Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 October 25

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< October 24	October 26 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 11:23, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bao Tieu[edit]

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

No substantial coverage in reliable sources. All biographical information I found is from user-generated or commercial websites. Appeared in several notable movies with minor roles, none of which justify WP:NACTOR: King Arthur: Legend of the Sword, Artemis Fowl, Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom. Wikinights (talk) 23:32, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikinights (talk) 23:32, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Wikinights (talk) 23:32, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG Spiderone 09:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:49, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I previously nominated this article for deletion for the same reasons. The article's author admitted he was a friend of Tieu's and created it to help his career. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:18, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Nom. fails GNG. Priyanjali singh (talk) 13:44, 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 merge to Borat Subsequent Moviefilm. To the extent editorial consensus allows. Sandstein 12:53, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tutar Sagdiyev[edit]

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

Redirect to Borat Subsequent Moviefilm, it's just a normal fictional character in one movie, that is not a reason to create a separate article for it. Ibrahim.ID ✪ 23:04, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:09, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 15:30, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 15:30, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ibrahim.ID ✪ 00:07, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ibrahim.ID ✪ 00:07, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Improving, and there is one for Azamat Bagatov. The character has enough coverage to be deemed notable. Cassandra872 (talk) 23:35, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

every movie's character has a coverage, second: all references in article talk about (Maria Bakalova's performance) not about the character

Delete: material should either be placed at the page for the movie or for the actress.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:21, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I agree with Cassandra872 that this fictional character is a central role of the movie and should be further improved. – NirvanaToday^t@lk 08:59, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

if we have created an article about every fictional character in every movies, We need Millions af article and Wikipedia become a database not an encyclopedia --Ibrahim.ID ✪ 15:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If they had at least three to six independent articles about them, then yes, we would. Cassandra872 (talk) 21:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

actually, no independent articles about (Tutar Sagdiyev), all references talk about the movie or Maria Bakalova and her performance only, Trivial mentions don't count --Ibrahim.ID ✪ 00:38, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not even the main character of the movie, we should also delete Azamat Bagatov. Omniscientmoose42 (talk) 18:00, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Borat Subsequent Moviefilm: The reception section can be merged to the movie he is in, but is otherwise pretty short and I don't think it justifies keeping this as a stand-alone entry. Most of the article is unreferenced plot summary aka WP:FANCRUFT. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:04, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom --Cornellier (talk) 13:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Borat Subsequent Moviefilm. The character has no existence outside that single media, so that is where it should be discussed. BD2412 T 20:11, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Borat Subsequent Moviefilm, currently the only secondary sourcing that exists is the character's reception in that film, which can easily be covered at the film article. Devonian Wombat (talk) 20:56, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 21:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the film article. Most of the coverage is about the performance of the actress and not so much about the significance of the character. Jontesta (talk) 00:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Borat Subsequent Moviefilm aside from those including cast member commentary, the only legit publications that discuss this character are reviews for the movie and Maria Bakalova's perform in that. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:11, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Borat Subsequent Moviefilm. The Optimistic One (talk) 22:29, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Borat Subsequent Moviefilm and have Tutar Sagdiev redirect to that article. Especially because this movie character appears in exactly one movie. Stephenamills (talk) 05:17, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Someone already tried to merge these unsuccessfully and was a sockpuppet anyway. Just noting for visibility. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:15, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And again. Don't merge unless that's the consensus of this conversation and if you do, please correct things like the citation style, spelling, and dates to conform to the existing article. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:19, 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 delete. Geschichte (talk) 11:25, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CSR implementation[edit]

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

There's already an article on Corporate social responsibility. The implication that this one is specifically about its implementation is illusory as most of the instances of forms of the word "implement" could be removed without changing its meaning. So WP:Content forking seems to apply.

It also isn't an informational piece, providing objective information about CSR implementation, but an advocacy piece giving reasons to establish a CSR program and considerations to keep in mind when doing so. It's a point-of-view piece that doesn't balance disadvantages against the advantages given. WP:SOAPBOX, WP:NOTGUIDE apply.

The final section is informational in form, but it's one arbitrary source's arbitrary and trivial breakdown of a CSR implementation into steps. Largoplazo (talk) 22:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 22:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom -- the article is largely duplicative of what's already in the main CSR article. This content is a worse version of the Implementation section there, and sources do not back up the importance/notability of CSR implementation independent from of CSR itself. Searching for CSR implementation will lead to plenty of results, but for the most part they'd be the kinds of sources one would use in a training manual. I do see some scholarly sources, but I don't have access and I just see a trimmed version of this article as being a WP:NOTDICT/WP:NOTHOWTO violation. Alyo (chat·edits) 04:48, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see the sourcing available to sustain this as an independent article. Merging would be an option if there were material worth merging, but the implementation section in the main article is better than what is here. -- Whpq (talk) 17:46, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with Non, plus Wikipedia is not a user manual. Expertwikiguy (talk) 18:13, 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 redirect. Geschichte (talk) 11:26, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, NIT Rourkela[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:ORG and WP:NFACULTY. Apart from the primary sources in the article and net, there are no secondary RS with significant coverage, not meeting WP:SIRS. Also no other National Institutes of Technology has a separate page for their humanities and social sciences school/department. I also not opposed to redirect to National Institute of Technology, Rourkela. Roller26 (talk) 22:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 22:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 22:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect To National Institute of Technology, Rourkela. Mccapra (talk) 22:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - not notable enough for a stand-alone article as per the nom's reasoning Spiderone 08:20, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as others have said. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:27, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to National Institute of Technology, Rourkela.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:44, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to National Institute of Technology, Rourkela. Priyanjali singh (talk) 13:46, 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 redirect. Geschichte (talk) 11:28, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

School of Management, NIT Rourkela[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:ORG and WP:NFACULTY. Apart from the primary sources in the article and net, there are no secondary RS with significant coverage, not meeting WP:SIRS. Also no other National Institutes of Technology has a separate page for their management school/department. I also not opposed to redirect to National Institute of Technology, Rourkela. Roller26 (talk) 22:21, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 22:21, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 22:21, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to National Institute of Technology, Rourkela. Mccapra (talk) 22:51, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - not notable enough for a stand-alone article as per the nom's reasoning Spiderone 08:20, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to National Institute of Technology, Rourkela. Priyanjali singh (talk) 13:48, 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) 22:41, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Kouri[edit]

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

Significant coverage in reliable sources seems limited to brief obituaries that mostly just cover his financial support of Elon Musk. The only source written before his death that gives more than a mere mention is [1], which does not publish any information about their editorial staff and thus is likely unreliable. This was previously a redirect to PayPal, but as Kouri is not mentioned there, restoring the redirect doesn't seem appropriate. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:53, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't appear to have notability in his own right.QuiteUnusual (talk) 16:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:53, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:53, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:53, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per the nominator. No evidence of notability. DMySon 13:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although I found one more article in Google news, there is still not enough to establish notabiliy. Expertwikiguy (talk) 17:47, 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 delete. Sandstein 12:54, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli style hummus[edit]

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

This article is about Michael Solomonov's version of hummus at his Philadelphia restaurant, where it was called simply "hummus tehina". That version of hummus is now discussed in the Solomonov article. The name "Israeli style hummus" was used in Bon Appétit's reprint of his recipe, and was not used by Solomonov himself. I had originally proposed that Israeli style hummus redirect to Michael Solomonov, but User:IamNotU pointed out that Solomonov didn't use that name. So it seems more appropriate to simply delete the article. -- Macrakis (talk) 21:37, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a nothing burger made of chickpeas. If it must be redirected, Hummus#Regional preparations would be the better target. gidonb (talk) 19:52, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article seems to have started out as a content fork of the hummus article, created by an editor who added a vast amount of information sourced to unreliable sources such as youtube, instagam and travel blogs, along with a good dose of WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS, see this version of the article for an idea of how it read. Over time all of the unreliably sourced information was removed, leaving the current barebones article. I don't think that this chef's specific version of hummus is notable enough for a standalone article, and the reviews of his cooking and restaurant are already included in a more general form in the article Michael Solomonov. Per Gidonb redirecting to Hummus#Regional preparations may be an appropriate alternative to deletion 192.76.8.82 (talk) 23:12, 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 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) 09:41, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

William A. Koch[edit]

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

A cursory search for sources finds few other than the linked sources which are dead and SPS, other SPS sources, and obituaries that were written by his company. There are a couple of sources talking about his wife fighting to gain control of the park, and some more about his family, but not that show notability. In addition, the article is written in a manner that doesn't meet WP:NPOV. Gbear605 (talk) 21:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Gbear605 (talk) 21:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 22:36, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Minden, Wisconsin[edit]

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

This place doesn't seem to actually exist. It doesn't show up in any newspaper archive or the Wisconsin Historical Society. It's not even in the state list of post offices in 1887, [2] which is the year listed for the one single source. ~ฅ(ↀωↀ=)neko-chan^nyan 21:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. ~ฅ(ↀωↀ=)neko-chan^nyan 21:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Can't find any mentions of a WI place in newspapers.com. Is not even listed in GNIS, which returns only the PO, and one year of existence is not notability. Reywas92^Talk 22:12, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Yeah, this is weird. When you look it up, the only blur is this article, and any other links are just "Hey! We have no idea what you're talking about, but you can look up this place on our website! Where is this info coming from? Le Panini (^{Talk to}_me?) 01:49, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - GNIS has no coordinates, states that it "reportedly operated in 1887", and lists the source as "miscellaneous". Can't find anything about this in Google Books or newspapers.com or on the topos. This is vying with the time GNIS called a pond a populated place for the single worst GNIS-based article I've ever seen. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even the GNIS doesn't claim this was a populated place; it's just a place that had a post office for a single year (according to the source that lists it in the first place), back in a time where rural post offices that weren't affiliated with a community were a lot more common. This is barely verifiable, much less notable. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 17:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, very few sources exist for this place. This more trivia, than encyclopedic. JackFromReedsburg (talk) 15:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 22:38, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hammouda Salhi (linguist)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO, WP:RS. Tendentious editing. Self-promotion. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:54, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sign of citations sufficient for WP:NPROF C1, and membership on an editorial board (not chief editor) isn't going to give WP:NPROF C8. Although the article mentions books, they are not listed, and I did not find them (some of his publications may be book chapters, however, I did not check). So no WP:NAUTHOR. Looks WP:TOOSOON for this 2012 PhD. Little sign of GNG - interpreting for notable people certainly doesn't grant notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:49, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Likely WP:AUTOBIO. Wikipedia is WP:NOTLINKEDIN or a tool to optimize one's online profile. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:15, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:29, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OpenKore[edit]

