.
Only the best of the best soundtracks get coverage like that; Streets of Rage music was that important. TarkusABtalk/contrib 12:37, 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America1000 03:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kavana Cooperative[edit]

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

Non-notable Jewish synagogue fails WP:GNG. "Awards" listed do not confer notability. Raymie (t • c) 01:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 01:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 01:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 01:46, 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 02:58, 12 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, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well (solitaire)[edit]

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

Fails notability requirements. Also insufficient information for verifying content - only one obscure source provided in Russian. Gregorytopov (talk) 00:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 00:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like this page is going to be deleted. Can I move it to my user space? Iorsh (talk) 10:43, 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.
  1. ^ https://www.nagpuroranges.com/nagpur-based-boys-embark-with-a-film-ready-to-stream-on-amazon-prime/amp/
  2. ^ https://thelivenagpur.com/2020/09/04/tallukh-movie-shot-in-city-released-in-us-uk/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2020_October_21&oldid=986481862"