Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 October 28

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< October 27	October 29 >

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 no consensus. Fenix down (talk) 08:30, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yugoslav Youth Football Cup[edit]

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

Has been PRODed before but was removed without giving a reason. Does not give any results when you type "Yugoslav Youth Football Cup" into Google News. Since this appears to fail WP:GNG and youth football competitions are not inherently notable, I see no option but to delete. Spiderone 18:29, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Macedonia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Spiderone: You seriously expected results to come up when you typed "Yugoslav Youth Football Cup" into Google News? Are you doing any sort of actual before search for all of the AfDs you're doing other than Google News? This article is a single-sentence stub that could be deleted without prejudice of recreation, especially considering we have an adequate Croatian-language page for the cup (which includes a reliable source) but I'm now very concerned that you're not doing adequate before searches for the AfDs that you've been nominating, even if some/all of them are technically correct. This is a translated name - it's probably never been called the "Yugoslav Youth Football Cup" until it became a Wikipedia article - and the competition dissolved with the country, many years before Google started searching the web. SportingFlyer T·C 19:50, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Croatian-language article refers to page 103-104 which, unfortunately, we don't have access to. I'm not sure two pages on a sports almanac would necessarily give enough coverage but, anyway, we won't know. Further digging gives this Bosnian article, this Croatian article and this list of winners but still not enough for WP:GNG in my view Spiderone 20:55, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is really frustrating for me as stranice 103-104 are clearly in that issue, you have to look at the page numbers, not the issue numbers as the pages were scanned two at a time. Both of the articles you mentioned are Bosnian blogs. This competition would have absolutely been notable in the former Yugoslavia. You have other retrospectives such as [1], [2], stories like [3] where winning the youth cup is part of the obituary. There's no reason why this article couldn't be developed into a list of winners per the other languages. As noted, I have no problem with removing it as it stands now. SportingFlyer T·C 21:46, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no significant coverage, no indication of notability. Giant Snowman 21:15, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Conditional~~ keep if it's expanded to a sourced list of winners. Per SportingFlyer's evidence, the competition was a rather big thing in the country that does not exist for 30 years, so online evidence is scarce. The reference from hr.wiki (Almanah Tempo YU-Fudbal 90-91.) is reliable and I can access it on issuu and confirm the pages are there (it's an open issue whether a scanned copy of a 1991 magazine is kosher to link, but well, I cannot unsee it). No such user (talk) 14:00, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's been copied over from hr-wiki, so would support a keep. SportingFlyer T·C 15:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, so stricken-through. No such user (talk) 13:27, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep For WP:SYSTEMIC, never saw a proposal for FA Youth Cup or others to be deleted. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 15:32, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above sources, and there should be TONS of coverage in Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian national newspapers. Even in Slovenian newspapers (which I have access to) the final was always covered, for example the 1989–90 final is covered in Delo (newspaper), issue 21 May 1990, page 11, not to mention that the final matches had usual attendances of ~20,000 people and were sometimes even broadcast live (and this is not 2020 when every farmer leauge is streamed, only very important matches were broadcast live back then). Snowflake91 (talk) 10:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Feels to me like there is sufficient sourcing for GNG but there isn't clear consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 22:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - perhaps people could add the sources to the article and expand/improve it rather than just saying 'there are sources it's notable lol'??? Please ping me once done. Giant Snowman 18:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But there must be sources! Spiderone 20:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the article have at least one source it cannot be deleted for not having sources, WP:NEXIST, and AfD is to demonstrate notability (which was demonstraed), so you can add sources by yourself if you want. Web-based sources that demonstrate media coverage even 30+ years after the competition ceased are 1 (NOT a blog, its an official news website and is registered in the Bosnian media/press registry), 2 (a little bit less reliable website, but its still not a blog), (3) a reunion of the team that has won the cup in 1982 with match report, and then you have all winners listed in the almanac, a reliable source written by several notable journalists and sports statisticians, including Vasilije Stojković, and a newspaper coverage which I provided above, and if you give me a dates of the final matches, I can find Slovenian newspaper coverage for pretty much all matches since 1970 in Večer and Delo. Not everything is on the web you know, if you seriously think that those matches were not covered in the biggest Serbian, Croatian, Slovenian and Bosnian daily newspapers you must be foolish, its like saying that the Daily Express, The Sun, The Guardian etc. did not cover FA Youth Cup in the 1960s and 1970s just because you cant find it on the web. Remember that to pass notability, the sources does NOT need to be in Enligsh, and does NOT need to be on the web...and the fact that you tried to find sources by typing "Yugoslav Youth Football Cup", an English-name that was invented by Wikipedia, in the google news, is just wow. Find someone who is Serbian and has an access to Večernje novosti and DSL Sport archives, and you will get extensive coverage. So, you have at least three news articles on the web, an alumni with all the winners, and proven coverage in the local newspaper, so this is enough to pass WP:GNG. "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material", so solely those 3 web articles are enough to prove at least some notability, not even counting almanac or printed newspaper coverage. If the English 15th level leagues (!) can have an articles because there is one site covering it with routine match reports (not enough per your own rules btw), if the English 10th level clubs can have articles because they played one 1st round FA cup game a zillion years ago, and if two 4th division teams can have an article about their rivalry just because there is one newspaper article that called it "a derby", and if English stadium with a few hundred seats can have an article because apparently it just exists and thats enough, then Yugoslav Youth Cup can also have an article, and dont bring that WP:OTHERSTUFF bullshit, it just a systematic WP:BIAS as someone already mentioned above to delete everything that isnt England-related unless there are 100 articles to provide notability, and even then you will find something to delete it. Snowflake91 (talk) 21:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through newspaper archives in Varaždin and it didn't mention the cup final for the two years in which I looked, but it also wasn't daily and focused largely on the clubs in the area. Otherwise completely agree. SportingFlyer T·C 21:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Local newspapers wont cover it unless NK Varaždin would make the finals, for Croatia, there is simply no way that Slobodna Dalmacija and Večernji list wont cover the matches, especially in the years when CRO club was in the final. Snowflake91 (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. That was the only Yugoslavian-era periodical I could quickly gain historical access to, showing the level of difficulty. I don't know where to find old copies of Slobodna/Večernji list without going back to Croatia. SportingFlyer T·C 21:36, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Andrew nyr (talk, contribs) 23:35, 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 redirect to Snowy Shaw. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:17, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Snowy Shaw Is Alive![edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. The album verifiably exists, but lacks the substantial, non-trivial, coverage from multiple independent, reliable, sources required by both WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. There is no evidence that I could find in a WP:BEFORE search to indicate that the album ever charted, thus missing criterion #2 of NALBUM as well. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC); expanded 17:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:36, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I found some reliable sources which talk about the album: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] and [9]. With these, the album is good enough to pass WP:NALBUM. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1. grande-rock not RS per WP:ALBUMAVOID
2. blabbermouth not a review and just confirms that the album exists, which doesn't do anything for notability.
3. metalkaoz - not a review, merely confirming that the album exists without going in much detail aside from stating that Snowy Shaw is a "virtuoso..." and that they enjoyed it "to the maximum", while simultaneously including (in big, bold, red lettering "NO RAT[ING]"). No wiki article, not in WP:A/S, seems very much like WP:SPS.
4. metal-rules does not exactly come across as a professional review site with editorial oversight based on the quality of the review and blatant WP:PUFFERY that would never be allowed in a professional review by a RS site.
5. ztmag just confirms that the album exists (covering its announcement) without any sort of review or non-trivial coverage (barely 3 paragraphs), which is strictly routine coverage. No wiki article, not in WP:M/S, seems like WP:SPS
6. hellpress not even a review and just confirms that the album exists, which doesn't do anything for notability.
Overall, this album appears to run into problems with WP:NOTINHERETED, WP:NRV, and a general lack of non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable publications. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ST47 (talk) 23:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Andrew nyr (talk, contribs) 23:35, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect with Snowy Shaw. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. I agree with most of TheSandDoctor's analysis of the sources posted by Superastig, but disagree about some. Blabbermouth does a little more than confirm the album's existence and the metalkoaz source is a commentary of the album, so I would call it a review. I do not believe the hellpress source is reliable, and the two sources I mentioned before are not enough to show notability. I searched every heavy metal source in WP:A/S but could not find additional information or reviews, and I also searched Google and JSTOR but could not find additional sources. A redirect will allow the album's info from these sources to be published in a more appropriate place and give info on an event in Snowy Shaw's career. Z1720 (talk) 02:43, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as Z1720 and TSD have helpfully explained, it doesn't seem independently notable based on coverage in reliable sources. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:59, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:59, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Calio[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR due in large part due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources of her roles, which is also required for WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. While the majority of her filmography is in notable productions, Imagination Movers (TV series) is the only one where she had a non-minor role. For the others she is either not mentioned at all or had minor roles.

She also appears to fail WP:NSINGER as she has never individually had a song chart, has not been the "subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent", has not on tour, has not released two or more albums on a major record label, nor appear to have won any notable music awards etc. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The sourcing in the article is dreadful. The most significant coverage is a couple of interviews form the same blog (unreliable source) and an interview on a TV station. I can find nothing to add to the sourcing in my own searches. -- Whpq (talk) 00:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:33, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Izzul Iman Zainal[edit]

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

This article and its subject do not satisfy artistic notability or general notability. The article does not contain enough information to be encyclopedic, and there is no reason to think that it is about to be expanded. It appears to be a stub autobiography, and was submitted as a draft five times and declined five times for notability and sourcing concerns. It has now been created in article space, and still has notability concerns and sourcing concerns. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:49, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:49, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:49, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and WP:BLP1E, not yet notable per WP:ARTIST, with his sole claim to notability being his having presented a drawing to the wife of a head of state. A search online turns up press releases, blogs, and social media. Captain Calm (talk) 22:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The author has now blanked the draft. If the draft is deleted, then this article can be moved to draft space as an alternative to deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:32, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft space is for promising articles, and five rapid-fire declines within three days suggests we'll be right back here again if we draftify. It's currently being WP:REFBOMBed by its SPA creator with crappy, very recent blog refs, done up to look like news articles. Captain Calm (talk) 03:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Captain Calm - Okay. Then deletion is an alternative to draftification. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and SNG. All detailed coverage in PR pieces. Malay Post and One News articles appear to unrelated in any significant way. — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 22:34, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree fails GNG and SNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:02, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable artist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:37, 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. Geschichte (talk) 10:03, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ravu Venkata Swetha Chalapathi Kumara Krishna Rangarao[edit]

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

BLP that does not pass WP:NPOL. Mccapra (talk) 22:18, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:18, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:18, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Municipal level officials are not inherently notable.— Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 22:31, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Local politicians are not inherently notable. Lefcentreright ^{Talk | Contribs | Global} 19:57, 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) 10:04, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beckie Mullen[edit]

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

Biography of a recently deceased actor that does not pass WP:ENT or WP:ANYBIO. Mccapra (talk) 22:04, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:04, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:04, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:04, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable actress, played some small parts in tv shows a few times. Oaktree b (talk) 15:29, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, only had very minor roles.--Seacactus 13 (talk) 03:01, 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 keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:01, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Minack[edit]