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

Sourced entirely to primary/affiliated sources and no additional sources in common search engines. Only hits in Google Books are to Wikipedia mirrors. There are a few mentions in Google Scholar whitepapers, but not refereed articles and no mention is noteworthy enough to warrant a mention in (and redirect to) Ragnarok Online. Lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) czar 20:21, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 20:21, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources to meet the WP:GNG. I agree that the google scholar sources are not significant, and possibly not even reliable by Wikipedia standards. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:38, 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) 09:41, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Josie Taveras[edit]

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

Article for boxing manager is dependent on sources that are actually about his clients. Taveras has no reliable media coverage about himself specifically, except for a COVID diagnosis that caused one of his client's fights to be postponed, and the news coverage of that incident was still primarily about the fighters and the event anyway. In Wikipedia, notability is not inherited. DOOMSDAYER520 | TALK | CONTRIBS 20:07, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. DOOMSDAYER520 | TALK | CONTRIBS 20:07, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. DOOMSDAYER520 | TALK | CONTRIBS 20:07, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I could only find passing mentions such as "X is managed by Josie Taveras" and a bunch relating to the positive COVID test. Fails GNG with no significant coverage. – ².O.^Boxing 20:58, 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 keep. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:30, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fuat Ergin[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Article simply announces the rapper's existence and makes no statement of notability. This is probably because he has received almost no significant and reliable media coverage, and is only visible in the standard retail and streaming databases. The same is true of his various alternate stage names. None of his albums have reliable or informative reviews either, and are themselves only available at the standard retail and streaming sites. DOOMSDAYER520 | TALK | CONTRIBS 20:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. DOOMSDAYER520 | TALK | CONTRIBS 20:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. DOOMSDAYER520 | TALK | CONTRIBS 20:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Keep These all seem like reliable sources for me: Sözcü [3], Milliyet [4], Hürriyet [5], Cumhuriyet [6], Radikal [7]. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 09:03, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Nominator - Just because the publication (newspaper) is notable, this does not guarantee that the article about the person under discussion is significant or helps with notability. Of the five newspaper articles listed: #1 and #4 are possibly useful for info about the rapper's history, but they are softball introductory interviews. #2 is nothing but a brief promotional announcement. #3 is a brief notice about the guy's wedding. #5 is a PR piece about an upcoming album. In my view, none of those satisfy the significant coverage requirement for this musician despite being reliable publications otherwise. DOOMSDAYER520 | TALK | CONTRIBS 20:11, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable and what Styyx said. Omniscientmoose42 (talk) 09:05, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Styyx. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 18:54, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable and well-covered per Styyx's sources. Plus there is likely even more out there that was not listed here.--Seacactus 13 (talk) 22:18, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Citing (talk) 17:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GScript[edit]

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

~~Non-notable predecessor to Gosu, could just have its own section on the Gosu Article. Wiki Macaroons^Cinnamon? 18:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)~~ Request withdrawn Wiki Macaroons^Cinnamon? 08:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Wiki Macaroons^Cinnamon? 18:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, procedural keep that is. If basic facts are verifiable and there is a clear merge and redirect target, then AfD is the wrong venue for this. Considering alternatives to deletion is policy (see WP:ATD), and so boldly merging or starting a merge discussion should be attempted before proposing deletion. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 18:58, 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 keep. Consensus is that the band is notable, there is no consensus that the individual albums are notable, consensus is that likely that several are not and the verifiable information would need to be merged. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:50, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Indelicates[edit]

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

The deletion log has seen its share of this article. It was deleted through AFD in 2018, then promptly restored and userfied, and on the same day moved back with the following reason: "no reason for this not to be in mainspace". Way to bypass AFD - though a couple of references were added. Nevertheless, it's essentially the same article as the one which was deleted, so it's technically eligible for WP:CSD#G4, but since two years has passed, a discussion seems proper. This is a procedural nomination first and foremost, but it can be noted that their records have been issued on insignificant labels. (one of which, Sad Gnome, is proposed for deletion.) Geschichte (talk) 09:38, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bundling the following recordings into this discussion:

~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The refs are press releases, links to the band's own website, and a comment by one of the band's members in a BBC News article about something else. There's simply nothing here that would pass the criteria set out at WP:NBAND. Given the edit history highlighted by the nominator, it might be prudent to salt the page, to ensure any future re-creation go through the new page creation process. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:33, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep band, Redirect albums - This band has some reliable media notice and I don't think the situation is as dire or corrupt as indicated by the nominator and previous voter. The band has received three pretty robust album/song reviews from the reliable PopMatters, including info about their history: [8], [9], [10]. Some of those are linked in the album articles that have also been tied to this AfD. Here is some additional coverage that may or may not be totally reliable, but can be used for more info on the band: [11], [12], [13]. I think the band has enough for a basic stub article. The album articles are too thin and can be redirected to the band. DOOMSDAYER520 | TALK | CONTRIBS 13:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I appreciate the article as it stands asserts weak notability and needs improvement but a cursory search shows the band had enough coverage back in the day to pass at least NBAND #1. In addition to the PopMatters articles already identified, nineteen articles on Digital Spy over a three year period. Some of them, admittedly, are album announcements, but enough are comment, review and interview to be considered non-trivial coverage. And while these are articles not about the band, the BBC clearly also thought the band at least notable enough for comment, more than once, as did The Guardian. While trying to interpret NBAND #6 is a mixed bag at best, it is worth noting that notable artists have contributed to the band's work, with one album featuring lead vocals on several tracks by musicians including Jim Bob of Carter USM and Mikey Georgeson of David Devant & His Spirit Wife. Probably at the weekend I can start building it up using these sources and whatever else I can find, and if someone wants to move it to my userspace pending those improvements, I guess I'd be OK with that. Steve ^T • C 18:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional coverage here of their album David Koresh Superstar, in World. Also some print source scans here. Some of the mentions here are more trivial, but the coverage in New Statesman, The Guardian and maybe NME is non-trivial. Will hopefully update with more when I find it, but this all feels like enough to assert notability already. Steve ^T • C 06:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Further information: included at #72 in the "The Top 100 Albums Of The Quietus' Existence" at The Quietus. Also had a song on the soundtrack of 2012 movie Move (source independent of the movie credits: director Dietrich Brüggemann's blog. Confirmed as such in this article in The Abendzeitung). I think these, as well as the sources already identified and the print sources, show that the band clearly clears the bar of notability, though I don't blame the nominator for thinking otherwise; as someone else pointed out when we were talking about it today—the band "falls into a hole where people expect everything from the 00s to be online and that’s not true." Steve ^T • C 19:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - As said my nomination was mostly procedural, given that it was technically eligible for speedy deletion as recreated content. Geschichte (talk) 08:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Fair point; that's a nuance I missed when reading the nomination. It was good to have the discussion regardless. Steve ^T • C 08:33, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the band article and the album articles as per the multiple reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion including enough substantial coverage for a pass of WP:GNG and criteria 1 of WP:NMUSIC (only one criteria needed) so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG, with BBC news mentions. One band member is quite notable, Laurence Owen (composer). Ambrosiawater (talk) 05:21, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the band article should be kept, but is there consensus about the albums? Geschichte (talk) 07:54, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- This is trickier. I'm working on an updated version of the main article in userspace, but it won't be complete for another couple of days. There is coverage of most of the albums, but I won't know whether summary style should apply here until that's closer to being finished. I'd say redirect for now, and I can always roll that back if I need to. Steve ^T • C 08:05, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss what to do about the albums.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - We have a solid consensus about the band, but this has gotten unnecessarily complicated. My vote above to redirect the albums is probably the reason for the relisting. But note that the band's deletion nomination was originally by Geschichte, but the albums were added by someone else, Dom Kaos. So I wonder if the combined AfD is procedurally legitimate. I recommend declaring the band keep-worthy, and then inviting Dom Kaos to nominate the albums again, individually. DOOMSDAYER520 | TALK | CONTRIBS 18:59, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No Consensus I invite an admin to close this discussion as "No Consensus". This does the same thing as "keep" (according to WP:AFD/AI) and allows an editor to nominate the albums in a new AfD to avoid a WP:Trainwreck. Alternatively, the admin can close this as a procedural "keep" with a note that this should not prevent a new nomination for the albums. I think The Indelicates passes WP:GNG due to the sources listed above and the coverage it has received in Pop Matters and Digital Spy, among others. Z1720 (talk) 23:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It should be a keep for the band as that is the clear consensus, the albums could be discussed for merger on their talkpages. imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:35, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; I think this should be closed (no preference on the method; either "keep" or "no consensus" have the same result) and we leave what to do with the albums to the editorial process. Steve ^T • C 11:10, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:30, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brady Sullivan Plaza[edit]

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Subject does not have coverage that meets significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV. WP:BEFORE revealed advertising, WP:ROUTINE, WP:MILL, coverage and directory style listings. // Timothy :: talk 18:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 18:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 18:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 10:30, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 19:20, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Macon, Georgia[edit]

