Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 October 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 2 October	4 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:07, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Antioch, Lyon County, Kentucky[edit]

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

Not mentioned in Rennick's Lyon County place names directory, and all of the Antiochs in his index are in different counties. GNIS is sourced to Rennick, and his only mention of this place I can find is "Antioch N" handwritten on his topographic map of the area, with no indication what this is/was. All newspapers.com and Google books results are for places in other counties, mostly churches. Not seeing any indication of notability here. Hog Farm _Bacon 22:03, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 22:03, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 22:03, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the nominator is correct. This does not pass Wikipedia notability guidelines for WP:GEOLAND. We do not even know what type of feature it was. Paul H. (talk) 21:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Earl of Limerick. Sandstein 08:02, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

William Henry Tennison Pery, 2nd Earl of Limerick[edit]

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

Royaltycruft genealogy. Article contains no claim of notability, just genealogy, and does not meet GNG or BASIC. // Timothy :: talk 21:41, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 21:41, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 21:41, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This person has no claim what-so-ever to notability and the article is just an attempt at notability by association due to the royal genealogy crap. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:17, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Earl of Limerick. The individual himself fails WP:BIO but he was an Earl in his own right and the article satisfies BASIC, so a redirect seems fine enough in my opinion. TheRedDomitor (talk) 02:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Earl of Limerick. Redirecting to the title is best imo. He is already included in a list of earls there. (t · c) buidhe 02:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:45, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Estonian E-file[edit]

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

Single-use proprietary software. The article does not meet GNG or NSOFTWARE. No SIGCOV addressing the subject direct and in depth. // Timothy :: talk 21:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 21:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 21:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I looked for sources when I saw this in the new pages queue and found nothing. Fails WP:GNG. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 22:39, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A closed-source proprietary national crime database for a small nation, no notability. Nate • (chatter) 22:48, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This E-file system seems to be belonged to Centre of Registers and Information Systems (etwiki: et:Registrite ja Infosüsteemide Keskus). If in future, this Centre will get its own article, this E-file can be mentioned there--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:59, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't see any RS for this either. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:28, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Estopedist1 there may be another article that can be added to if it's notable Spudlace (talk) 07:13, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 19:38, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to BonBon Girls 303. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nene (Thai singer)[edit]

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

BLP article does not meet GNG, BASIC or MUSICBIO. BEFORE showing nothing meeting SIGCOV addressing the subject directly an in-depth, they're mentions within articles about other subjects. Guidelines and sourcing requirements should be strictly followed for BLPs // Timothy :: talk 21:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 21:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 21:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Lots of coverage in Thai, though frankly it's not of the highest quality.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] --Paul_012 (talk) 22:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment She is quite famous actually. Here is Google news search [10] for sites recognized as news site by Google. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 02:59, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment None of the above sources meet WP:SIGCOV. They are photo galleries, click bait articles, promo pieces. Other pieces I found were mentions in articles about other subjects. I'm sure she is talented and famous, but there is just not coverage that meets RS/SIGCOV. I'm not sure about a redirect to Bon Bon Girls, but much of the information is already there. // Timothy :: talk 03:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete or Merge/Redirect to BonBon Girls 303. I'm a weak delete on this because it seems like she has some notoriety. Although, the sources provided so far seem a little on the weak side and mostly about her musical career. Which is why I think merging/redirecting to BonBon Girls 303 would be a good option. Plus, she's already mentioned there and it could really use some expanding anyway. BTW, the same could probably go for the articles on the other members in the group. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:25, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to BonBon Girls 303 - since she is part of that group, and said article is much better than the MilkShake article, which is unsourced. Foxnpichu (talk) 10:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'd agree with a Redirect if others think it is appropriate. Content here is unsourced, so I would disagree with merging unsourced information especially in a BLP. // Timothy :: talk 12:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:13, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to BonBon Girls 303 - As her current and most reliably-covered project. She has certainly gained tabloid-style notice as a multimedia personality but most of her individual activities are lacking the necessary significant and reliable coverage. ☆ DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) ☆ 19:13, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment She may meet WP:MUSICBIO#6 as a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles? VocalIndia (talk) 14:32, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not from what I can tell because MilkShake doesn't seem to be independently notable (at least not going by the article about it) and the fact that it was only around for a year. There's zero proof she was a "prominent member" of it when it was around anyway, or that she is one of the other group now for that matter. BTW, the MilkShake article seems to have been created by a SPA. Which bods even less well for it. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:40, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to All Time Low discography. For now, but can be contested at RfD. Sandstein 10:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Everything Is Fine On Your Birthday[edit]

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

Article does not meet GNG or NALBUM showing SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth. Article is already listed at All Time Low discography, I think the search term is too ambiguous for a redirect. // Timothy :: talk 21:11, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 21:11, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to All Time Low discography. All respect to TB, but this is hardly an ambiguous search term. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:20, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:57, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of self-driving car fatalities[edit]