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

Member of a band; questionable if any notability outside of that band. The reason I don't redirect to the band right away, is that he also released a book according to the article. Possibly 3 reviews in its time - a little thin as well? Geschichte (talk) 21:57, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Austlit (as mentioned above) list a review in the Australian Book Review, a review in the Advertiser and a biography in the Weekend Australian. The later is reproduced here. That's three good sources, enough for notability even without the band. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:07, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I concur with duffbeerforme. He is independently notable for the novel. I have added another reliable source, which provided a review.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:17, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree with duffbeerforme and Shaidar cuebiyar. I have added another book review to the article (from The Australian). More could be added but the page certainly satisfies WP:NOT at this point. Cabrils (talk) 23:48, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. TISM are notable, book is notable. Doctorhawkes (talk) 23:13, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per Duffbeerforme - satisfies WP:ANYBIO. Dan arndt (talk) 09:43, 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 keep. consensus has shifted to keep Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bryce Hall (internet personality)[edit]

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

Citations are not all reliable, independent sources (Youtube, for example... WP:RSPYT). Ajshul 😀 (talk) 21:16, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ajshul 😀 (talk) 21:16, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Ajshul 😀 (talk) 21:16, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 21:25, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 21:25, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 21:25, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Outside the bottom section where his parties/power being turned out can be sourced, the rest of the article is pretty much standard 'People article/sources say' or 'get 500 words around a social media post' questionable. I've contributed a few things to this article (including removing more questionable love life gossip), but I don't feel this subject meets WP:N myself. Nate • (chatter) 22:03, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment The 'house' the subject was formerly a part of, The Hype House, is also questionable on N itself, along with the one bluelink Lil Huddy. Nate • (chatter) 22:22, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree that the article should only cite WP:RS. Hall meets WP:SIGCOV based on sustained coverage Forbes, BuzzFeed News, PinkNews, People, CNN, WFAA, Men's Health. I often refer to WP:RSP to check if a source is likely to be reliable. TJMSmith (talk) 22:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because one of the sources is traced to YouTube does not mean that all of the sources are unreliable or not independent. Hall meets WP:GNG based on the sources provided by TJMSmith. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 01:01, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the sources identified by TJMSmith show that this guy passes both WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Missing WP:N -- I don't see inherent notability, how many millions of social media enthusiasts have some mentions online. Has this person made any significant contributions to humanity? art? culture? Is there anything that makes this subject unqique?10Sany1? (talk) 20:04, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I'm sorry, but that !vote is literally just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:05, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per TJMSmith Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep my mind has been changed per TJMSmith. Ajshul 😀 (talk) 15:14, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per reliable sources indicated by TJMSmith. Article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:02, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Live! (MC Hellshit & DJ Carhouse album)[edit]

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

Album released by obscure musical project for which there is no Wikipedia article, because that article was deleted. Seeing as the project was a cooperation between two musicians I don't see redirect as a natural solution. Deletion, however, is. Geschichte (talk) 21:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom; fails WP:NALBUM and has no appropriate redirect target now Spiderone 22:07, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Since the group was deemed non-notable, the same is true of the album and it received no significant coverage of its own anyway. DOOMSDAYER520 | TALK | CONTRIBS 16:26, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, especially since there is no redirect target left.TH1980 (talk) 02:59, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. The band was also not notable (I nominated that article for deletion a few months ago), then how could the album be notable in any way? GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:22, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:03, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coolspotters[edit]

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

no substantial third party references other than the notices of two minor awards, , no indication of importance DGG ( talk ) 19:56, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:59, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:00, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:00, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Did not find substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 18:32, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:04, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bongos Ikwue[edit]

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

Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence fails to satisfy GNG & subject doesn’t satisfy any criterion from WP:SINGER. Celestina007 (talk) 19:19, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:19, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:19, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:19, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
Why I'll keep singing till I die – Bongos Ikwue	It’s an interview hence not independent of the subject	This is an interview hence not independent of the subject hence not considered reliable	✘ No
https://blackgrooves.org/bongos-ikwue-and-double-x-wulu-wulu/ Bongos Ikwue and Double X - Wulu Wulu		no editorial oversight & no reputation for fact checking	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Comment — The table above is the assessmentof the source currently present in the article. Celestina007 (talk) 19:31, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom's table. Lacks evidence of notability.— Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 19:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass our notability guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:10, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Pamzeis (talk) 04:50, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

X-Cart[edit]

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

Smells like covert advertising, considering that the article is basically a list of features. Primary claim to significance is "world's first PHP shopping cart software" and number of users, which are both nice but don't strike me as especially notable. There are plenty of cited sources, but they're either the company website, "best of" lists of questionable notability/independence, interviews, or passing mentions. Couldn't find the Reuters source, but I found a press release with the same title with trivial namechecking of the product (as "this same company also did..."). Best source is the "Merchant Maverick," and frankly it's not much of a source in my opinion. BEFORE gives me a ton of press releases and a few more reviews, but imo this does not demonstrate any significant change in notability since the last AfD. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a poor article, but can be improved through the normal editing process. For WP:GNG, it is not necessary for WP:RS/WP:IS to necessarily have been cited in the article itself...what's required is that such sources exist; WP:BEFORE shows they do for this topic.— Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 19:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ad Meliora, I'm well aware of what our requirements are for GNG. Since it seems that you have found sources I didn't, can you please link some of the ones you found in your BEFORE? GeneralNotability (talk) 19:49, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 19:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unlike the nom, I believe "world's first PHP shopping cart software" is notable. Of course WP:PEACOCK needs to be reined in, but the subject deserves an article. — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 19:49, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article is a waste of Wikipedia space. All the sources above are terrible - press-releases, prices, mentions - they really do not show any notability; actually they just prove that the company uses Wikipedia as advertising platform and it is hardly notable. If these are all the sources, then I can't imagine how this advertising page can be improved. By the way, I recommend Ad Meliora to read this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources --2601:1C0:CB01:2660:D994:7507:E8C9:2764 (talk) 05:38, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article needs a little clean-up. Nonetheless, with the sources presented by Ad Meliora, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:GNG and has number of industry publications writing about it, which can be considered peer reviews. Expertwikiguy (talk) 04:14, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:04, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James Naleski[edit]

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

non-notable musician, no sources in Russian or English, only sources in this article are unreliable or generic listings. Time to put this to rest finally. Praxidicae (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:20, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:20, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A search turns up social media, youtube etc., No independent RS making this person non-notable JW 1961 Talk 18:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - autobio of young filmmaker not yet notable per WP:FILMMAKER or WP:MUSICBIO. Credits so far are graphic designer on a low-notability TV series, and Foley artist on a notable film. No significant coverage online in reliable sources, and the article is poorly cited with self-published sources: IMDB, Twitter, AllMusic, the page of an organisation he works with. Article has been speedy-deleted several times already under a few names, by this nearly single-purpose account: James Naleski, James Paul (record producer), and even an attempted overwrite of James Paul. WP:TOOSOON at best. Captain Calm (talk) 18:27, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT per all of the above Spiderone 18:36, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Draftify A couple of WP:RS/WP:IS have been cited. The subject misses WP:GNG. As with most living, young people, I prefer draftification to deletion. — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 20:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is paid for spam, draftspace is for potential articles, not an indefinite holding area for spammy garbage. Praxidicae (talk) 20:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I always feel that for young/working people with some indication of WP:TOOSOON, the better response is draftification. — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 20:08, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is inherently flawed and problematic. By that logic anyone who has an interest in the arts is "too soon". Most people aren't notable. Wikipedia shouldn't be hosting BLPs about individuals that have no coverage or verification just in hopes one day they may become notable. Praxidicae (talk)

Not sure where you get the notion that everyone can be "too soon". For this subject, I am not the only commenter on this AfD who feels this subject is "too soon" — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 22:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT per everyone above. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:37, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete unreliable sources, no evidence of notability — billinghurst sDrewth 09:17, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Sites like IMDb, Twitter and a blank Allmusic page does not contribute to notability. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 16:50, 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 speedy delete. WP:G4. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/US Federal Contractor Registration Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:21, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

US Federal Contractor Registration/GovKinex[edit]

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

The article was previously deleted and the namespace protected due to the company repeated re-creating it after deletion. There was also a deletion discussion regarding it. Ignoring the previous deletion evasion, the wiki article essentially provides no other value than as an advertisement for the company.

Here's an excerpt from the "article" as well to show what I mean: "US Federal Contractor Registration has been mentioned by the Washington Post, FOX News and the Washington Business Journal." "US Federal Contractor Registration Main phone number is 1-877-252-2700 Extension 1 for New Clients and 2 for Customer Service" Nigel757 (talk) 18:10, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nigel757 (talk) 18:10, 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 redirect to Neha Kakkar. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:13, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rohanpreet Singh[edit]

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

This is a borderline article to me. He's appeared in a couple of reality competition shows, finishing in second place in both. Doesn't really meet WP:NACTOR. He's got a couple of singles released, but nothing to show they've charted, so WP:NMUSICIAN isn't really met. The sources are meh at best. A couple of links to music videos (doesn't help for notability) and a spotify profile page. That leaves two sources that really are the basis for the article. The MensXP article [10] is borderline click-bait. It's mostly Instagram links with some pretty promotional blurbs between them and a few basic biographical details. Nothing in-depth. The other source, IndianExpress, [11] is pretty much the same - links to videos and instagram with a smattering of puffery and some basic details. Not really what I'd call in depth. The article was in draft space, but moved by another editor, so I don't want to go back to draft without a discussion. As it is, I think this is WP:TOOSOON and should be draft/user spaced, or just deleted. Ravensfire (talk) 18:00, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 18:00, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 18:00, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 18:00, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 18:00, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:GNG, WP:BLP1E. Notable for being the husband of Neha Kakkar (recent) and possibly for the event of Sa Re Ga Ma Pa L'il Champs International. WP:TOOSOON applies as well. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Undecided. The sources cited are WP:RS/WP:IS and a few provide WP:SIGCOV, so it seems WP:GNG is met, even though WP:NACTOR and WP:NMUSICIAN are not really. Also, I get that the subject is probably a minor figure; unfortunately, the country's media has pages to fill, and those pages seem to have pushed him over GNG. GNG trumps SNG. So, I'm split between keep and draftify. — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 20:04, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the nominator on WP:TOOSOON. The subject has gotten some notice for bit parts here and there and for having a more notable wife, but most of the sources specifically about him are friendly PR puff pieces and standard industry listings. DOOMSDAYER520 | TALK | CONTRIBS 20:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:GNG doesn't care whether the reasons for coverage are completely superficial. Friendly puff pieces in RS/IS are still coverage in RS/IS. WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS/[WP:IS]] means GNG met.— Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 20:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ad Meliora, I'm curious, how does a handful of small sentences without significant details count as significant coverages, as SIGCOV looks for sources that cover the subject in detail. A series of Instagram posts with a sentence or two for each talking about trivial matters is hardly in detail. Puff pieces are by their nature NOT significant coverage. Ravensfire (talk) 21:24, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He's mentioned by name in the headline of 1 (profile) 2 3 (and also 4 5 6 which are videos of his songs, but nevertheless, considered significant enough by RS/IS to post). That's WP:SIGCOV — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 21:32, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ad Meliora, being mentioned by name in a headline counts as significant coverage? Oh boy... Ravensfire (talk) 21:41, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You enjoy being facetious, noted.— Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 21:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as the subject seems to be solely notable enough cuz he has been part of multiple Reality Television shows and also have sufficient coverages to meet the criteria of GNG Dtt1^Talk 05:51, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. The creator seems to be WP:UPE and most refs are PR stuff/ for promotion only. 2409:4061:90:D357:C141:C5DC:E1C9:50AC (talk) 17:54, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect to Neha Kakkar I agree with the nominator's analysis. Meanwhile, can Redirect to Neha Kakkar be considered something better than nothing? ─ The Aafī (^talk) 19:23, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Riddhidev BISWAS (talk) 08:42, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom with no objection to Redirect to Neha Kakkar as suggested by TheAafi. --KartikeyaS (talk) 20:24, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:06, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Włodzimierz Arlamowski[edit]