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

Article does not meet WP:LISTN. None of the buildings on the list is notable, the single list link is to an organization and has no information about the building; the city is not notable for tall buildings. List does not meet the purposes of WP:CLN. // Timothy :: talk 18:17, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 18:17, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 18:17, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Based on title alone, or certainly sounds like a list that could be notable; alas, it is not. Content of article is meandering and largely verified, with all but one reference using the same website as a source. How has this article existed for 9+ years? Sean Stephens (talk) 09:45, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete There is some argument for deleting most of these as copyvios of Emporis, and I will also note they have lists for lots of not-especially tall places: looking at their list for Laurel, Maryland, they go down to a 1 story building. (There are also some omissions in their list.) Anyway, the message of this list is that there is nothing notable about the skyline of Macon. Mangoe (talk) 13:58, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if just the building heights themselves, such data isn't copyrightable AFAIK, but notability is an issue here, as with the other "tallest buildings" pages in places where there isn't sufficient coverage of "tallest buildings" — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:00, 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. 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) 09:40, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Laidley Tower[edit]

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD and BEFORE showed nothing that meets RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Article provides no indication of notability. // Timothy :: talk 18:10, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 18:10, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 18:10, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, just a tower. Geschichte (talk) 19:27, 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. Geschichte (talk) 19:21, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cheryl Dinolfo[edit]

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

Local (county-level) politician. Does not meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Only routine local coverage in Rochester, NY. MB 17:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MB 17:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MB 17:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The county level of office is not automatically notable under WP:NPOL — people at that level of office may occasionally qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia if they can be shown to be much more significant than the norm, such as by writing a really substantial and really well-sourced article that addresses the importance of her work in the role, but are not automatically entitled to have minimally-sourced and résumé-like articles just because they exist. But with two primary sources and one hit of local coverage in an alt-weekly, this isn't sourced anywhere near well enough to get her over the bar she actually has to clear. Bearcat (talk) 15:45, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete This article is noteworthy. Chery's predecessor, Maggie Brooks has an article. Please explain to me how this article is different. Both people need articles so people can find out more about these people. Dswitz10734 (talk) 16:19, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It's entirely possible that Maggie Brooks isn't notable either and should thus also be deleted, which would be a reason to delete both articles rather than a reason to keep this one — but also keep in mind that her article is also a lot longer and a lot better sourced, and contains a lot more substance to suggest that she might be notable for more than just being a county executive per se. So the fact that she has an article is not relevant to whether this article meets our rules and standards or not. Bearcat (talk) 14:04, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete county executives are not default notable. Weather Ms. Brooks is really notable I am not sure yet, but her being notable does not make anyone who serves after her in the office notable. Mia B. Love was mayor of Saratoga Springs, Utah and we have had an article on her almost since she first became notable. This does not mean her successor as mayor of Saratoga Springs, Utah is notable. Whether Mrs. Love was actually a notable individual at the time I first created the article on her I am not sure. She clearly is now, because she served 2 terms as a member of the US House, but that does not mean she was when I first created the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:53, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL. scope_creep^Talk 09:54, 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 07:05, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Bradenton, Florida[edit]

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

Article does not meet LISTN. None of the buildings on the list is notable, the city is not notable for tall buildings. List does not meet the purposes of CLN. // Timothy :: talk 17:55, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 17:55, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 17:55, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not only are the buildings listed here not particularly tall, even compared to buildings in the nearby Tampa Bay area, but none of them are notable enough to have a Wikipedia article of their own. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:19, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:03, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete How lame are these lists going to get? There is absolutely nothing of note here. Mangoe (talk) 13:22, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Geschichte (talk) 08:07, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a list of non-notable buildings Spiderone 22:56, 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 no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:31, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Teeuwynn Woodruff[edit]

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

Based on current sourcing and likely availability of other sources. Although they have written for the Wired, not much has been written about them. I searched 7 pages deep into Google and didn't find significant coverage, no result at all on JSTOR or NYT. One book they authored and besides that only appearing in a name list together with other people, but not something written about them. Nothing more than brief passing mention about them in news. I don't believe this person meets WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG Graywalls (talk) 06:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC) Extend: Statements based on her own words do not contribute to notability. Her own words on interview conducted by amateur internet podcast personnel Sam Chubb and BK Adrian are not a reliable source aside from confirming the probable fact that Woodruff said what she said. Sources from TSR(employer) is not an independent source, neither is a PDF published by her coworker Mike Selinker(co-worker). Her coverage in Seattle Times is only a column about a one day event. The current sources absolutely do not satisfies the WP:SIRS criteria and the reviews supplied that can be attributed don't appear to be independent professional reviews. They're not like Kirkus. Graywalls (talk) 21:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Significant?	Independent?	Reliable?	Secondary?	Pass/Fail	Notes
The Seattle Times "Catch him if you can — win $5,000" in the local column section	N	Y	Y	N	N	Woodruff's one time auxiliary role in Evan Ratcliff's hide and seek game
BK Adrian; and Sam Chubb	Y	N	N	N	N	Subject's own statements in podcast interview run by some non-established dudes off the internet.
Kidsworld.com	N	Y	?	Y	N	very brief review
Swan, Rick and Varney, Allen reviews published by TSR.	?	?	?	?	?	Two reviews, both published by TSR, to which Woodruff may have held professional connections.
Selinker, Mike	N	N	?	N	N	Woodruff appears in a name list written by her colleague at the time.
Total qualifying sources					0	There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements

Graywalls (talk) 00:37, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 06:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 06:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 06:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 20:50, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 19:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 19:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--I agree with the nominator. The article is fluffy and seems to want to piece notability together from the smallest of claims, and secondary sourcing that proves anything at all is lacking. Drmies (talk) 20:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have removed the unsourced material, and added two interviews as sources to establish the facts of her career and that she was the first female game designer at both White Wolf Publishing (1993) and Wizards of the Coast (1995).Guinness323 (talk) 07:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Guinness323, I'm sorry, but nothing you added is in any way reliably sourced or acceptable. You're citing podcasts? No. Drmies (talk) 17:20, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Drmies:. I'm on the same position as you. Since they're recorded, it probably accurately reflects the subject said what she said, but I think it's it's a huge issue in WP:NPOV and letting it have influence on what contents to include, because the conversation is directed by some random guys Sam Chubb and BK Adrian from the internet who hosts their personal podcast and those two interview audios are certainly absolutely worthless for notability purpose. A subject and a friend could easily plant things out, plot conversation ahead of time to only talk about what they want to talk about and put emphasis on things the subject wants to talk a lot about. Graywalls (talk) 18:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added another secondary source, an article from the Seattle Times.Guinness323 (talk) 17:00, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That source is usable for fact verification such as that she was 40 in 2009. But note that it appears to be a column based on the closing commentary on the bottom and it's in the Local News section of the people talking about local matters. It sounds like this is about a one time event on August 17, 2009, so WP:BIO1E may apply. Graywalls (talk) 17:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I agree the article is poorly written buts she’s written enough notable games that she should stay. Someone should sandbox it. Juju (talk) 22:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to WP:NAUTHOR reviews of works count toward notability ("multiple independent periodical articles or reviews"). Recommend creating a section for reviews with appropriate sourcing. I see her books have separate articles with the reviews scattered around elsewhere except in her article where they probably should be located to establish her notability as an author. @Jujucabana and Guinness323: -- GreenC 14:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Accordingly, I have added a number of independent reviews of works where she is either the sole author/designer or lead designer.Guinness323 (talk) 18:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Tons of reviews here could be included. -- GreenC 14:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see a button for "add review" in those pages and they appear to be those WRITTEN BY VISITORS. Those reviews are not appropriate to be included as sources per our user generated contents guidelines and I don't even see user reviews after a quick glance. "In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." This does not apply for just being contributing author to magazines. Graywalls (talk) 15:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are not looking at the right place. Archive.org is a library that has complete copies of books and magazines in its holdings (they have over 30 million larger than Google Books and you can check out the complete book for free). These books and magazines contain reviews of books published by Teeuwynn Woodruff. -- GreenC 16:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What do you expect with a comment like "Tons of reviews here" and when it is not "here" ? Graywalls (talk) 16:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But it is there. You just have to open the books and search for her reviews. It was a comment/suggestion for anyone trying to Keep the article. I didn't vote, the search link is not on its own a justification for Keep. -- GreenC 17:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above comments, and per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. BOZ (talk) 12:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some of the elements in the table above are inaccurate.
- The Seattle Times is a significant, reliable, secondary, independent source. The "Local News" (which most large city newspaper have) is a section of the newspaper that covers local news, just like the sports section covers sports, the business section covers business, etc. Just because the article is about local news does not make it any less significant by appearing in the pages of a major newspaper.
- Dragon is a significant reliable secondary source, and considered independent when the subject is not materials published by TSR.
  - In the case of the review by Rick Swan about Galitia Citybook, Woodruff wrote the book in 1994 for West End Games, which is not associated with TSR. She wrote it the year before she started working at WotC, and three years before WotC bought TSR. Therefore no conflict of interest or lack of independence.
  - In the case of the Varney article, that is not a review, it is a industry-related news article, and was added not for notability but as a fact-checking source.
- Kidzworld.com is an independent, reliable, secondary website focussed on children and preteens.Guinness323 (talk) 04:52, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ORGDEPTH defines "coverage of purely local events, incidents, controversies" as trivial, but WP:GNG is sparsely populated with the definition of trivial. Given the italic comment on the bottom of that piece, I believe that is a column, or WP:NEWSBLOG rather than a regular news. I looked into it more and its looking like her role was an auxiliary role. Ok, so Evan Ratcliff was doing a hide-and-seek and Woodruff was point of contact person... but the main theme of these coverages was about Evan and his hide and seek. Woodruff was simply a auxiliary role. So I think this counts as trivial coverage about her. https://www.argn.com/2009/08/a_modern_day_lobby_lud_wireds_manhunt_for_evan_ratliff/
https://www.wired.com/2009/09/vanished-captured-recapping-the-hunt-for-evan-ratliff/
https://www.wired.com/2009/08/how-well-find-evan-ratliff/
Graywalls (talk) 06:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of the article that appeared in the Seattle Times, Nicole Brodeur was a regular bi-weekly columnist. That newspaper has the largest circulation in the state of Washington and in the Pacific Northwest region, and has received 11 Pulitzer Prizes (most recently in 2019). Clearly a column published in a large city newspaper is not considered "trivial" by its editors, but something of interest to its readers. While the first part of the article is about the event, the balance is about Woodruff and her role as a female game designer in a largely male-dominated industry, which is exactly why the article was used in this article.Guinness323 (talk) 16:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Column is an opinion of the author writing the piece, so it's a primary source. A reliable primary source isn't excluded as a source, but they don't count towards notability. Graywalls (talk) 18:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, additional research can be done with Reading Moving Letters (2015) and Tabletop Game Design for Video Game Designers (2015). Right cite (talk) 15:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source comments https://books.google.com/books?id=_5DwCQAAQBAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&lpg=PT156&vq=woodruff&dq=%22Tabletop%20Game%20Design%20for%20Video%20Game%20Designers%22&pg=PT156#v=onepage&q&f=false nothing really significant. https://books.google.com/books?newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&id=N-BKCgAAQBAJ&dq=%22Reading+Moving+Letters%22&q=woodruff#v=snippet&q=woodruff&f=false nothing significant. It confirms that she was one of the five people who created Betrayal at the House on the Hill Graywalls (talk) 16:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Guinness323 and their additional research and writing. Article seems to barely pass notability. To the extent it's on that borderline, there's no suitable redirect or merge target, and a stand-alone article seems like the best of all options. The article could stand to be cleaned up and re-organized but that's separate from AFD. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:30, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:18, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shiyamalen Thavandiran[edit]