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

There's absolutely no indication that this article meets WP:GNG. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:16, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:16, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:16, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:16, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:SOLDIER. However can a Polish speaker check 1 and 2 and ensure we are not missing something? — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 20:25, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The above sources seem not relevant to him. I think his story is discussed in this book: [12] but I cannot even get good snippet view so I am not sure how in depth that coverage is, all I see is a single sentence "Włodzimierz Arłamowski , ułan AK pseud . „ Ryś ” , słuchacz politechniki , ur . 25 . 02 . 1923 r . we Lwowie , zginął 30 . 10 . 1945 r . śmiercią tragiczną na lotnisku w Izbicku " . --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:37, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on the above — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 19:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG, no SIGCOV in multiple RS. Mztourist (talk) 10:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No credible claim of notability, no SIGCOV. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:38, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:06, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Taco Hero[edit]

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

Non-notable WP:PROMOTION that is presented as though it's an actual award. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:55, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:55, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:55, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete purely WP:OR, and if it passes WP:GNG somehow still fails WP:PROMO. SportingFlyer T·C 16:49, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable marketing/advertising campaigns like this are not encyclopedic material. KidAd talk 17:27, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero evidence of notability and nothing worth merging or keeping Spiderone 18:03, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:07, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inertron[edit]

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

Trivial fictional topic that fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTPLOT. Previous AfD was 2006, so it's way outdated. TTN (talk) 14:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article is entirely devoid of reliable sources, and searching for sources on the DC Comics - specific version turns up absolutely nothing of worth. As noted in the article itself, the fictional material was not even created by DC - it was taken from a Buck Rogers story, and the actual mentions I can find on it at all in non-fiction sources are all pretty much talking about its appearance there. That said, I could also see this being used as a Redirect to Armageddon 2419 A.D., but there is nothing here that would need to be retained or merged. Rorshacma (talk) 15:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As with Rorshacma, I was able to find nothing substantial in the way of coverage. Even on the face of it, this is a minor element of the DC Universe. Dark knight 2149 19:07, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: More extreme WP:FANCRUFT. Fails WP:NFICTION, also major problems with WP:V/WP:OR. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:47, 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:24, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pradeep Doddaiah[edit]

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

Borderline speedy delete: no indication of notability per WP:NACTOR, with only minor roles so far and no significant coverage online in WP:Reliable sources. Captain Calm (talk) 14:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 14:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 14:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. --TamilMirchi (talk) 19:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG Spiderone 22:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:26, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fun scale[edit]

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

"developed for use" aka "made up one day". There are a handful of blog posts about it, all referring back to the blog post of the person who made it up one day, but nothing in RS. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:04, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I find it interesting and useful. Although I haven't been able to fully research it's origins I have no doubt that it's a real thing to many people. I heard of it because a job applicant listed Type II fun as an area of interest. Isn't this how knowledge grows and disseminates? Isn't this what Wikipedia is for? The Fun Scale is a thing! --Doctor Hoo (talk) 14:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:52, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:53, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems to only be written about in blogs as per nom, also WP:NPOV issues, for example, some people might actually find War and Peace or having dinner with their sister-in-law enjoyable at the time! Spiderone 18:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A random Internet thing made up one day and infrequently blogged about in the most superficial way. XOR'easter (talk) 23:04, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about the "tool" aside from a Sheridan Press article. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:09, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Habibullah Mir[edit]

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

Sarpanchs are not assembly or parliament representatives. They are simply village heads and thus fails to satisfy WP:POLITICIAN. Sadly, he was shot dead by the militants. The subject was "killed" not "assassinated". Please not to be confused with "this is the first attack on a panchayat member by militants this year. (It wasn't the first attack in the history of Kashmiri surpanchs). Kashmir is a war zone and such attacks are usually carried dozens of times in a year and dozens of Sarpanchs have been killed till date and hence fails to satisfy WP:GEN. The article says "his assassination was part of a campaign by extremist militants to eliminate elected local officials in Jammu and Kashmir state". Unfortunately, the campaign responsible for his killing is itself a non-notable event. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 13:48, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 13:48, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 13:48, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Leaders of local governments are not "inherently" notable per WP:NPOL, especially when the locality is a village rather than a major city. But the article is not referenced anywhere near well enough to get him over WP:GNG, and having been killed (especially in a region where local political officials are frequently vulnerable to this) is not in and of itself a reason why he would pass the ten year test as a topic of enduring significance in an international encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 14:00, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There were hundreds of news articles and TV coverage when he (and a few other sarpanches) were assassinated by extremists - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. There was some coverage in international media - British, British. This specific killing was discussed nationwide in India and resulted in calls for the state chief minister to resign (news, news), mass resignations across a large number of local chiefs in protest (news), cited by some NGOs (amnesty). So, yeah, pretty notable. --Hunnjazal (talk) 15:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin Hunnjazal is the page creator. Hunnjazal, please do not provide false information. His killing was not responsible for mass resignation, but members resigned over threats (warnings) issued by the militant outfits such as Lashkar-e-Taiba. "Out of 33,000 panchayat members, nearly 400 claimed to have resigned following threats by various militant outfits across the Valley"[13]. Also, there are not "1000s of news sources". All sources are "syndicated" i.e republican of the same news source. Please compare the provided sources. Editors study article and its sources before nominating them for deletion and i have done the same. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 15:41, 28 October 2020 (UTC) And Amnesty International source amnesty discuss the whole situation in Kashmir, not the subject in question independently. Furthermore, you are confused between "killing" and "assassination". TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 15:48, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How is this false information exactly? This is directly from the news sources - "Panchayat members in Jammu and Kashmir fear for life, to tender mass resignations" (India Today) or "J&K: 20 panchayat members resign" (Indian Express). Also, how is it nefarious that I would vote to keep this? I will state my perspective freely, though is of limited interest to me at this time whether these articles stay or go - and you are the one who posted to my talk page to invite me to participate here! Why are you attacking me now when all I did was post mainstream news urls? Habibullah Mir and Zoona Begum are names that figured prominently on TV and print media when they were assassinated. They became famous initially because local elected officials (the Panchayat members) took to TV and print after "panic gripped the Valley after the suspected militants shot at the woman panchayat member Zoona and sarpanch Habibullah Mir" (verbatim quote from India Today, not my words). This is just provable fact and I have provided multiple valid Indian and British media links. They still figure in terror-related literature related to India (example - India's National Security: Annual Review 2014, Routledge, 2015). Millions of people have heard these names because they were famous for a while, so I don't know how to help you. I have nothing more to say on this. --Hunnjazal (talk) 07:07, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hunnjazal, You misunderstood what i said. Sources says, The Jammu and Kashmir Surpanch members resigned because they are "scared" and not because of as a "protest" against the killing of the subject. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 07:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Hunnjazal if you are confident about your sources, perhaps try creating Killing of Habibullah Mir and perhaps that will survive (although probably won't because WP:NOTNEWS) — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 20:34, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion. I might create something called Sarpanch Killings or something, but it won't be anytime soon (if ever). --Hunnjazal (talk) 07:07, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the subject fails WP:NPOL and this sad incident has no long-lasting effects. --KartikeyaS (talk) 20:32, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tragic, but this is WP:1E that fails WP:LASTING, WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. I don't believe it would have much chance if rewritten as a event. // Timothy :: talk 01:17, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:25, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lashaun Turner[edit]

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a radio and television personality, not reliably sourced as passing our notability standards for broadcasters. This is referenced almost entirely to sources that are not support for notability, such as her staff profiles on the self-published websites of her own employers, IMDB, a self-published press release, video clips on her own website in which she's the interviewer and not the subject, a Facebook post, and a glancing namecheck of her existence in coverage of somebody else. There's only one source here (#12, "The Hype Magazine") that actually comes from a real media organization, yet even it reads suspiciously more like a press release from her own PR team than real journalism -- and regardless of any questions about the tone, even if we accepted it as valid it still takes a lot more than just one valid source to clear WP:GNG. As always, the notability test is not the things the article says she did, it's the amount of third party media coverage, not self-created by her and her employers, that she did or didn't get about the things she did -- and nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have much better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 13:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete overly promotional article on a non-notable reporter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:00, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looking at the sources; a radio station listing, one apparently dead link, an IMDB article, a passing mention in The Seattle Times about something else, 6 links to her own company website, link to her facebook, and an anonymously submitted article on thehypemagazine.com that curiously uses a cropped version of the exact same selfie photograph as uploaded to Wikipedia as "own work" by article contributor. (It's a cropped version. i.e. the Wikipedia version is the original, despite being published a year later.) Notability not demonstrated and quite obvious self-publicity all round. Well, she does say she is in PR. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:15, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how to use this page. I am the person who wrote the article and I am NOT Lashaun Turner or "connected" in an official capacity. I have followed Lashaun on social media for years since her days at Black Planet and am probably her #1 fan/follower- anyway, this was my 1st attempt at writing on wikipedia , i used youtube videos for guidance. what a rough experience this has been- down to the tone of the entries on this talk page.! I did an interview request of her and she sent information and photos- she didn't know i was trying to put it on wiki. The photo thing i was having difficulty uploading and some error messages so I made the simple choice in choosing "own" since i had permission. I found that link of her Huff Post interview thru web search - not sure why it disappeared- it was working when the article was posted. The thing is i waited until the page said "reviewed" and was searchable online before i told her what i had done. Now I feel bad because she was so excited to have the article. Lashaun works with mostly underground artists that's where her notoreity is- but has also interviewed many celebrities and she has interviewed so many people and many of whom have wiki pages that I thought she was a good candidate for a page and I noticed that KCAA and their other hosts had pages- so thinking she's been on radio and television as a creator/host that would qualify - There are other interviews of her out there but it seems like you guys tend to disqualify urban media. Appreciate whoever came along and helped out with the article and fixed the citations- i got really hung up on that part. Anyway- i guess the page coming down- just wanted to clarify who wrote this and why. It seems odd that a person who has interviewed many celebrity wiki page owners- does not have her own article.. go Figure.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:121B:452E:F1F3:DA0C:1221:AE47 (talk) 19:00, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:07, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neba Lawrence[edit]

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

Subject of article is a filmmaker but doesn’t seem to satisfy any criterion from WP:CREATIVE. Furthermore her works also have insufficient coverage in reliable sources. A before search shows she lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence also a GNG fail. The two awards she supposedly has been nominated for are both non notable award shows.Celestina007 (talk) 12:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
""FIX IT SHOW" – A celebrity moment !"	No reputation for fact checking.	It doesn’t discuss subject of our article, rather it discusses a different topic entirely	✘ No
Most desired Cameroonian actress in new movie	No reputation for fact checking.	This source discusses an individual named Solange Yijika & not subject of our discussion	✘ No
Genevieve, Omotola, Stell Damascus, Jim Iyke Nominated At Cameroon Entertainment Awards	They are yet to build a reputation for fact checking.	Absolutely no significant coverage as the source mere lists people nominated for a non notable award.	✘ No
African Film Development Foundation Awards - AFDA 2013	No editorial oversight, no reputation for fact-checking	Yet again this source is not even about subject of our discussion	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Comment — Above are the assessment of the sources used currently in the article. Celestina007 (talk) 13:19, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the assessment of available sources Spiderone 13:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Seems to be somebody doing his job and thought, yes, I would like a Wikipedia article. Chancer. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 14:52, 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:27, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dominique_Ferretti[edit]

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

Not a person of significence. Likely self created page. No external references. Yourenotimportant (talk) 12:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not pass GNG. --Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 13:04, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:18, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:18, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems to fail GNG by a long shot (I can't think of any other notability guidelines that would be applicable); even the reference provided is a passing mention and a BEFORE search yielded naff all Spiderone 13:20, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable low level UN official.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:46, 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. Tone 20:49, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Xmake[edit]

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

Non-notable, almost no references that aren't by the author/s. There are other tools also called xmake that show up in Google, but almost nothing for this one. No indication of who uses it or where it is used. Document previously nominated for speedy deletion (not carried). Almost no editors except the original directly related author (see Github page at bottom - contacts). peterl (talk) 09:20, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — There is (1) no indication that the subject is well known and (2) can be well-cited by sources. It's hard to find anything reviewing it or assessing usage/popularity, pitfalls etc etc etc. Additional reasoning is also can be found on the talk page. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails software notability and fails is far short of GNG. I can't find any books or book chapters devoted to the product, which is a good sign it is not notable, also name is ambiguous and is used by others. Footlessmouse (talk) 21:20, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Fails WP:GNG. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:29, 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:30, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth C[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Content is promotional in nature and largely unsourced. Sources in the article are primary or unreliable; I was unable to find any better. M4DU7 (talk) 07:44, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 07:44, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 07:44, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 07:44, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under A7 and/or G11. Foxnpichu (talk) 11:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 11:11, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no references that meet the requirements for establishing notability. Topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:09, 3 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. Tone 20:49, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Principal clock[edit]

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

Just a definition. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDICT Spiderone 08:01, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia is not a dictionary, however Wiktionary is, and this appears to meet their inclusion criteria, so it'd be worth a transwiki in my opinion. SITH (talk) 10:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikitionary. Foxnpichu (talk) 11:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICT. If moving the content to Wikitionary is an option, go for it, but remove the page from this encyclopedia, as it is not a dictionary. Footlessmouse (talk) 21:17, 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 no consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:08, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Muneeb Ali[edit]

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

notability not established, most sources are actually about his company, Blockstack Ysangkok (talk) 23:06, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 23:06, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 23:06, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 23:06, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 23:06, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 23:06, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 23:06, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 23:06, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 23:06, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to company, reasoning per nomination. (Not sure target article should exist either, but while it does that's the best option.) - David Gerard (talk) 08:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Improve. I read this as primarily a page for scientific contributions (not commercial ones). The Gilder book goes into story of his personal life and PhD thesis. The Reason TV reference is about PhD thesis. Protothread work, Namecoin security discovery, Wireless sensor network publications are unrelated to Blockstack. Google scholar reference reports 1500 citations. I do think that the article should be improved. Silicon Valley show and Amazon Blockchain show does not have references and section on research works is minimal. A quick search shows media articles that use expert commentary from him (unrelated to Blockstack). See FoxNews. He seems to appear on lists of top 10 most influential people in crypto industry (not currently covered in the article). Freedaemon (talk) 13:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- So, where are the references that will demonstrate all these claims? A BLP should not have sourcing as bad as it presently is. If you're claiming he meet WP:NACADEMIC, do you have the cites that show it? - David Gerard (talk) 17:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not as experienced on Wikipedia as you and others here, so apologies in advance if I misunderstand something. As for WP:NACADEMIC, I think this should meet "The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." I view this as a case similar to Matei Zaharia, his PhD thesis resulted in Apache Spark open-source project and Databricks the company. Here Muneeb's PhD thesis resulted in Blockstack open-source project. He is CEO of a company but I do not think the company is notable (the company does not have a Wikipedia page). The open-source project and the academic work that led to the project however meet criteria. Blockstack cryptocurrency has a publicly traded market cap of $108M USD today, which is substantial impact outside academia (resulting from a primarily academic work). The academic work itself has 355 citations for just one paper. The academic work is included in computer networking textbook. None of this is related to being CEO of a company, which seems to be the primary point of @Ysangkok. Therefore, the article and sources need to be improved. Freedaemon (talk) 18:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Freedaemon: The market cap is not relevant in any way, even if it could be measured reliably.

The book is self-published and such books cannot establish notability. Ali isn't actually an academic, so I don't know why you'd try to claim him notable as one. You're not a career academic if your thesis gets cited. The citation count cannot be trusted, since the cryptocurrency aspect skews the incentives that otherwise would make such a counting of citations make sense.

This discussion does not concern the notability of Blockstack, so let's not talk about that.

As for the comparison with Zaharia, note that Ali was never a professor, and Zaharia is an assistant professor. If citations could be measured to denote notability (I don't know if they can), note how Zaharia has 50k citations (according Google Scholar) and Ali has 1,5k.

Any cryptocurrency whitepaper gets cited if the currency gets attention. That will happen regardless of whether it was written by an academic or not. So does that mean that any cryptocurrency whitepaper author is notable under NACADEMIC? I wouldn't think so. --Ysangkok (talk) 22:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ysangkok: The facts you listed above are demonstrably incorrect. I'd request you to do more research.

The Computer Networking textbook by Larry Peterson is the standard textbook used by hundreds of universities globally. An entire generation of engineers have been raised by learning about computer networking from it and you are categorizing it as "self-published". Yes, Larry Peterson recently converted the book to open-source. Does not take away the importance and significance of the book.

The Blockstack paper is not a cryptocurrency whitepaper. In fact, it's not a whitepaper. It's a USENIX publication pre-dating any cryptocurrency and has no mention of any cryptocurrency. Also, cryptocurrency whitepapers don't get published at USENIX.

So Zaharia is notable because he is an assistant professor? Zaharia is notable because of the works he has done. He is known in the industry for his Apache Spark work primarily. There are thousands of assistant professors in the world otherwise. I gave the example to highlight that computer science PhD thesis works that get commercialized and gain widespread adoption are rare. If the resulting commercialization and growth (however you measure growth, does not need to be market cap) is notable then the original thesis work is also notable. That was the point of the analogy.

Your claims about cryptocurrency skewing citations would be very hard to back up with any data. First of all, the paper under discussion here is not the cryptocurrency paper. The cryptocurrency paper is different. Secondly, there is no mention of any cryptocurrency in the paper. Further, you can just review the citations to see why it's being cited. In my quick research, it's mostly being cited as alternate DNS and decentralized storage. Freedaemon (talk) 16:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Freedaemon: Regarding the USENIX Annual Technical Conference publication, it is not peer-reviewed, so it fails criteria 1: Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Specific criteria notes. So he isn't notable as an academic. Can you point me to a guideline under which Mr. Ali is notable? --Ysangkok (talk) 17:31, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ysangkok: You literally got facts wrong again. USENIX ATC is peer-reviewed and considered a top conference in computer science that has been around since 1995. Notability is the tier-1 news publications (like WSJ) and book chapters. They clearly qualify under Wikipedia guidelines. I apologize but you are repeatedly getting facts wrong and I'm afraid that it is confusing this discussion. Freedaemon (talk) 18:06, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Edit A Google search does show that the subject is notable. He spoke at a TED (Conference) in New York which highlights his notability and knowledge on internet and distributed systems - [14]. The CNBC story and WSJ (which are both compliant with WP:RS)- [15] - talks in significant detail about his contribution to the crypto-currency industry. It is known that the industry is not regulated, so to build a regulatory framework and get qualified by SEC for the token offering is definitely a major contribution in the industry. The Reason_TV story complies with WP:SIGCOV, which talks about his thought process behind the technology of the company. The page looks scattered and needs improvement in terms of flow of content to align it with WP:CCPOL guideline. It can trimmed down to keep only relevant information and references. The references can be improved, for instance, he being the author of Protothread can have a better reference such as the Google Scholar link - [16] The entire last paragraph of the lead section talking about him being the main character in a book and his appearances can be removed. Nasty Tunes of Sally (talk) 23:26, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROF and WP:TOOSOON - his thesis was defended three years ago. Bearian (talk) 17:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: I'm relatively new here so forgive any misunderstanding. I wanted to learn how the thesis defended three years ago fact is relevant to two main notability reasons (a) commercialization of thesis and (b) crypto regulatory work. Is the thinking that the commercialization of technology is WP:TOOSOON and does not have independent reliable sources? And how does WP:TOOSOON work with the impact of regulatory work with sources like WSJ and Yahoo Fiannce? Trying to better understand things -- thank you! Freedaemon (talk) 02:10, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - at the first glance, I felt the BLP is violating WP:INHERIT and inheriting notability only from his company. But, upon more reading, it appears that he is notable for his contributions to the crypto world. There are multiple verifiable third party sources that meet WP:IS and WP:V. So, definitely not a failed verification. I don’t find passing mentions like this helping though. There is a citation needed remark, I feel that entire line needs to be omitted as it doesn’t help establish any notability whatsoever. Even the show mentioned isn’t notable and fails verification as per WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION. I am not a crypto expert, but definitely an enthusiast, and know that it is an unregulated industry. With his recent contribution in establishing a regulatory framework approved by SEC, it does make him a notable figure in the industry and worth Wikipedia inclusion.--Camella Gandhi (talk) 20:38, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Camella Gandhi: Welcome to Wikipedia, Camella. You can't just be picking arbitrary events and deciding whether they constitute notability. There is no Wikipedia guideline that says that the CEO behind a token offering becomes notable if it is regulated by the SEC. It may be notable to you as a crypto enthusiast, but consensus has already been established, that Wikipedia should be more sceptical than that. Mr. Ali doesn't qualify, according to our existing notability guidelines. --Ysangkok (talk) 17:31, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Camella Gandhi: Thanks for the comments! I agree with them generally. I feel that this discussion is not moving forward and some of the input from Ysangkok is factually incorrect which can be confusing for participants here.