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

Not a notable chess player, doesn't meet WP:NCHESS: has only national junior championship titles under his belt, participations to world youth and junior championships are hardly a claim of notability. Sophia91 (talk) 17:30, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sophia91 (talk) 17:30, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Holds record for youngest winner of Canadian Junior Chess Championship in history. This information is of importance to Canadian chess historians and should be kept in light of WP:NOTPAPER. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masquesfaciaux (talk • contribs) 05:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC) Masquesfaciaux (talk) 05:38, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a GM, so doesn't meet WP:NCHESS. None of the references in the article are substantial to meet WP:GNG, and nothing found (well, I found his Twitter account). The Canadian Junior Chess Championship doesn't have an article, winning it isn't going to meet any award-based guidelines. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:NCHESS or WP:GNG, as there is no coverage on him. I might have argued for a keep if he had achieved a good final ranking in World Youth Chess Championship or the World Junior Chess Championship, but I could not find it. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 21:54, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He was national champion in chess. Junior championship are acepted as a notoriety criterion, as can be seen in WP:NSPORT. The WP:NCHESS has no restrictions for junior championship. Considering that junior championships are also official championships, the WP:NCHESS interpretation must be broad and include junior championships. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 19:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Where in NSPORT does it say that junior championships are sufficient for notability? I don't see how you can interpret NCHESS to include junior championships. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is in question. Fails WP:NCHESS. CleanAmbassy (talk) 02:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His name is usually given as Shiyam Thavandiran – this may have misled other editors who have not been able to find anything about him. Does not meet NCHESS, but meets GNG: see for instance [14], [15], and offline feature articles cited here. His achievements (listed here) have also been regularly covered in the Chess Federation of Canada's magazine since the early 2000s (example here from 2007, see pp. 8–10). Cobblet (talk) 14:04, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep does appear to have significant coverage. It's borderline because this is a short stubby article but that is par for the course with a lot of competitive players in sports and games. Jontesta (talk) 15:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Youngest ever winner of Canada's junior championship is a decent claim to notability, and he is a strong player today even though he does not yet hold the Grandmaster title. He is continuing to get coverage in Canadian chess circles as Cobblet has shown.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:31, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The keep arguments are not helping as they reinforce the view that sourcing falls short. Therefore this is tending delete but more input would help
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:17, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These "not very helpful" arguments are in fact attempting to show that GNG has been met [16], [17], [18], [19], even if he doesn't meet the unofficial WikiProject-only NCHESS criteria. At worst this discussion should result in a no consensus, not delete.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:00, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We normally exclude IMs unless they are 'distinguished' in some 'other' way. For example, there are high level chess commentators, coaches and authors who have succeeded in these debates. However, being some kind of national junior champion would be expected of most IMs as part of their passage to the title. In the same way, playing international junior/youth events (without excelling) would also be commonplace in such a player's development. If such criteria were considered to confer article eligibility, then the majority of IMs would be termed notable, thereby opening the floodgates. Brittle heaven (talk) 16:01, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It may even open the floodgates to FMs and non-titled players, as some minor chess nations will also have junior champions who have been sent to continental and world championships. It just seems a dangerous precedent, and 'youngest ever' feels like a weak counter-argument to me. It's something you could find in all quarters - eg. 'he was the youngest ever captain of his school team'. Brittle heaven (talk) 16:17, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per Nom, Brittle heaven, and some "keep" !votes that advance that the project covering criteria (NCHESS) for inclusion is either wrong or not on par with WP:GNG meaning there is a split notability criteria according to fancy. Aside from the dead links there is another issue of notability of a BLP being presented by largely primary or nonWP:independent sources that I should point out does not advance notability. Instead of pointing out where past Wikipedia consensus is wrong I would think providing reliable and independent sourcing a better route. It might also be a good idea to present these types of comments for discussion at the relevant projects for a criteria change, including the "unofficial" Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess project with 355 editors, and not here. It should further be noted that non-independent or primary sources that just present a score card is not usually acceptable to advance notability. Since the International Olympic Committee considers chess to be a sport I suppose the criteria of WP:SPORTBASIC might be included. Otr500 (talk) 23:26, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to meet WP:NCHESS and refs are not independent hence, fails to satisfy WP:GNG as well. --KartikeyaS (talk) 19:09, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see which of the sources discussed could be considered promotional or unduly promoting the subject's own view. Cobblet (talk) 21:31, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 15:06, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Trick of the Tail Tour[edit]

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

Pretty much as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nursery Cryme Tour, this article is original research - I don't believe there are any reliable sources that cover a tour with this specific title. Everything in the article can already go in the parent articles of the band or the relevant album. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:13, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What matters, surely is whether there are suitable and sufficient sources that cover this 1976 tour under whatever name - I would at least expect for there to be plenty of reviews at the time - naming is only a second order issue (of course finding sources may be harder without a definite name).Nigel Ish (talk) 11:55, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but most of that is in Genesis (band) and A Trick of the Tail already. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:13, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:12, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - deletion is not cleanup, and this tour (or the concerts that were part of it; which this article reports in the manner of a list article) are covered in multiple reliable sources. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Andy, and I have said above, such content (which I have cited from multiple book sources myself) is in the existing good articles Genesis (band) and A Trick of the Tail, both of which I nominated for GA myself. We don't need three articles saying the same thing. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, you have said that (in fact you now say it for the third time). But it is not really true, as only some of the content of the nominated article, and to which I refer, is repeated in those other articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:36, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think we have focused on the sourcing, not the FORK argument. Would be great to get further input
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:06, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Antalya Anadolu Lisesi[edit]

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

The article has been a stub for 15 years. There has been no improvements and it does not meet the notability criteria. --Visnelma (talk) 11:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 October 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:22, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:22, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question who actually nominated the article for deletion? Might want to add your signature on top :) ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 09:04, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Spiderone. Sözcü is actually a reliable source, but a single source is not enough. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 12:34, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - has received some coverage [20] due to the COVID pandemic but nothing that would satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL Spiderone 16:40, 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 snow delete. User invented pages that would also meet speedy delete A11. —Bagumba (talk) 09:31, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Ennis' National Basketball Association Most Valuable Player Award[edit]

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

Pages are clear WP:FANCRUFT and article creator should've just left it in username namespace and not article namespace. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 14:13, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, but these articles do not belong in user space either. While some leeway is allowed in user space, we are not a hosting service, there is at least one instance where information on a user's hobby/pastime (tracking poker winnings) has been deleted. Kablammo (talk) 15:51, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a speedy deletion criterion for it, CSD U5. Geschichte (talk) 18:21, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, per above. Nonsense that we should be hosting someone's personally devised "awards". Nigej (talk) 20:19, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. These awards are just the opinions of one Wikipedia editor. As such, they apparently violate all three of Wikipedia's core content policies: neutral point of view, no original research, and verifiability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:00, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. I looked through some really old deletion discussions and the word WP:VANITY was used much more back then. Back then it connoted people writing about themselves in a puffed-up manner. Surely, pretending that you are hand out awards fall under this. Geschichte (talk) 18:21, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, or at the very least, move it out of article space. I shudder to think of some unsuspecting user stumbling across this and thinking that this is some sort of actual NBA award. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:49, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 19:24, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2021 NRL season[edit]

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

The article fails WP:GNG and WP:TOOSOON ~ Amkgp 💬 14:10, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:10, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:10, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is professional sport we are talking about. Clubs already have player movements for 2021 season. I suggest you stick to topics you know. I've been following this sport for over 10 years and have plenty of experience editing on wikipedia so I know what I'm doing.BGetmefood (talk) 14:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response to BGetmefood: You may want to review Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, particularly WP:ADHOM: "A deletion discussion is about the article in question itself ... the debate is not about the creator or any other editors of the article, nor is it about the AfD nominator or anyone who has commented on the AfD. An article is to be judged on its own merits and not those of its editors or detractors." CUA 27 (talk) 17:58, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We can draftify this until there's a reference or something to say, but considering the 2020 season has finished and the 2021 season will be notable even if it doesn't happen, I don't see a lot of harm in creating this now. SportingFlyer T·C 15:18, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Still needs massive improvement, but not worth deleting as it's now technically the upcoming season. SportingFlyer T·C 08:52, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously it hasn't started yet, but just as obviously there will be a lot to add before the start of the season and the article itself will be notable. I can't see any benefit in deleting this now and creating it again in a week or a month. Doctorhawkes (talk) 00:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is enough material for an article now, especially once we include player movements which are already occurring. WDM10 (talk) 07:47, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Have removed this discussion from list of rugby union discussion, as this tournament is not a rugby union tournament. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there have already been discussions reported in national (not local) media about player and coach signings for next season, etc. (e.g. this and ongoing discussions about COVID effects next year (e.g. this. There's enough here for an article without violating WP:CRYSTAL. Deus et lex (talk) 11:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, have notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby league of this afd on their talkpage. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, they're not in the article, but even a cursory search will easily find the sources necessary for this to pass GNG. Also the 2020 season has already finished. Devonian Wombat (talk) 20:52, 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. Sandstein 15:05, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GSD Singh[edit]