Let me summarize the discussion here to help move this forward. Here are reasons for notability:

Muneeb is co-author of Blockstack and Protothread. Both projects are notable according to Wikipedia criteria and have established articles for the respective projects.

Both the Blockstack publication and the Protothread publication are peer-reviewed (Ysangkok's comments are incorrect). And proper references to both should be added to the article.

WSJ, Yahoo Finance, and CNBC establish notability for regulatory work in the industry and are both compliant with WP:RS. Yahoo Finance reference is currently not in the article and should be added.

Nasty Tunes of Sally points that he spoke at a TED (Conference) in New York which highlights his notability and knowledge on internet and distributed systems - [17]. This is not referenced in the current article and should be added.

Muneeb's work has been included in the Computer Networking textbook by Larry Peterson and in the George Gilder book. Ysangkok's input about Computer Networking book is incorrect. The book has been published by Morgan Kaufmann and has been used as a textbook in universities for decades. Reference to this book should be added to the article.

The Reason_TV story complies with WP:SIGCOV.

A second WSJ article also establishes notability (outside regulatory work).

To help move the discussion forward I'd request other folks to specifically comment on the above 7 references/points as to why these qualify or not. What seems to be throwing off some people is a mix of academic, commercial, and regulatory work. Having a mix of works is not a reason for disqualification and these can be evaluated using specific sources. Freedaemon (talk) 19:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Andrew nyr (talk, contribs) 05:59, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As an Academic he qualifies. According to Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Specific_criteria_notes “The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work”

I just did a little searching and found that he is the author of numerous research papers that have been cited by hundreds of others. Check the link here: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=Cu_SoyMAAAAJ&hl=en The top one cited over 500 times and the next 3 cited over 100 times. Total 1500+ citations per Google. I will attempt to add some info to his page as well. Expertwikiguy (talk) 08:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a difficult one, but I'm going to say Keep since despite the COI issue, he does appear to pass GNG. Foxnpichu (talk) 11:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added some additional info and sources, such as WSJ, Fortune and Forbes sources. He has also been TEDx speaker and has spoken at other industry conferences. I feel the page was poorly written before, did not have good sources and did not display his achievements as an academic. Prior "delete" voters should revisit their voting again. Expertwikiguy (talk) 18:22, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Expertwikiguy: I think that the regulatory work and commercialization of thesis are more important and your edits focus more on research works. However, that is a topic for a separate discussion i.e., discussion about how to improve the article once the delete discussion concludes. I agree with you that the prior version was poorly written and lacked sources. I listed 7 sources above, 4 of 7 were not included in the article before. Thanks for adding the links to the research papers now. Freedaemon (talk) 20:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve Article covers the subject and notability to me is obvious. There are enough very reliable citations to support this. The advancements happening in blockchain and crypto are changing the world. It's just that most people are not knowledgeable at all in this space -- yet. The most notable fact IMO is: "He is known for the regulatory framework that resulted in the first SEC-qualified offering for a crypto asset. Being the first of anything, expecially in a highly regulated environment, in a fast-growing, world-changing technology is notable; I'm confident this article will be improved quickly as more blockchain and crypto applications roll out. 10Sany1? (talk) 20:41, 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 Keep and improve. Consensus is that the subject is notable due to coverage in multiple reliable sources. Several such sources have been provided in this discussion and can be used to improve and flesh out the article. (Note: IMDb is not generally considered a reliable source, as it is a user-created website much like Wikipedia.) Aervanath (talk) 16:21, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Lakis[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article is one on a living person lakcing any reliable sources. My search for reliable sources just turned up things like an instagram account, nothing substantial or reliable. She seems to have only had one even marginally significant role in a productions that is at best borderline notable. There is no way to interpret the notability guidelines for actresses that they would be broad enough to include Lakis John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:26, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:39, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:39, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:39, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Google links automatically added to the AFD show quite a bit more than "an instagram account" : Wonderland Magazine, Vanyaland, Earmilk, Atwood Magazine, and Buzzbands.la. I'm not sure if any of these are reliable sources, but the nomination statement is misleading. pburka (talk) 16:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderland and Earmilk both appear to be reliable sources, and the articles linked by Pburka definitely qualify as significant coverage. Cbl62 (talk) 17:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I re-created the Lauren Lakis article and also created an article about the movie Confessions of a Teenage Jesus Jerk in which Lauren Lakis performed, back in May 2020. At the time, I reviewed the AFD in 2012 which had removed the previous Lauren Lakis article, and I noted in an edit summary that she had gone on to do much more beyond what would have been covered in the previous article. I did not have the previous article, and would like for an administrator with access to it to assess it and transfer any usable material and sources from it to this one. But even without that, it struck me that she appeared to be up-and-coming and headed for wider success, and I assessed that this person already is a significant actor about whom there is sufficient coverage to meet Wikipedia notability requirements, and saw that she is also a songwriter and singer which would add to her wiki-notability. --Doncram (talk) 18:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I believe that IMDB is a reliable source for what roles an actor has taken. The IMDB page about her lists 52 credits, which seems like quite a lot. Yes, the majority are in short films or may be single or multiple appearances (which count as just one of the 52 credits) in TV series. These include one appearance in major series Big Little Lies, one appearance in major series Homecoming and appearances in all four episodes of a French-language series Twice Upon a Time). As for movies I saw her significant role in "Confessions" and I see she has a role in February 2020-released movie I'll Be Around, which is available in Amazon Prime. I haven't/can't assess the significance of each individual role, but I do think the multiple credits add up in establishing this is a significant person.

I don't often start or develop articles about actors or participate often in AFDs about actors. But I believe I have a decent record, due to my selectively participating where significance seems clear to me. FWIW, when the Wikipedia article on comparable young actor Jennifer Lawrence (a rather major star now) was up for deletion in a mass-deletion process, it would definitely have been deleted except for the fact that I took action and saved it. That's one save for Wikipedia's record of egg-in-the-face deletions. --Doncram (talk) 18:53, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I see that one of wp:SINGER's criteria for wiki-notability of a singer is: "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)." Lakis has at least one full album out, on Cavity Search Records. --Doncram (talk) 19:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further, the "Wonderland" source mentioned above is a review of a song of hers in 2020. And this 2020 interview of her in The Vinyl District (currently a redlink but searching on "Vinyl District" in Wikipedia indicates hundreds of references to it, and this magazine or whatever should get an article) discloses that a second album is in production / coming out soon, which I believe will bring this article up to formally meeting wp:SINGER's criterion. It doesn't make sense to delete this just before it would be "legal" for sure in a few months time. Again, I think this person is notable for a combo of partial achievements along SINGER and NACTOR criteria already. --Doncram (talk) 03:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IMDB is not reliable is any circumstance and can't be used to verify notability. Fails WP:NBAND and WP:SIGCOV for want of criteria. The coverage offered above has all been generated as part of albums release in August. However, it is failed to bite and not made any headway. Also there is no social media coverage that you can point too. So not a muscian yet. Looks at the film, she had quite a career, but mostly as a bit-part actor with some attempts at pilots but not much. Fails WP:NACTOR. No indication of significance. scope_creep^Talk 11:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added above about a 2nd album coming that brings Lakis to fully meeting SINGER criteria. She also has contributing significance from acting, which adds up, IMO.

I get that writing in an AFD or on Talk pages in general doesn't need to achieve perfection, but I simply do not understand much of User:scope creep's statement. For example "IMDB is reliable is any circumstance and can't be used to verify notability" is not a grammatical sentence. And if it is meaning to say that IMDB is unreliable for what roles an actor has played (which is what I relied upon it to assert above), I disagree. Complaining about the portions of IMDB where a person can contribute text about themselves is completely irrelevant. Besides the incomprehensibility of the writing, I think the intended assertions/content in this !vote are incorrect or irrelevant and that this opinion should be disregarded in closure of this AFD. Unless User:scope creep comes back and clarifies what they mean to say, and how it is relevant and what evidence supports it. --Doncram (talk) 03:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar mistake. IMDB is not reliable. Ive updated the comment. 08:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

The article has no effective sources, so adding extra albums isn't going to cut it. Only references matter. scope_creep^Talk 08:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for coming back and clarifying, though now I don't know what you mean by "effective sources". The existence of reliable sources has been pointed out already, and the interview in Vinyl District is another one, and these suffice. The references do not have to be added to the article for this to be properly closed "Keep". --Doncram (talk) 19:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is not a reliable source, but, as far as credits and awards go, it's usually pretty accurate and comprehensive, at least for works in English. It's the first place I always look when evaluating an actor, director or scriptwriter, and, if one finds roles that appear to be significant, it's usually fairly easy to verify them in more reliable sources. Also, Doncram is correct that sources need not be in the article for a topic to be deemed notable. See WP:NEXIST. pburka (talk) 20:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Among other problems IMBd has been known to merge more than one person under the same article. In at least one case it listed someone as appearing in a film before their birth.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not really my subject of expertise, but I found this, this, this, this and this (confirming a TV appearance outside IMDB) in a Google News search, so it should be possible for somebody to improve this. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:06, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:42, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Cbl62 (talk) 14:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Andrew nyr (talk, contribs) 05:59, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As Ritchie and others have pointed out, there are multiple sources. I looked over each one and at least two or three are reliable and independent. The article does not include these sources but that's why a BEFORE is required. Lauren passes GNG.--Tsistunagiska (talk) 12:11, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of reliable sources exist, so a major premise of the nomination isn't really true. I'm not convinced that it meets WP:SINGER, but it probably will in the future. Even if it doesn't, it still meets WP:GNG per Ritchie333. Scorpions13256 (talk) 16:55, 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. No objections raised. This really didn't need to be relisted. Aervanath (talk) 16:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PAIRS Foundation[edit]

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

Non-notable training program. Looks to be promotional article. Fails WP:NORG. Graywalls (talk) 19:20, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And undisclosed paid editing appears to be involved. Graywalls (talk) 01:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 19:20, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 19:20, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:17, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cabayi (talk) 10:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suppose I should have PROD'ed first. Could it be soft-deleted since there's ben no input? Graywalls (talk) 19:46, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Andrew nyr (talk, contribs) 05:57, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of independent sources available Spiderone 11:03, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I don't see a need to keep relisting this. Most likely the article can be salvaged, but if not, it can be nominated again. Aervanath (talk) 16:11, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Wheatland[edit]

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

A borderline case, but I think the subject of this article fails WP:BASIC. I don't think being CEO of Cambridge Analytica, however notorious it may be, is enough for WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE. He's been an exec at a number of firms, so a potential redirect would face a WP:XY problem. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He was featured in the Netflix documentary The Great Hack (see The_Great_Hack#Cast) and has received media coverage in connection with the Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal. For example, he was highlighted in debates in parliament on the connections between the company and the Conservatives, so it's more his role in connection with the broader affair than the business position in itself that establishes his notability. (The same would probably be true for other key people involved with that affair, e.g. Nix, Kaiser, Wylie etc.) Although SCL liked to operate in the shadows, I think the chairman of a company that sets out to influence hundreds of elections globally is sufficiently relevant. (Also note that the article includes far more sources now than when it was nominated for deletion). --Skafjr75 (talk) 23:57, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Skafjr75, See WP:BLP1E. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that there is some public interest in him, even beyond Cambridge Analytica: [18] --Skafjr75 (talk) 00:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can we redirect to the company? Someone may search for it. Spudlace (talk) 03:44, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Spudlace, He's been an executive at Cambridge Analytica and SCL Group, so there may be an WP:XY issue, but if it seems he's best known for association with Cambridge Analytica a redirect there would seem reasonable as an ATD. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is to be redirected, I think a redirect to Cambridge Analytica is a reasonable option, although I still think there are enough sources to justify a stand-alone article in this case. --Skafjr75 (talk) 06:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

However, Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal could also be a suitable target for a possible redirect, since it sort of covers both SCL and CA. --Skafjr75 (talk) 06:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - public figure involved in a scandal. Since 2007, I have had the same opinion that people involved in political scandals almost always are notable. 15:19, 13 October 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearian (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Basically a smear article. "Involved in scandal" and no detail how he was involved, whether his role was significant or just a scapegoat. No prejudice against recreation. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GirthSummit _(blether) 14:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: we need more for consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Andrew nyr (talk, contribs) 05:56, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In a WP:BEFORE search on Google multiple reliable and independent sources are found specifically about Julian and his career. Per WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS Julian is notable. Are they clouded in controversy? Absolutely! Most actions considered scandalous are surrounded by controversy. As far as the tone of the article goes, it only speaks to what the sources provide. AfD is not article clean-up. If there are other views and sources to back it up then edit the article to include these POV's and provide the sources. Wikipedia is only concerned with WP:GNG which the subject passes. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 12:25, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Userify or Draftify. This isn't a usable biography. A biography has to give some sort of context to a person life, like the basic elements of birth , education, positions. I think a ceo of a major company will almost always have enough sources to justify inclusion,; whether it should be a fixed rule is a difficult question, becauseit dependso n the notability fo the company. If the notability is from the scandal, his role in it must be actually explained, properly and with good sources, according to the requirements of WP:BLP, which is policy and takes precdence over the notability guideline. DGG ( talk ) 06:19, 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. While there is a basically an even headcount between those who think the article should be kept and those who believe it should be deleted, those who have advocated keep have established that the article is Verifiable but not necessarily how it is notable. As those who suggest the article be deleted have suggested how those sources do not establish notability, there is therefore, when weighing consensus, a delete outcome. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:03, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meri Jung Ka Elaan[edit]

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

Non notable film, tagged since September 2011. A WP:BEFORE turned up film database sites, youtube videos, and other wikis. Even the Hindi language Wikipedia article doesn't have any citations that could help this film pass WP:NFILM, as it needs at least 2 reviews and none are to be found. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and this article is nothing more than an IMdB mirror. Donaldd23 (talk) 18:33, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 18:33, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 18:33, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - with no reviews and no reliable sources available, deletion is the only option available Spiderone 20:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:NOTINHERITED and the "there should be sources" argument is generally one to avoid Spiderone 10:59, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~::::::This sounds like WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:13, 5 October 2020 (UTC)~~ :::::::Also, if you feel certain films are notable, then why not remove the "notability" tag on them? I almost exclusively send articles with that tag to PROD or AfD as I check Category:Film articles with topics of unclear notability daily. If the tag is removed I probably wouldn't see it and I wouldn't send it to AfD and you wouldn't have to defend it. I'm not trying to argue with you, just giving my rationale as to why these articles are sent to Afd/PROD by me. Thanks. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Striking above comments because the user I was replying to removed their comments from the discussion. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:12, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sources added, a B-grade film, but definitely notable. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:41, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourced.† Encyclopædius 12:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A frivolous nomination. A quick search would have shown the film was discussed by various sources, as one would expect. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:23, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Sourced? Maybe, but all the citations added are passing mentions, articles about the actors, a list in a book...no reviews. It was tagged for notability since 2011, so I looked for reviews and found none (as apparently none of you did either). Film articles need reviews to pass WP:NFILM, but I nominated it to get rid of the notability tag and if these "passing mentions" get the article kept then the notability tag will be removed...which was my goal. Thanks for adding ~~frivolous~~ citations. Donaldd23 (talk) 16:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Donaldd23 - I have to say, I spent quite some time looking for the citations, including digging in several archives to save this article, so I don't appreciate you labelling them "frivolous". Among the citations, by the way, there's an entire page dedicated to the film's box-office performance, and another mention of its first-weak performance in theatres; as for the book, the film has an entry in there, which is far from just a mention, and not to be dismissed so easily. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow deeper discussion of the sources that have been presented
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 17:54, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | [gab] || 05:34, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most sources presented are passing mentions, lacking significant coverage. Box office figures with no critical commentary would not meet the criteria of WP:NFSOURCES, in my view. -- Ab207 (talk) 09:09, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG or WP:NFILM as it does not have "significant coverage". Most of the references are the very definition of "insignificant coverage": they mention the name of the film and almost nothing more. The Box Office India page is merely a recitation of basic box office data and doesn't include any reviews or other proof that the film has independent notability.Aervanath (talk) 16:56, 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 speedy delete. CSD G5, created by banned or blocked user: Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Cambridge Canada vandal Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:15, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This Evil World[edit]

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

An unreferenced article about a song which does not meet the requirements of WP:NSONG or WP:GNG. This had been converted into a redirect to the Album but was reverted twice by the original author so we are now here to get consensus to either redirect to delete. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 05:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 05:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 05:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 05:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 05:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This could be speedily deleted per G5 because User:TorontoMapleLeafsFan is a sockpuppet evading multiple blocks, part of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Cambridge Canada vandal. There's only one person in the world who cares about non-notable Gob songs on Wikipedia and it's the Cambridge Canada vandal. Binksternet (talk) 06:00, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 08:00, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Spiderone and Binksternet – GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 08:34, 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. Tone 20:49, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Apprentice (British TV series) candidates[edit]

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

"List of..." article seems devoted to listing all candidates from every series of The Apprentice (UK), merging everything about them into a single table. However, there are no citations given, and the information within is more or less a duplicate of what is provided on the articles covering each series of the programme. GUtt01 (talk) 15:07, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could we possibly ~~Merge~~ this into The Apprentice (British TV series), with the condition of only mentioning the more-notable candidates? Foxnpichu (talk) 16:05, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't think a merge would be appropriate or at all useful; it would actually bring the problem over to another article. On that article that is listed, there is already information regarding the winner and runner-up of each series, and any notable contestants are already listed in this template - Template:The Apprentice UK. Furthermore, there used to be infoboxes for all contestants in each series, but those were removed after it was deemed they didn't add anything notable to the article at all. GUtt01 (talk) 16:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, would a Redirect be better then? Foxnpichu (talk) 20:31, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect would be suitable. GUtt01 (talk) 20:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, that’s what I’ll go for. Foxnpichu (talk) 20:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Recently in this AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Apprentice candidates (British series 1) the lists of candidates for each season were removed, although these were more in depth profiling of the candidates. Although each season has its own article and lists all the candidates are listed in there anyhow, I am not overly concerned (yet) about an amalgamated list. Ajf773 (talk) 19:55, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"No citations" is irrelevant to this AFD, as there's no claim that the information is unverifiable, particularly since the series is itself a reliable source for who appeared on it. The nom also notes there is a template that groups these together, and there is also a Category:The Apprentice (British TV series) candidates, and no reason supporting deletion has been given as to why there should not also be a list per WP:CLN, especially since the list can be comprehensive and annotated in a way that neither the template nor category can. Grouping it together helps readers so they don't have to hop from series/season article to article to browse this information by putting it all in one place. This is why saying that a list "duplicates" information spread out over several different articles actually helps make the case for keeping it; that's the whole purpose of many lists. postdlf (talk) 20:07, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I admit, it is a weak reason "No citations", but the rest of the concerns is an issue. Why is it so necessary to keep such a list? What notable reason is there? It just raises more questions. GUtt01 (talk) 20:22, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | [confess] || 05:24, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a list of non-notable individuals. The bigger concern is the BLP issue for everyone named on the list. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:37, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, list of items that are themselves unfitting for an encyclopedia, and when brought together the list offers no valuable context about the items either. Fails the WP:10YEARTEST. Geschichte (talk) 08:44, 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 keep. ‑Scottywong | [converse] || 05:14, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Murdoch University Dubai[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The article has seen no substantial improvement since the last deletion discussion, that had taken place in 2014. Aside from that, it seems to display no individual notability aside from being a regular campus extension of the flagship university in Australia, with little to no special merit unlike or alike depending on other campuses of this university, that have no standalone pages. This campus has a good enough explanation on the main Murdoch University page. Delta fiver (talk) (UTC) 09:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Delta fiver (talk) (UTC) 09:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Delta fiver (talk) (UTC) 09:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a University, it's in Dubai, it's notable here. It's listed by the KHDA with 364 students and it's just doubled its campus. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first link is a routine government directory listing. The second link is broken. The clean URL is here. It reads like a press release from the construction company, and it's also borderline routine. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first link is the Dubai Knowledge and Human Development Authority - yes, a government body. That invalidates it, somehow? Sorry about the link, I hate source editing. So, it's a press release? So what? They're doubling the campus. What makes an educational institution notable if not its existence, its recognition by the government education authority and news media coverage of its expansion? It's notable. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For WP:GNG purposes, coverage needs to be in depth, reliable and independent of the subject. A government database entry lacks both depth and independence. Government accreditation alone is no longer enough to establish notability for a educational institution. It needs to satisfy GNG or WP:ORG, which has even more stringent source requirements. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a regular campus of the university based in another country. The university that started the campus abroad, is based in Australia and it has the Dubai and other campuses mentioned in the main article itself. In comparison to this case, other universities have their campuses based here as-well like the University of Birmingham and University of Wollongong here with their Dubai campus, similar to the Murdoch Dubai campus they display no notability as well. I still don't understand how this article of a campus with nothing done out of the ordinary, but rather because it's known somewhere and it has more than 364 students is a reason as to why it's notable, the main article suffices the explanation of these campuses well enough. Help me understand Delta fiver (talk) (UTC) 16:09, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but an educational institution doesn't have to have invented the computer to make it notable enough to include in Wikipedia, does it? It is a thing, it exists, it is of interest to people in the UAE education sector. OR to put it another way, why do you want to delete it? Why not include the other overseas campuses of Murdoch or other universities? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the simple fact of this (must still fulfill the notability policy of receiving significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the university) line being breached in WP:NFACULTY for splitting articles under the College and university article guideline. Also for the fact that this campus in itself does not warrant a standalone article. Delta fiver (talk) (UTC) 16:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~No, you're trying too hard now.~~ You're misquoting WP:NFACULTY for a start - the line is If an institution's faculties, constituent academic colleges, or academic departments are especially notable or significant they may have their own dedicated article - there is no mention in there of "receiving significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the university". The guidance (it's an essay, remember?) relates in any case to a single campus. Take a look at [here list] - all of which, by your criteria above, would be not notable as just 'overseas campuses'. AFAICS Murdoch Dubai is minor and perhaps even a bit neglected (I added some more info/citations, BTW), sure, but it's just fine as it is - as it was first time around at AfD. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 03:50, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please, don't try and make this personal by saying I'm trying to hard, when the line I quoted is literally in there, in WP:NFACULTY under the sub-heading of General splitting of articles, wherein they mentioned campus as well. For the second link you mentioned, those campuses have a plethora of citations and references proving they are notable in comparison to this one with literally one citation at the time at that too from the university's own website', so i really don't understand how that proves your point of ( sure, but it's just fine as it is - as it was first time around). I also mentioned in my last comment that this campus in itself does not warrant a standalone article, which proves that I don't mind there being other campuses as long as they are notable and some reason or basis to be uploaded.