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

non-notable musician, the Statesmen inspiration hub is user generated, the rest of the sources are copied from a press release despite not being identified as such and are otherwise unreliable and there is no actual coverage to be found. The Deccan Chronicle coverage is laughably bad and is clearly not subject to any editorial oversight. Praxidicae (talk) 14:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:24, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:24, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet any of our inclusion criteria points for a musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:55, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Praxidicae: how do you come by your conclusion that [21] and [22] are press releases? ~Kvng (talk) 13:41, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually read Deccan Chronicle? They also often republish user submitted nonsense and press releases as journalism without identifying it. It's also just slightly different wording from 3 other sources. I also said they're unreliable. Are you expecting our readers to believe DC is reliable after reading that particular piece? Specifically, the second paragraph... R&M allows guest posting under their "rnmteam" name (which is why it doesn't actually identify any editorial staff) and can be bought for pennies. R&M also specifically states that they don't take any responsibility for content, so I don't know how that could possibly be considered an RS. In any case, my original point still stands. Praxidicae (talk) 14:20, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Deccan Chronicle could be understood as promotional/PR or an enthusiastic Indian reporter working on mastering their American English voice. For integrity and since there's no byline, I guess we should assume the former. ~Kvng (talk) 14:37, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable sources found. ~Kvng (talk) 14:37, 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 merge to Netherlands national football team records and statistics. Sandstein 15:05, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Progression of the Netherlands association football goalscoring record[edit]

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

For the following reasons:

Per consensus established in this similar AfD.
No evidence that the topic of 'progression of ___ goalscoring record' meets the requirements for a stand-alone list as per WP:LISTN
There are issues with WP:NOTSTATS as well
Wikipedia is more than simply a mirror of eu-football.info per WP:NOTMIRROR
Also borderline WP:SYNTH concerns; the topic itself is just a synthesis of match reports; no evidence that there are secondary sources actually covering the progression of this goalscoring record

No prejudice against merging if a suitable target is suggested. Spiderone 12:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:18, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Govvy (talk) 12:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Netherlands national football team records or similar article. Giant Snowman 14:18, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is SYNTH/OR as explained in another one of these nominations. Geschichte (talk) 18:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per User:GiantSnowman. Dutchy45 (talk) 12:30, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge seems to me to be the best option, but no clear consensus. Would probably close as merge if there were no objections after a further week or if no clearer consensus for a different outcome emerges.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 13:38, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested. gidonb (talk) 10:31, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:04, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Pro Bowl[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON. Placeholder article for event over a year in the future. No further details will be available until much close to that. noq (talk) 10:34, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 11:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 11:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:TOOSOON, still 15 months away and no evidence it will happen (2021 one is cancelled after all). Thus, just WP:CRYSTALBALL Joseph2302 (talk) 09:53, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete as a basic operation of the encyclopedia, we typically will put articles about upcoming major events that are almost certain to happen (such as pro bowl, super bowl, etc.) because there is a good amount of third party reliable sources about the planning and preparation of the event. We've normally restricted that move to "the next one" because that makes sense, but having multiple future events typically does not. There are exceptions such as 2024 Summer Olympics, 2028 Summer Olympics, and 2032 Summer Olympics but these specific events normally have political, economic, and cultural implications far beyond a single game. I would argue that while the Pro Bowl is notable and cool and fun, it does not warrant a placeholder article beyond the next one.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:46, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:04, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oga Micky[edit]

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

Fail to see how this musician is notable, almost all the sources are mainly about his album promotions. the topic of this article fails WP:NMUSICIAN , it fails wikipedia notability guildlines, another upcoming musician without any relevant to speak about , completely and utterly non-notable musician, sourced entirely to press releases , No evidence of notability Samat lib (talk) 10:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions.Samat lib (talk) 10:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions Samat lib (talk) 10:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Samat lib (talk) 10:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non notable musician that fails to satisfy any of the WP:GNG cretaria. Em-mustapha 10:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 October 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:27, 25 October 2020 (UTC) [reply]
Weak Keep - He seems to have some credit for being one of the very few Igbo rappers. Foxnpichu (talk) 10:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — non notable rapper who doesn’t satisfy any criterion from WP:MUSICBIO. Celestina007 (talk) 11:39, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet any actual notability. being on of "the very few" rappers in a given ethnic group is not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:06, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:19, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don_Coleone[edit]

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

Fail to see how this musician is notable, almost all the sources are mainly about his album promotions. the topic of this article fails WP:NMUSICIAN , it fails wikipedia notability guildlines, another upcoming musician without any relevant to speak about , completely and utterly non-notable musician, sourced entirely to press releases , No evidence of notability Samat lib (talk) 09:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Samat lib (talk) 09:53, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions Samat lib (talk) 09:53, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Samat lib (talk) 09:53, 25 October 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Keep, subject has clearly received some some independent coverage ([23], [24]). --Paul ❬talk❭ 11:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit unsure what to think of this one, especially due to the COI of interest. It might take me a few days before I cast my !vote. Foxnpichu (talk) 13:35, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the few sources related to this article fail WP:NMUSICIAN , no significant coverege about the musician, it fail WP:GNG it does not satisfy any criteria Samat lib (talk) 19:33, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Could we possibly Redirect this to tooXclusive since some of his songs premiered on there? Foxnpichu (talk) 10:54, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:04, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — not the first time someone tried to sneak this article into mainspace. I do not see subject of our article satisfying WP:MUSICBIO. Celestina007 (talk) 09:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:MUSICBIO. Some of the cited sources in the article are not independent at all. --KartikeyaS (talk) 19:13, 4 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 15:04, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Staněk[edit]

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

New page patrol: this article has been in the queue since 1 July. Bio of a racing driver who does not seem to pass WP:NMOTORSPORT. I’ve asked the creator and the WikiProject for further sources, but none are forthcoming. Mccapra (talk) 09:06, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 09:06, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 09:06, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 09:06, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as far as I can tell, doesn't meet any of the WP:NMOTORSPORT criteria and coverage falls short of GNG. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:18, 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 keep. Sandstein 15:04, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wavy the Creator[edit]

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

Fail to see how this musician is notable, almost all the sources are mainly about his album promotions. the topic of this article fails WP:NMUSICIAN , it fails wikipedia notability guildlines, another upcoming musician without any relevant to speak about , completely and utterly non-notable musician, sourced entirely to press releases , No evidence of notability Samat lib (talk) 08:53, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions.Samat lib (talk) 09:09, 25 October 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions Samat lib (talk) 09:09, 25 October 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Samat lib (talk) 09:09, 25 October 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 October 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep having lengthy profiles in multiple magazines, including Vogue is enough to meet WP:SIGCOV. Very little seems to be sourced to press releases, and only where appropriate. --Paul ❬talk❭ 10:51, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - >her by the way. Foxnpichu (talk) 10:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment the article on including Vogue fail to satisfy WP:NMUSICIAN , and WP:GNG . orther related sources provided on the artcle are press releases , Notability not found on those article , Samat lib (talk) 19:39, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- In what way does it fail? Literally the first point in "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." Vogue and Guardian.ng obviously cover that. --Paul ❬talk❭ 08:42, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment Insufficient coverage in only 2 sources ., including Vogue fail to satisfy WP:NMUSICIAN , WP:GNG, No evidence of notability Samat lib (talk) 19:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a much greater range of coverage than the artist articles you've created (1, 2), the notability is clearly apparent. What on earth is your motivation with these nominations? --Paul ❬talk❭ 20:10, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment wikipedoa is not a place for irelevant topic , article that fail to satisfy WP:NMUSICIAN , and WP:GNG , upcoming musician without any relevant to speak about , Samat lib (talk) 21:00, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — I can observe at least three reliable sources discussing subject. Per WP:MUSICBIO, Failure to meet any criterion listed therein doesn’t translate to the subject of the article being non notable, with 3 good sources in the article I’d say GNG is satisfied here. Furthermore @Paul Carpenter, in the nominator's defense, I For one who has lived in Nigeria for 20+ years can say for a fact that any Nigerian editor passing by without thoroughly vetting the article's sources would !vote a Delete in a heartbeat as subject of our discussion has almost no recognition in the Nigerian media/ Nigerian entertainment industry. I believe a COI is present in the article also. Celestina007 (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources so passes WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:42, 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 redirect to Pushead#Septic Death. Sandstein 15:03, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Septic Death[edit]

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

Notable? GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 08:24, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the large amount of books and other sources cited, I question their notability. The article itself has "improve references" and "notability" tags on it. Septic Death were a short-lived, underground thrashcore/hardcore punk band. They were great, but I don't think they qualify for encyclopedic inclusion. Most of the sources cited are not about the band, they are just mostly mentioned in relation about a genre/other bands. For example, I opened one of the cited books and all of the coverage about them was just their name listed among other bands (like this: "Cro-Mags, Septic Death, Samiam, etc...") I don't consider that in-depth coverage. I also tried the other books but they did not even open to me. I just found descriptions of the books themselves. Some of the other sources include Discogs and interviews which do not contribute to notability either. I also did a Google search, first with just the name of the band, then I searched for some of their albums, all I found were the usual trash like streaming service entries, youtube videos, retail sites, databases and lots of blogs. So, to summarize, I think they are not notable for Wikipedia. But prove me wrong! GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 08:18, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 08:18, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 08:18, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grueslayer 09:40, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't feed trolls, but thanks for the advice. ;) GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 12:13, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pushead. With a few minor exceptions involving modern covers of some of their songs, this band was only ever noticed as a brief side project by the notable artist Pushead. The band achieved little on their own and do not inherit the notability earned by one member in a different line of work. Note that Pushead's article already has a brief "Septic Death" section that lacks sources, and some content could be merged from this article to there, if it is reliable and verifiable. DOOMSDAYER520 | TALK | CONTRIBS 19:27, 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 speedy keep. No valid reason has been presented for deletion, Closing per SK#1 (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 18:40, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Waghya[edit]

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

Do we need a page named after a dog? Too Trivial... Pandey55jee (talk) 08:09, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Pandey55jee (talk) 08:09, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are dogs who have their own wp pages because they have done something so significant they have achieved notability. I think Waghya is a notable dog as well. The sources below indicate that. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 08:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 11:36, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The dog appears notable meeting WP:GNG. There is a statue of the dog and a significant lore around it. There is a significant mention in the book "The real Indian dog". Plus the interest seems to be reignited in the media in 2011 and 2012 due to protests and actions of authorities around the statue, the coverage of which itself has significant coverage for the subject. Pandey55jee, any subject meeting WP:GNG can and should have an article here despite one personally thinking the subject to be very trivial. There are atleast 332 individual dog pages here on WP Category:Individual dogs. A lot of others are mentioned in List of individual dogs. Roller26 (talk) 11:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 12:06, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What we don't need is this discussion. See here for another source. See also Greyfriars Bobby and the Brown Dog affair and note that the latter is a featured article. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:22, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What ? you needs to learn what is GNG! This dog is a historical figure of my country. VocalIndia (talk) 15:54, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As others have pointed out, it's okay to have a page about a dog if there are reliable sources that have discussed the dog in detail. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:32, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:02, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kommunens Bästa – Ölandspartiet[edit]

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

This is a local political party in a Swedish locality which receives a few hundred votes in the elections from time to time. Deprodded because it has "notoriety". Geschichte (talk) 09:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion:? While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ST47 (talk) 04:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced and no apparent level of significant coverage. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:21, 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 delete. What matters under our guidelines are reliable sources covering this hotel, and the "delete" opinions don't make reference to any. Sandstein 15:02, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Hyatt Kuala Lumpur[edit]

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

There is nothing notable about this hotel and it fails the following requirement per WP:NBUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Wikiwriter700 (talk) 17:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesses -related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article isn't much but neither is the nomination. The essential fact here is that this is a major hotel in a capital city and so there are literally thousands of sources out there. See WP:NEXIST, WP:NOEFFORT and WP:NOTCLEANUP. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:15, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It may well be notable, but there is nothing in the article to demonstrate this. It has no sources. So, if someone who knows more about it than I do fixes it, I will change my vote, --Bduke (talk) 01:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at 43 stories and as one of the tallest buildings in Kuala Lumpur a Skyscraper is notable. Lightburst (talk) 17:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet GNG or NBUILD. Coverage is routine, run of the mill, promos, ads, nothing that meets RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in-depth. NBUILD states "... may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." The article contains no claim of historic, social, economic, or architectural importance and there are no sources to show any. // Timothy :: talk 17:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ordinary hotel. Until a skyscraper is 60 stories, it's not inherently notable. This would be dwarfed by other skyscrapers in Kuala Lampur, a city that I've visited. Bearian (talk) 21:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not an ordinary hotel. I would say that Grand Hyatts in major Asian capitals are typically notable. Ambrosiawater (talk) 05:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete I'm sorry, but as we claim that there are seventy-some buildings in the city that are as tall or taller, its height is unremarkable, and Grand Hyatts are everywhere. There is no claim to notability here, and I frankly don't see how a bland modernist box gets any notability without at least an attempt at saying what's special about it. The things that people are claiming are special in this discussion are utterly ordinary. Mangoe (talk) 20:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ST47 (talk) 04:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory of hotels that get routine coverage for being hotels. BD2412 T 05:19, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NBUILD requires that buildings have "significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources" in order to demonstrate that it has any kind of historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, which this building does not appear to have. As mentioned already, the sources added are simple run of the mill promotional material and items in which the hotel is only tangentially mentioned. Rorshacma (talk) 15:47, 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 speedy delete. A7 - no claim of significance ... discospinster _talk 17:56, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

William David Vaughan[edit]

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

Non-notable artist. None of the sources on the recently created article are reliable and almost no reliable significant coverage exists for this person. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 04:31, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 04:31, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 04:31, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NMUSIC, blatantly promotional. Darren-M talk 04:55, 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 Speedy delete per WP:G4, salting. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:24, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JackSucksAtLife[edit]

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

Draft already exists at Draft:JackSucksAtLife -- determined not notable enough for inclusion in the wikipedia. sam1370 (talk · contribs) 03:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: And here we are again. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Massey Welsh, never mind the literally dozen or so variations of his name that have been CSDed (see Draft:JackSucksAtLife (Jack Massey Welsh), Draft:Jack Massey Welsh, Draft:JackSucksAtMinecraft, Jack Massey Welsh, the nominated page here, and plenty of others). He's apparently won a Guinness World Record now, but WP:RSP states: "There is consensus that world records verified by Guinness World Records should not be used to establish notability. Editors have expressed concern that post 2008 records include paid coverage." I wouldn't be surprised here at all, either. Waggie (talk) 04:03, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly fails WP:ENT and WP:CREATIVE. KidAd talk 04:10, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, preferably speedily, and probably salt, too. Nothing of significance has changed since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Massey Welsh. Google says there's a mention in this paywalled article, but it's an opinion piece and not useful. There's also a passing mention in [25] and [26], a few sentences in [27], and a paragraph in the unreliable [28]. That's not SIGCOV any way you slice it. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 04:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 04:18, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 04:18, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 04:18, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 04:18, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Per WP:G4. Recreation of subject previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Massey Welsh under another name._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:53, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete under G4 - Nothing appears to have changed since the last AfD. Foxnpichu (talk) 10:54, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Per WP:G4. Roller26 (talk) 11:51, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Per G4, still not notable, included source doesn't establish notability. Dylsss^{(talk • contribs)} 13:16, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I think this AfD is a SNOW closure at this point. Foxnpichu (talk) 15:56, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 15:01, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comikaza[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Fails WP:ORGSIG, WP:ORGCRIT and WP:SIRS scope_creep^Talk 21:28, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey User:scope_creep, I believe Comikaza is notable by being the very first direct market comic book specialty store in Israel, and by being the publisher of Spider-Man in Hebrew. Both exemplify the material trailblazing impact Comikaza has had in cultivating a lively comics culture in Israel, spawning competitors, artists, events (including hosting the first Free Comic Book Day in Israel, the first comic cons in Israel and the first comics creators signings and appearances held in Israel). It is regularly covered by Israeli press including this great in depth from Haaretz, this nice piece from The Jerusalem Post or these various pieces from ynet (1 2 3 4), as well as international coverage such as in Timeout where Comikaza is referred to as "The mecca of the Israeli comic community" or this great in depth interview with the current owner on the SKTCHD Podcast. The Eisner nominations were of course covered extensively in comics press, and the owners are known to opine on matters related to the industry. I believe it compares favourably to many stores on this list in terms of notability. --Telecart (talk) 22:30, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is a generic store, one of a trillion, with no redeeming features, to make it stand out. The Jerusalem Post entry is a single paragraph and is a personnel reflection, not constituting a sufficiently in-depth look to satisfy WP:SIRS. The nomination is just that, a nomination. The rest of the entries are passing mentions or low-quality sources that don't satisfy WP:SIRS or WP:ORGCRIT. They really don't add up to much. scope_creep^Talk 22:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I respectfully disagree, I think the Haaretz coverage especially along with the others meet SIRS &c. requirements for notability. Also, there are not a trillion direct market comic book stores; there are indeed about 2000 in North America (including stores like Paradise Comics or Happy Harbor Comics which have had an entries for well over a decade and still look like tiny stubs), but for a long time Comikaza was the only one in a 2000 mile radius. It has since spawned competitors (yay) but it's a trailblazing store in many respects (how many stores have published Marvel comics?) and has been recognized as such with notable coverage. --Telecart (talk) 14:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. 1292simon (talk) 07:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliably sourced, nominated for several prizes. No reason to delete. Attention serial deletionists - there are so many articles on Wiki that are total and utter crap. Maybe focus on those.--Geewhiz (talk) 08:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a run of the mill comic book store that doesn't have anything notable about it in relation to WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Plus, there is a lack of in-depth multiple reliable sources that have coverage on it. Being the "first whatever" or anything else along those lines doesn't make something notable either. Nor do awards. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Being the "first whatever" is often a sign of notability. This article has coverage from The Jerusalem Post and The Times of Israel; I think it meets GNG. — Toughpigs (talk) 04:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The The Jerusalem Post is a personnel reflection and amounts to a passing mentions only. It is not in-depth and doesn't satisfy WP:SIRS. The The Times of Israel is a press-release, stating Comikaza will be giving away free comic books from indicative of company advertising. It is not even a reference. Lastly being "first whatever" is not a sign of notability on Wikipedia per consensus. It has never been established as a criteria for notability, so to quote it as such, is a falsehood. More so, if it was something truly unique, then it might be classified as a first, but it a comic store. They are 10 a penny and completely generic. scope_creep^Talk 09:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Haaretz article is very in depth and what I first referenced as notable coverage. It is in Hebrew but I ran it through google translate and it's reasonably-readable, enough to cover the points of SIRS --Telecart (talk) 14:28, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

some additional references re: Hebrew Spider-Man by Comikaza (a great interview here), unfortunately all in Hebrew as well. --Telecart (talk) 14:36, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I forgot about the podcast reference. It is owner talking about his shop, so it is non-rs. Of the 6 references, 5 are primary or non-rs. The last one, which is archive.org. It has archived a forum, so that is non-rs per WP:NOT. Not a single reference amongst them. They all fail WP:SIRS. scope_creep^Talk 17:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment may not be a notable company. The sourcing is not trivial and rather bloggy. I will sit this one out for now. My sympathy is with the article. Lightburst (talk) 21:07, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey now, where's the fake outrage about Telecart commenting 16 times? Come on man. If your going to be a shitlord about things, at least have the integrity to be consistent about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That is a another WP:SPA came in. User:Telecart. Looking at the sources they have added.
[29] States the Tel Aviv comic book store Komikaze published this month the first comic book in the "Spider-Man" series Passing mention. NCORP states at WP:CORPDEPTH standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as: specifically of a product or a product line launch, sale, change, or discontinuance

[30] Today, a press release came to the system about another welcome attempt to translate Marvel's Ultimate Spider-Man series into Hebrew, this time directly from the new publishing house of the first comic book store, Comicaza. So this is press-release, specifically meant to stymie this Afd with some of the editors present being UPE/Paid. And the reference above also a press-release, as the language is identical.