Happy to remove personalisation. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:01, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I forgot to mention this in the prior comment, you have made a very good attempt at adding in information and displaying notability which I truly appreciate as a fellow editor, my request is for you to go through the article once more and kindly consider WP:10YT when reviewing the information, education and organisations are dynamic spaces and the information that we see about an org today could easily be yesterday's news with the amount of reviewing done by external and internal entities in that industry. Good day to you Delta fiver (talk) (UTC) 07:52, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete This should be inside a campuses section on Murdoch University. — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 14:18, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is now a well sourced article that easily demonstrates sufficient notability - and the other foreign campuses of Murdoch have WP articles, BTW. Also other universities with foreign campuses are commonly listed. So a 'keep' would seem sensible... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:59, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What other Murdoch campuses have articles here? Delta fiver (talk) (UTC) 16:18, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my rush - they're websites. The other overseas campuses are affiliates. Murdoch Dubai is the only overseas campus as such. And as such deserves its own (sourced, notable) article. PS. Didn't this AfD get closed already? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was relisted for better consensus, as the conversation was only between us. Delta fiver (talk) (UTC) 16:32, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting comment made by a respected admin at WP:AN today - "This website, this community, has a rule that all schools are notable, all train stations are notable, we have articles about bagel shops and pro wrestlers and porn stars and pizzerias" Ahem. But not universities located in the Arab world... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A link to this would be appreciated, a little intrigued. Delta fiver (talk) (UTC) 15:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to try and do this, but it's a little out of my comfort zone. It's here [19] Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd sort of agree, you see. I'd be an 'inclusionist', I suppose. :) Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article has been massively improved and sourced since nomination (at which time it had only one citation). The current state of the article makes it clear that it passes WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL as an independent entity.
PS: Please stop labelling posts with bolded "Comment". Just post as on any discussion page, and if you are replying to someone, nest your reply under their post using the correct number of colons (don't use bullets for replies). All these bolded non-!votes make it nearly impossible for the closing admin to find and assess the actual !votes. -- Softlavender (talk) 18:13, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, I cleaned things up and trust that Delta fiver, • Gene93k and Ad Meliora agree it's an improvement. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:00, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 04:36, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are adequate sources to pass the spirit of GNG. Keep this article about a university campus that is still growing. IMO, the AfD process is getting ridiculous. Wikipedia should be expanding, not contracting. I agree the encyclopedia should maintain a level of integrity, especially when dealing with people, and particularly in remaining neutral. You may not care about Murdoch University Dubai if you live in Irving, Texas but someone in Dubai might actually care about it 30 years from now when we are old and gray or long passed. Having an article here hurts no one but those who only want Wikipedia to be about what is important to them. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:18, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The references to UAE, Al-Fanar Media and Enterpreneur look reliable, and discuss the topic directly and in detail. I think notability has been demonstrated. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:39, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge unless there is a a good deal more to say. At this point, almost none of these branches of US campus have articles; the one that does. is one where there are very many available references. DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 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. Tone 20:49, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

King of the Distant Forest[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. I would redirect but feel its own discussion would be most appropriate given Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mithotyn is also now running. Not opposed to redirecting should latter AfD close as "keep". TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:19, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 04:27, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gathered Around the Oaken Table and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In the Sign of the Ravens. Geschichte (talk) 08:29, 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. ‑Scottywong | [verbalize] || 05:22, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Radiant Earth Foundation[edit]

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

Not covered in reliable sources Vahurzpu (talk) 22:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Vahurzpu (talk) 22:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Vahurzpu (talk) 22:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacking sources and notability. Balle010 (talk) 02:47, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was able to find some reliable sources on Google books [20] [21] I don't think these are enough for WP:NORG but it seems like there should be more sources, maybe they aren't accessible? Spudlace (talk) 06:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks for the remark that the article was lacking sources. I have added several secondary sources spanning from 2018 to 2020, including the Book "Satellites Missions and Technologies" mentioned in the comment above, which all hint to notability in the field of "earth observation and artificial intelligence". All in all, I now see significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources. These sources include Reuters, the American Geophysical Union, the British Publisher "IntechOpen" and the Tanzanian newspaper "Tanzania News Gazette".balthas (talk) 18:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:38, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has sourcing Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: The above "Keep" !vote (also the creator) states "I now see significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources.", and I don't quite see all that. The criteria is more than a vague "has sourcing". I do see some notability and the possibility of more out there although A search did not turn up anything extra.

The Paola Totaro articles gives WP:SIGCOV,
The "Radiant Earth Annual Report 2019" (PDF). 2020. is self-published and does not advance notability,
Demyanov, Vladislav: I could not check,
data4sdgs: is a partner so not independent,
Nachmany, Yoni: I could not check,
Tanzania News Gazette (about section) states: "This news website has provided the useful platform for the owners of different businesses in order to get their businesses recognized internationally.", so is more of a press release.
Ballantynwe, A: gives one paragraph concerning the subject.
"About – Radiant Earth Foundation" is self-published so again, does not advance notability.

With only one good verifiable reference I am struggling to find the nudge that presents more than bare notability.

As a note: The use of a source in the "External links" and as a reference is not proper.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Thanks for the remarks above and the point that notability needs to be backed by more secondary sources. I have researched and added two more secondary sources. One is a book chapter from 2020 from a book on "Space Fostering African Societies" published by the global science publisher "Springer Science", another secondary source is extensively covering the work of radiant earth from a scientific and independent point of view (Zenke da Cruz Radiant Earth Platform). Also I have added the tag indicating that the article needs attention from an expert in Computer Science. Cheers balthas (talk) 20:17, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Duplicate !vote struck. Do not place more than one bolded !vote in any discussion. BD2412 T 00:40, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 04:24, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Basically copied from their About page, lacking in secondary sourcing (the Nachmany and Alemohammad item is both primary and not peer-reviewed; the Lindgren item has only one sentence about this specific organization; only the Zenke da Cruz et al. paper appears substantial, and one source isn't enough). XOR'easter (talk) 23:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why are almost all of the sources from publications or media outside of the US? I would expect a US-based foundation doing important work would have some media coverage state-side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 10sne1 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: I see indications this should have WP:SIGCOV, but I don't see anything that meets it. Draft seems like a good choice for this one, with the disclaimer that if it is moved back without WP:SIGCOV it should be deleted. This will also give time to improve/expand/clean up the article. // Timothy :: talk 01:06, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:58, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Torn (Evergrey album)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM / WP:GNG. AllMusic does have a review of this album, but they have been the only reliable source that I have been able to locate in a WP:BEFORE search for this album. Metal Storm (webzine)'s coverage is just proof that the album existed and is not a review etc. This album does not appear to pass criterion 1 due to the fact that it does not satisfy the "multiple, non-trivial" part of "multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it" from WP:NALBUM, which was adapted from WP:GNG. The album does not appear to have charted that I can find, with sverigetopplistan returning no results; based on this, the album appears to not satisfy criterion #2 (charted) either. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC); expanded 17:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable album by a notable band. Heiko Gerber (talk) 17:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Heiko Gerber: Rationale expanded. It does not appear that there is enough coverage to warrant a separate article for the album itself. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:44, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all albums to Evergrey discography. The track listings can be condensed into collapsed templates there. BD2412 T 19:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to this. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Heiko Gerber. I found some reliable sources which talk about the album: [22], [23], [24], [25], [26] and [27]. With these, the album is good enough to pass WP:NALBUM. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1. Blabbermouth decent source overall, but the coverage in this instance is fairly short, with the bulk of it consisting of interview quotes. Interviews do not add anything towards demonstrating notability.
2. metalstorm.net The fact that the author field is tied to someone's Steam account gives great pause and indicates WP:SPS territory, thus disqualifying it as a source for Wikipedia purposes. metalstorm.net is not an article, which doesn't alleviate this any, nor does its absence from WP:RSP. not RS per WP:MUSICRS due to the fact that it is from before 2009
3. metal-archives is an unreliable source, as explicitly listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Metal#External links
4. metalreviews is not a source that I am very familiar with, but they are not listed in WP:RSP nor have an article on Wikipedia. This does concern me when it comes to reliability; this concern is not alleviated any when it appears to be a self-published blog post about the album by a fan.
5. metal-temple the site itself is of potentially questionable notability (also not listed at WP:RSP and appearing WP:SPS). The coverage here lacks depth.
6. AllMusic is the first unquestionably notable source with a somewhat decent review written to a professional standard.
Overall, this album appears to run into problems with WP:NOTINHERETED, WP:NRV, and a general lack of non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable publications. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:04, 15 October 2020 (UTC); amended based on newly discovered info 04:27, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:55, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 04:22, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I haven't looked deeply into this but the Evergrey discography mentions two national charts with a peak of 4 for Sweden. Gab4gab (talk) 15:15, 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 keep. I'm also moving it to Blue Mountain City. Geschichte (talk) 08:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Mountain, California[edit]