Neither are passing mentions, the whole article is about this. The latter one is titled 'exclusive scoop' and indeed much of the text seems like PR, but it is entirely different text than the other one. They cannot both be PR.--Telecart (talk) 18:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is a press-releases. It states: Today, a press release came to the system about another welcome attempt to translate Marvel's Ultimate Spider-Man series into Hebrew and this time directly from the new publishing house of the first comic book store Comic-Comikaze.

and what does the other one say? --Telecart (talk) 19:21, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[31] This is a shop. This is NON-RS.

It is not a shop; this is the website of cultural researcher Eli Eshed. --Telecart (talk) 18:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It has icons to take payment by Paypal. It is payment portal, a shop, on somebodies websites, which is itself, non-RS.

You can pay for newspapers too. These are patron links. --Telecart (talk) 19:21, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[32] This is interview with shop owner, also at the shop. So it is NON-RS.

I don't know how you know where the interview took place, my guess is it actually took place at the Comics and Animation Festival at the Cinemateq --Telecart (talk) 18:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It states: Yossi and Ofra Kunin, owners of the first comic book store in Israel, Komikaze, launched their new subsidiary Komikaze Press at the 4th Animation It is an announcement and non-rs.

The piece is not an announcement, but a follow up to the previous release (the other ISF link). --Telecart (talk) 19:21, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So all we have barely have is one interview that a puff piece and rest are a whole of puff pieces, stuff that fails WP:ORGSIG, WP:ORGCRIT, WP:CORPDEPTH, is a press-release or is non-RS, or is a passing mention. Non-notable. Delete and Salt scope_creep^Talk 16:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Completely disagree with your assessment. I am now only more convinced they are notable than I was before. --Telecart (talk) 18:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Telecart. As a SPA you have no idea what constitutes notability. scope_creep^Talk 19:01, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How rude. You simply have not made a compelling argument that Haaretz, Jpost etc. are not SIRS. --Telecart (talk) 19:18, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add, I mostly contribute to he.wikipedia (translating from English actually, typically) but I do occasionally contribute to en.wikipedia, and have done so for years. I have also never been paid to edit an article in my life. --Telecart (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A review of the 8 references + the the references, offered by User:Telecart

Truth, justice and the Israeli way. It states: There's been a huge boom in comics for adults," says Ofra Konejn, founder and owner of Comikaza, Israel's first and biggest comic book store that's also hosting international Free Comic Book Day here in Israel. "There are still comics targeted mainly for children, but there is an uprise in comics that deal with political issues, sometimes with more violent graphics, sophisticated texts and design," she says and then it moves onto something else. Fails WP:SIRS.
Like Thunder on a clear day. On the other hand, during the interview with Yossi Kunin, the owner of the "Komikaze" comic book store, which took place over the phone but a few minutes after I returned from a long shift, I suffered from unexplained distraction and lack of concentration Fails WP:SIRS. Not in-depth, independent, reliable not secondary.
2016 Will Eisner Spirit of Comics Retailer Award Nominees!. A nomination. Not a win.
Super-comics. Fails WP:ORGCRIT. A description of the business being setup. Not independent.
Not just Spider-Man. Press-release. Fails WP:NOT. Not independent.
A day of comic book heaven. Excelsior! Free Comic Book Day returns Saturday. Announcement. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
The Diamond Retailer Best Practices Awards. No mention on the page. Non-RS.

1. [33] Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
2. [34] Press-release.
3. [35] Paypal payment icons on a user site. Non-RS.
4. [36] Yossi and Ofra Kunin, owners of the first comic book store in Israel, Komikaze, launched their new subsidiary Komikaze Press at the 4th Animation. An announcement. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
5. That last, assuming AGF is likely to be the same standard to references, very low-quality, not independent, failing WP:SIRS, WP:ORGCRIT or is a press-release. scope_creep^Talk 20:01, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:scope_creep reverted my edits from this talk page (again, how rude!) wherein I commented on his review of the references. Suffice to say I vehemently disagree with his assessments. The article has multiple WP:SIRS validation for notability. --Telecart (talk) 21:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Telecart: You messed up the formatting on my block above in a big way. Please put your comments back in, if you require and but don't put them in the block, put them below this comment. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 21:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll add my main points below:

Eli Eshed is a renowned and respected pop culture critic and researcher. Independent journalists can have patron links on their websites, I don't see how that alone makes them non RS. We pay for newspapers too, some wealthy people pay for academic endowment as well, etc. This argument is absurd.
Like Thunder on a Clear Day - The whole piece is quite an in-depth take, in which the author is describing their experience going to the comics store, the experience with the clerk they met their (some of this undoubtedly isn't translating well), on the phone with the owner, why comics in Israel, the Hebrew Spider-Man, etc. Haaretz is the Israeli equivalent to the NYT. It's perfectly SIRS. The author's reference to Clerks notwithstanding.
I fixed the links to the Diamond Retailer Best Practice Award nominations 2019 and 2014. Apologies, not sure what happened there.
The ISF interview is not an announcement, the previous ISF post is an announcement. The interview is well after the announcement. It is an interview, independently so, with the context of the release of Spider-Man in Hebrew of course being the scope of the discussion.
Super-Comics - Not sure why a description of a comic book business being built in Israel is not independent, though I agree this alone probably does not justify the entry, it's certainly indicative of how unusual the business is and thus independently noteworthy for (of all things) a business/economics newspaper to cover.
Obviously, very few stores win an Eisner Award. Most of the stores listed in Category:Comics_retailers have not even been nominated. Would an Oscar nomination (but not win) be considered noteworthy? I believe so.
Truth, justice and the Israeli way - There is an entire additional paragraph interviewing with the owner that Scope Creep neglected to mention. The article has substance and focuses materially on Comikaza.

In conclusion, I think there is plenty of material here to cover notability requirements. --Telecart (talk) 22:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Maybe the back and forth can stop to allow other editors to express an opinion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The coverage passes WP:SIRS clearly indicating that they are a major retailer in this category in that country. Even here in London there aren't many such specialist bookstores. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:25, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the references are made up of announcements, press-releases, wee profile pages, non-rs pages and dependent sources and there is not much coverage outwith those sources. The second point doesn't make any sense, as they're is stores like these all over the place. Perhaps it is a case you that don't actually visit them so you don't know how many there are. scope_creep^Talk 15:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A two-second search finds 12 stores inside the M25 alone. A detail study would find more. There is five stores in Glasgow. So I see it as a generic category. Not a standalone unique entity. scope_creep^Talk 15:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In Israel there are precisely two. There used to be just this one, for a while the only such store in a 2000+ mile radius. --Telecart (talk) 18:04, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I assume your talking about comic book shops? If so, according to Google Maps there's three. There's also a bunch of book stores. I'd find it hard to believe that the bookstores don't sell comics, manga, toys, games, etc. etc. I know at least in the US these days "bookstore" is kind of a misnomer because they carry a bunch of different things besides books now. Maybe only half if not less of my local Barns & Nobles is books these days. They have a pretty extensive comic and manga section. So, maybe things with the word "comic" in their name are rare, but that shouldn't be the important thing to notability. BTW, their rare in the US also. There's only 2 within a 200 mile radius of where I live and it's a pretty populous area. I don't think either deserves an article for it though. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:52, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yip. scope_creep^Talk 13:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1: nope, there are definitely only two in Israel: Comics n' Vegetables and Comikaza. CNV have an additional branch. Book stores in Israel are not really like the B&N-style "everything" store you're picturing. For one, they are much MUCH smaller. Steimatzky and Tzomet Sfarim, the two dominant (publisher-owned) bookstore chains in Israel have tiny stores regularly no larger than my kitchen, with a selection you'd typically find at an airport magazine shop. Sure, Steimatzy might have an issue or two of comics in their magazine rack, out of sequence and from 3 months ago, and in recent years they have even started stocking some more trade paperback comics, but I actually attribute this cultural shift to Comikaza's existence. A decade ago this definitely did not exist. You could not go into a book store and expect to find any comics/manga whatsoever. --Telecart (talk) 04:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite familiar with specialist book stores as they are the natural haunt of a Wikipedian. This one reminds me of Sefer ve Sefel which I looked at earlier in the year when it was on the main page. We should have articles about all such places as, being patronised by literate people, they will naturally tend to be written about. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OMG I can't believe Sefer vs Sefel has a wiki entry!! As a Jerusalemite this takes me back. Loved that place..! (note to self: I need to translate that entry to he.wiki) --Telecart (talk) 04:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zoozaz1 talk 03:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 11:53, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 11:53, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. Topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:04, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is some coverage but IMO not enough, Also a lot of the sources are from facebook. Expertwikiguy (talk) 18:19, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
to be fair, I literally just added those fb links with a new paragraph, they weren't there before. --Telecart (talk) 19:16, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

fb is non-rs. scope_creep^Talk 19:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per extensive coverage on a national scale in Haaretz and the Jerusalem Post, both considered quality press in Israel. gidonb (talk) 19:46, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is the Haaretz entry:

Ofra and Yossi Kunin belong to a handful of people who believe you can make a living from a comic in Israel: they own Comicza, a successful comic book store in Ramat Aviv? (15 Brodetsky St.? A nurse at Dizengoff Center, OTAKU, has opened a store these days? Alongside the many books and films she offers, you can find inflatable armchairs, stuffed faces, pillows, figurins, boxes, coasters for cups, posters, shirts, bags, wallets, key chains and trash cans, all of which have comic book characters on them.

You reckon that is extensive coverage? A product listing with an email address for ordering!! scope_creep^Talk 20:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:scope creep, you're slashing the article by 2 out of 4 paragraphs. All coverage in Israel's prime quality newspaper is helpful, the one you quote included. It's brief but a full article about the store and twice as long as you made it appear. And yes, it's an article about a store, of course it will list what you can buy there! What did you expect? The color of the ceiling? There's also the following: In Israel - a young market and limited public and Kippot, garters, comix and vegetables: exciting little stores in Yediot, Israel most-read newspaper. Already enough for WP:GNG before the Jerusalem Post. Withdrawing...? gidonb (talk) 22:12, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And just a few problems of automatic translation from Hebrew. The store is a she, as this word is female. The sister of the store is its second location in Dizengoff Center. The new location (initially a branch) became a nurse, which is the same word as a sister. There was a third location in Haifa, so this is a former chain and, as someone already mentioned, a novelty in Israel. Hence plenty of coverage. gidonb (talk) 02:59, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its copyright text, so I couldn't add all of it, roughly half, which doesn't make it coverage. Its all of 280 words and more of the same, a description of the store from a fan. Hardly the in-depth coverage needed to satisfy WP:SIRS. scope_creep^Talk 07:18, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's an article by Avi Shevi, author in the culture section of the prestigious Haaretz and not at all as you suggest. The reactions above are typical to low-quality nominations. These start with a poor or no WP:BEFORE. Often the nominator isn't well versed in the language of the country where they wish to delete articles, gets confused by the references, and cannot find or does not attempt to find sources. When overwhelming sources are found or presented, the nominator starts arguing with those who believe the article should be kept, typically ignoring the breadth of the argument and focusing on just one article they believe can somehow work in their favor or, for example, if some data point in the article was supported by a blog or self-published sources, it can be used to distract from all the rest. To be fair, this is widespread among nominators and delete sayers in general, and doesn't all apply to you. (Someone got upset with me the other day for suggesting a little research before a nomination. It did not work out with the amount of nominations and slowing down for more quality apparently wasn't an option and the article was there so long that the references should have been perfect by now.) The bottom line is that I do not see strong arguments to delete in this discussion. gidonb (talk) 08:00, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, here we go, taking a swipe at me and appealing to emotion when the logical arguments are complete. Who cares who its by, it is still effectively an announcement, a press-release and most of the other references, which were covered above, are a similar bunch of low-quality stuff. Do you think Avi Shevi likes posting an announcement. It is a necessity in the age we live in, for the people who write these newspapers, but that doesn't make it quality information, suitable as a reference. If they weren't struggling to survive, it is unlikely that kind of announcement would have even in the culture section. Does it come as any surprise that most editors make the same kind of emotive appeal at the end, always complaining that a before was never made. scope_creep^Talk 08:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're holding on to just one article and mischaracterize it as an announcement. It has nothing to do with the announcement. This is an article in the culture pages of Haaretz. You're missing the cultural context. Comic books are a unique branch of literature. Most adults ignore them but there is a niche market for the genre. When such a store is opened, for the first time in the Middle East, in a country that isn't particularly big on comics, this draws attention. The fact that this store exists will be of interest to more people than will actually visit the store. This interest generates many articles in the press. Its history is followed. Their operators are mentioned and, at times, asked questions. What is in there will be described. People will want to know if there is a renaissance of comics in Israel. And if a niche bookstore can survive, maybe there is a future for brick and mortar bookstore in general? If you would focus on all sources, not on your prejudice for one, you would get it. gidonb (talk) 09:08, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, that is pushing the argument to the context that isn't specific to the article, nor the state of the references, nor to WP. Wikipedia isn't here to right great wrongs, nor to help readership numbers in struggling newspapers. It is right and proper the store exists but its existence isn't contingent on having a wikipedia article. They are not connected. Looking at the first references and three additions you posted. I don't believe it drew attention. I think there is mild comment on the store, and bunch of associated PR is what we are getting. If there was detailed interest, there would be feature or statement pieces but there isn't. Instead there is a lots of tiny wee profiles that look suspiciously like wee press-releases, listing location and store information. All of them fail WP:SIRS and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. Lets take a look at three in turn.

[37] Ofra and Yossi Kunin belong to a handful of people who believe that it Reads like a press-release.
[38] 320 words A short profile page describing the two store, they are profitable at 320 words.
[39] 250 words. This looks like a combined press-release. Has location, main people, phone numbers, url, office address. Effectively a brochure. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Ita paid service service, to get your business listed.

scope_creep^Talk 12:49, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but your assertions are extremely weak. The intro shows that you did not understand what I said. I'll take responsibility for that. All three are great articles, of the highest quality, and most-read paid daily in Israel (Israel Hayom passed Yediot because it is free). Signed by their authors. There is nothing press-release-like in any of these. All three are published in printed, national dailies in the culture pages of the respective newspapers. The article by Michal Ramati ("320 words A short profile page describing the two store, they are profitable at 320 words.") is pure analysis of the comics scene in Israel with a central place for Komikaza. After or before stores are covered it is common practice to list their details. True also for restaurants, clubs, books, shows, and other media units. This is not the listing in WP:CORPDEPTH but in addition to passing WP:CORPDEPTH. As I said, this nomination has no merit! gidonb (talk) 14:25, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) —Nnadigoodluck███ 14:13, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Maine[edit]

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

Article about a film director who fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. The article is about her movies and not about her. —Nnadigoodluck███ 02:38, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Nnadigoodluck███ 02:38, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Director/writer of two notable films. We'd keep an article on the author of two notable books by virtue of WP:NAUTHOR; by analogy, we should keep a major creative contributor to two notable films. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Credited with two notable films. Appears to pass GNG if you ask me. Foxnpichu (talk) 10:56, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Easily passes WP:CREATIVE by having written and directed two notable films with a multiplicity of independent reviews written about them. If the article is more about Maine's movies than her as a person, there's some biographical info about Maine in this interview that can be added [40]. I agree with AleatoryPonderings's logic that if two notable books is enough for an author, two notable films is enough for a writer/director (especially given that WP:AUTHOR is WP:CREATIVE). Samsmachado (talk) 14:04, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 08:03, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kahit Minsan Lang episodes[edit]

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

Planned television series has cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions and ABS-CBN franchise renewal controversy. ApprenticeFan work 02:21, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ApprenticeFan work 02:21, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ApprenticeFan work 02:21, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 14:47, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Uncontroversial, could have just gone to PROD. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 14:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no prejudice against it being created again should this series ever proceed Spiderone 19:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:TOOSOON at most since its airdate hadn't been announced prior to getting cancelled. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 06:14, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Show did not even air at all. HiwilmsTalk 13:18, 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. Sandstein 14:57, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AIC Ventures[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, most news of company is routine (ie seeks funding), or from blogs. No significant coverage IlluminatingTrooper (talk) 01:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:51, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:51, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Ordinary REIT doing ordinary REIT things. No evidence of WP:SIGCOV. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:29, 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 speedy delete. Sockpuppetry and (more importantly) likely a big hoax. Primefac (talk) 11:22, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sakura School Akademi[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON - wait until there is significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of this television production and those associated with it. Contested WP:PROD. Tried searching for reliable, independent sources, came up wanting. Also note the creation and deletion logs for this title and similar titles in draft space: Draft:Sakura School Akademi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: This article is full of hoaxes. The artists included here have exclusive contracts with rival GMA Network, namely Marian Rivera, Jennylyn Mercado, Dingdong Dantes among others. Also, ABS-CBN just lost its legislative franchise last May. It would be impossible for them to air this show on free TV in 2022. The editor also added his name in the list of main characters. All of the sockpuppet accounts that recreates this article is Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Kidhackr. -WayKurat (talk) 01:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: As per WP:CSD#G5. -ink&fables «talk» 04:37, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As soon as the SPI confirms the sock quacks, then bring out the {{db-banned}}-hammer, WP:BMB. But not until then. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:33, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete under G3 and G5, not to mention most of the article reads like complete nonsense. "She name is Rina Tamaki when she was Born on 1990." - What? Foxnpichu (talk) 10:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- So I gave this show a run on Google. The only thing I could even find as a "source" was this. Foxnpichu (talk) 11:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 08:01, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Essam Ferris[edit]

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

Not yet notable per WP:NACTOR, with no significant coverage online in WP:Reliable sources. The Egypt Today reference is a short puff piece that doesn't really qualify as a WP:Secondary source. His most notable role was as the villain in Rogue Warfare, a low-notability film which itself probably doesn't meet WP:NFILM; the rest are all minor roles. Captain Calm (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability.Fatzaof (talk) 08:09, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. --Seacactus 13 (talk) 21:47, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 08:00, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Matthews (lawyer)[edit]

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

Virtually no coverage at all, at best mere mentions, across the non-paywalled sources, which makes me doubt that the paywalled sources have much more. Does not meet WP:GNG. This is essentially an article about a court case, masquerading as the biography of a lawyer involved in it. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough in-depth coverage about the article's subject to show that they pass WP:GNG. Lots of mentions, but nothing in-depth.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Somewhat unorthodox, but could some of this be merged to Wynn Las Vegas or Steve Wynn? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't personally see what would justify merging here. The subject of the article's only relationship to Wynn is that he's representing someone who is suing them. I generally favor merging over deletion, but I don't really see how this could possibly relate to those articles in a meaningful way.DocFreeman24 (talk) 04:07, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing of encyclopedic notability to show for this subject. BD2412 T 02:59, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing about this article demonstrates notability such that it merits inclusion in Wikipedia.DocFreeman24 (talk) 04:04, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacking enough in-depth coverage about Matthews himself to establish GNG. Appears to have been created by an SPA as well. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:09, 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.