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

There is a Blue Mountain in California, but it is two counties away, and I have searched the entire length of Licking Fork and not found anything that could possibly be this place, nor can I find a text reference that is definitely about such a place. Plainly not notable. Mangoe (talk) 21:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Guess what? It had a post office. Yes, others don't agree with me that this fulfills legal recognition of WP:GEOLAND. The Gold Camps book has a mention that has a bit of description of the location. I agree that it is not in GNIS, which does not help its notability. There is also a book, "Blue Mountain City and Mitchell Mill." One could argue that this book is not a WP:RS, but there are a number of similar publications for ghost towns, so I think it is a reasonably reliable source. Newspapers.com has a few mentions of "Blue Mountain City", I added two to the article. Clearly, there was a town there and there was coverage (book, newspaper articles), so #2 of WP:GEOLAND is fulfilled. Cxbrx (talk) 23:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, if this is kept, suggest that the article mentions that Blue Mountain is also the name of the surrounding gold district and includes "Black Wonder, Gold King and Heckendorn mines." - Gold Districts of California (page 31). Coolabahapple (talk) 04:06, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The full text of Gold Districts of California can be downloaded as a PDF file from Golden Gate University School of Law GGU Law Digital Commons. There is no need to hassle with the paywall of Google Books version, which is linked above, for the full version. Paul H. (talk) 20:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I added the "Gold Districts of California" citation and added the destination URL and PDF to archive.org. Cxbrx (talk) 21:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thanks all:) Coolabahapple (talk) 13:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep If it passed requirements at one time then it passes requirements now. We have articles on former settlements with little more than a mound structure that's been excavated by archaeologist and well we should. Articles on former settlements, villages and towns should be kept when they can be verified through reliable maps, books and documentation. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In the past , there would have been noquestion, but our requirements have tightened, and we must judge by the present rules. I think there's enough evidence here, even using them. There's probably enough in the sources to expand the article. DGG ( talk ) 06:14, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:05, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Puteri Indonesia Lingkungan[edit]

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

One of the titles of the losers in the pageant, who goes on to one of the lesser beauty pageants. Covered in parent article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:39, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:39, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:41, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close: We just did this two months ago, this was nominated for deletion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puteri Indonesia Pariwisata with the very same arguments, please see that discussion for the Keep arguments that held the day. --GRuban (talk) 00:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close this discussion; and Keep Puteri Indonesia Lingkungan page, that previously discussed and agreed to be Keep before (nominated tandem with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puteri Indonesia Pariwisata) please kindly check the previous discussion and result that this two page is passed to be keep. - I Nyoman Gede Anila (talk) 13:29, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the sparse attendance of the previous AFD, I'm not really comfortable closing this one procedurally. Relisting to see if we can get more opinions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 04:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Allrighty, then. Let me explain by way of comparison. Miss America is a similar pageant, for which we have not three pages for the "losers", as the nominator refers to them (though I suspect the winners of those titles might consider that rather ungracious), but fifty two, for the state pageants (Miss Alabama, Miss Alaska, Miss Arizona, Miss Arkansas... plus Miss Puerto Rico and Miss Virgin Islands). They're not deleted to be "covered in the parent article", as they get independent coverage. Miss USA is a similar pageant, also for the United States of America ... again, we have fifty pages for the state pageants. (Miss Alabama USA, Miss Alaska USA, Miss Arizona USA ...) They're not left to be "covered in the parent article", as they get independent coverage. What's more, Miss USA isn't even the final stage, it just selects a candidate for Miss Universe. Should we say Miss USA is "covered in the parent article", Miss Universe? Indonesia is a country only slightly smaller than the United States, and cares more about beauty pageants. Puteri Indonesia gets proportionately not less but more attention than either Miss America or Miss USA. It is as deserving of sub-pages as the American pageants, if not more. Unlike the fifty plus fifty two subpageant pages, though, it only has two: Pariwisata and Lingkungan. Each title absolutely gets loads of press coverage, please see the list at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puteri Indonesia Pariwisata, and if that doesn't suffice I can double it in an hour. Each title meets WP:GNG. --GRuban (talk) 23:30, 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 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. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:27, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dieudo Hamadi[edit]

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, or WP:CREATIVE. WP:BEFORE revealed no additional WP:RS containing material that meets WP:SIGCOV. BLP article should strictly follow sourcing requirements in guidelines. // Timothy :: talk 03:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 03:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Democratic Republic of the Congo-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 03:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion:? This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-10 ✍️ create, 2020-10 ✗ G8

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:21, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Obi (publishing)[edit]

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

No Reliable Sources provided. Nightvour (talk) 08:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Jumpytoo Talk 21:38, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:09, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The corresponding Japanese Wikipedia article has at least two reliable sources, satisfying the general notability guideline: Sankei Shimbun, ITmedia. Even based on its own merits, this is a unique aspect of Japanese publishing and if you so much as look at a picture of a Japanese bookstore, they're everywhere (example). This is one of those cases where the sources will more often be in Japanese. For example here an entire article just about a special release obi. Opencooper (talk) 19:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Opencooper, it's a non-trivial part of Japanese book publishing. Jumpytoo Talk 02:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with the above arguments. They are everywhere and they are certainly a notable feature of Jаpanese publishing. --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Opencooper's Japanese sources. — Toughpigs (talk) 23:05, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:28, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Soldier of God[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM with no third-party coverage from reliable sources. Only one review on Rotten Tomatoes. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 06:33, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep as Rotten Tomatoes shows a review in LA Weekly and there is also a German film magazine review referenced in the article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Per Atlantic306's rationale. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:01, 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 keep. I'm going to be a bit bold here and close as keep. There is only the nom for deleting and there seems sufficient here to justify a keep asopposed to a redirect. Fenix down (talk) 18:10, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adidas Fevernova[edit]

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

Tagged as a concern for over 10 years. Appears to fail WP:GNG. During a WP:BEFORE search, I was unable to find any sources covering this football in depth. It is already adequately covered in List of FIFA World Cup official match balls and I think that a separate article is unnecessary and unjustified. Spiderone 18:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:08, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:08, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:55, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of FIFA World Cup official match balls. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 20:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Beemer69. Giant Snowman 21:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears notable with coverage in books such as [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] and lots of scholarly references on aerodynamics. Needs improvement, not deletion. SportingFlyer T·C 11:19, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:36, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources that SportingFlyer found, as well as Forbes, CNN and Wired that I found: this passes GNG easily. Alyo (chat·edits) 05:15, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:56, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Burroughs & Chapin[edit]

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

I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; extraordinary claims need extraordinary sourcing, Bearian (talk) 17:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is an encyclopedia entry alone, even it were a single source, sufficient for a WP article? Calliopejen1 started a lengthy discussion on this basis here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation#Major_AFC_fail_re:_Korean_literature. -2pou (talk) 21:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think a single source can be sufficient. But I don't know that you need to get there here. Some other coverage for "Burroughs & Collins": book on history of Myrtle Beach, Encyclopedia of Southern Culture, dozens of articles at newspapers.com over a period of decades but I'm not motivated enough to look through all of them. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep assuming this article is also covering the predecessor corporation, Burroughs & Collins, which seems to have played an extremely important role in the history of Myrtle Beach. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:22, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:34, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable, fails WP:CORP --Devokewater (talk) 16:18, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, even if it has played a major role there, the city is very small. Were it Manhattan or a national capital... Geschichte (talk) 07:20, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If this is deleted, Franklin Burroughs (businessman) should also be looked into. Geschichte (talk) 07:20, 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. Tone 20:52, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Mazzaro[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP. The article does not meet WP:GNG, WP:BASIC or WP:NMUSICIAN. WP:BEFORE revealed no additional WP:RS containing material that meets WP:SIGCOV. BLPs should strictly follow sourcing guidelines. // Timothy :: talk 03:31, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 03:31, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 03:31, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see this was speedy deleted some months back. No third party sourcing that I can find beyond listings, Allmusic and BFI bios and passing mentions. Mccapra (talk) 04:59, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:50, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (possibly Speedy Delete per A7) if it continues to be recreated the namespace should be SALTED as well. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No WP:significant coverage. Mostly mentioned in passing in articles on Hans Zimmer. noq (talk) 17:29, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 19:53, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NCOMPOSER in composing music for notable productions and also has significant coverage at AllMusic here and film reporter so he should be included in Wikipedia in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:56, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. While the Allmusic entry is quite long, he appears mainly as a co-musician or contributor. As such he should be compared with a band member, and members of even very prolific bands have a much harder time getting articles than bands do. Geschichte (talk) 07:16, 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. Tone 20:52, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Chance[edit]

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

Fails all criteria of WP:NACTOR and lacks the significant coverage required by WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. (1) She does not appear to have had "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions", (2) does not appear to have "a large fan base or a significant "cult" following", and (3) does not appear to have "made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment". The Sacramento Bee has a lot of false positives for someone else sharing the same name who is their political section editor, as is evidenced by this verified Twitter account for the Bee editor and (I think) this verified Twitter account for the subject of this specific Wikipedia article. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet any of the actual inclusion criteria for actresses as is well analyzed by the nominator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:30, 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. Tone 20:52, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Seung Jung[edit]

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

Far, far below the WP:NPOL bar and the only "source" I could find for WP:BASIC in my search was his LinkedIn page. Sources in the article are either passing mentions or not independent. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:39, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:39, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:39, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:39, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, hardly a claim to notability. But normal delete would also be fine. Geschichte (talk) 05:36, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Assistant director of a city government department is not an automatic notability freebie under WP:NPOL, but this is not sourced anywhere near well enough to get him over WP:GNG in lieu: it is referenced 5/6 to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as the self-published websites of organizations, institutions or people he's been directly affiliated with — and even the one reference that's marginally acceptable just verifies the existence of an art show while failing to mention Jung's name at all in conjunction with it, and thus isn't support for Jung's notability either. The notability test isn't the things the article says he did — it's the amount of media coverage about him that he did or didn't receive for doing what he did. Bearcat (talk) 14:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NPOL....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any sources that show notability. I'm assuming the article's creator is new and eager, since they seem to be editing as part of a college Wiki Ed course at the moment. But I still can't find any claim to notability, in the article or elsewhere. - Whisperjanes (talk) 08:18, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above, and the fact it fails WP:PROMO as it reads like a resume that can't be cleaned up. SportingFlyer T·C 14:53, 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 -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proprietary[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a disambiguation page containing nothing more than partial title matches. There was prior discussion about deleting this page, but that discussion occurred when it was an article page. The debate was whether an article on a simple adjective was appropriate. Subsequently the article was changed to a disambiguation page. This doesn't make sense since the entries don't conform to policy for inclusion on disambiguation pages. It is best to delete this page altogether and either delete incoming links or link to an appropriate article if one exists. Coastside (talk) 01:56, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing but PTMs here or anywhere else. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:04, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 11:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If we go to delete decision, do we leave a soft redirect to Wiktionary too? FMecha (to talk|to see log) 12:41, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. – Anne drew 14:20, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a need to soft link to wiktionary. There are almost no incoming links currently, and this would only serve to encourage overlinking going forward.Coastside (talk) 16:38, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: some time ago, I started Draft:Proprietariness, intended to serve as a WP:DABCONCEPT for this term. I'm on the fence about whether it will work as an article, but if someone does want to pursue that, it would be the appropriate target for this term in mainspace. BD2412 T 00:44, 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 delete. Tone 20:52, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bineesh Bastin[edit]

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

Person that has played henchman (very minor) roles in films. His roles have very less screen time and are not notable. TamilMirchi (talk) 01:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 01:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 01:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:11, 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. Tone 20:58, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Billy4Kids[edit]

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

No evidence this is a notable charity. References and relevant gHits are reproductions of press releases or passing mentions. Nothing significant or in-depth. StarM 01:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. StarM 01:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. StarM 01:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no substantial coverage other than press releases, fails GNG. Wikinights (talk) 01:52, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:30, 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.