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

I think this article is unnecessary, and in fact only serves to confuse and mislead readers. It is titled "List of self-driving car fatalities", but the only fatalities listed are from Level 2 "hands-on", driver-assistance systems, not Level 4+ which is what is considered a self-driving car. Fatalities from these Level 2 driver-assistance systems are not notable on their own. Info on these fatalities can already be found on the respective pages for Tesla and Uber, as well as Self-driving_car#Incidents. For all these reasons, i don't think this article is necessary or useful in any way. Stonkaments (talk) 21:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Stonkaments (talk) 21:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Stonkaments (talk) 21:29, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with nom, its a short list, and it could be combined with the self driving car incidents page. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In fact the title might be well misleading because so many of these incidents involved semi-autonomous cars, not even wholly "self-driving". ArvindPalaskar (talk) 17:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would be unethical to delete this. At least move the table to the self-driving-car article as mentioned above.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.110.131.82 (talk) 07:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How this table will bring more quality to that article on self-driving car? ArvindPalaskar (talk) 12:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LISTN. A list of non-notable car accidents. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:19, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Maybe 10% of this could be merged, per above. Zing^(Talk!) 02:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok to delete this page, it contained so many tesla accident, I hope tesla paid wikipedia a good amount to remove the page, however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FA49:D33F:3900:211:50FF:FEF7:DB5A (talk) 18:25, 20 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:07, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Utterback, Kentucky[edit]

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

Only Utterback mentioned by Rennick is a cemetery in a different county. An "Utterback School" appears on the 1936 topo. Rennick's annotated 1951 topo has "Utterback N" written on a portion of the map with nothing there. All the newspapers.com and Google books results I can find are for people with this last name. Not a legally recognized community, fails WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the nominator is correct. A feature of unknown nature and history and lacking any proven significance fails utterly to pass Wikipedia notability guidelines for WP:GEOLAND Paul H. (talk) 19:08, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Longmont Potion Castle. Sandstein 10:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Subliminal Propaganda[edit]

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

Article does not meet GNG or NALBUM. Single source in article and BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the topic directly and in depth. // Timothy :: talk 21:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 21:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have added three additional sources. (I am not sure if the Longmont Potion Castle website's quotation of the Factsheet Five magazine is reputable as I can not find any record of the magazine's contents or anywhere else the quote appears. However I doubt the site webmaster would falsify a quote in this way. What is the pertinent policy?) In addition the first work of any author is naturally going to receive less attention than subsequent works as it must stand entirely on its own merit. However I do not believe that that makes it less notable. Beaneater00 (talk) 22:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking at all the articles for albums by this artist for a while, and the problem is, I don't think any of them are notable. Most of the sources for their individual articles are the record label, the "staff picks" of a defunct San Francisco record store, blogs, or user-generated content like Discogs or iMDb... none of these pass WP:RS. Mike Prindle may well have had one of the longest-running websites on the internet and be well respected, but in the end it's still one man giving his opinions on the internet about records, no different to Anthony Fantano or Pierro Scaruffi really, and we don't allow their one-man websites either. The only source that seems to be acceptable to me is The Nerve magazine, although the links are now old and don't direct to the actual reviews, just to the old website, but I would think with time and effort somebody could go through them here and relocate the reviews. But this is still only one source, and only for two of the albums – we need coverage in multiple independent sources to demonstrate notability. My inclination would be to redirect all of them, including this one, to Longmont Potion Castle, although I'd understand that other editors may feel that redirecting albums titled Longmont Potion Castle 4 and Longmont Potion Castle 5 might be a waste of time. Richard3120 (talk) 16:05, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Longmont Potion Castle per WP:CHEAP. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:18, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to VugaPay. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ceddy Muhoza[edit]

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

BLP does not meet GNG or BASIC. No SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth. Guidelines related to sourcing and notability for BLPs should be strictly followed. No appropriate redirect or merge target. // Timothy :: talk 20:53, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 20:53, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 20:53, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I have found no IRS with in depth coverage.Less Unless (talk) 14:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to VugaPay which he founded. Little coverage on the individual not in connection with the company, but he is plausible search term for the company. Pikavoom (talk) 07:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Jacqueline Wright as per consensus. (non-admin closure) TheRedDomitor (talk) 14:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stiffy (film)[edit]

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

Non notable short 3 minute film, nothing found in a WP:BEFORE to help it pass WP:NFILM. Should redirect to director Jacqueline Wright where it is already mentioned. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So why didn't you redirect it?—S Marshall T/C 20:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:S Marshall. I did, see [[11]], but it was reverted by another user. So I PROD'd it, and the same user reverted that: [[12]]. So instead of an edit war, I came here. Thanks. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:18, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, I see. Redirect to Jacqueline Wright without deleting the history.—S Marshall T/C 23:24, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jacqueline Wright, but with history. There may be more sourcing out there, but I can't find anything that could give enough certainty for comfort. So until/if those sources become available, this should redirect to Wright's page. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:14, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per all of the above - lacks notability for an article of its own Spiderone 10:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:51, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect doesn't meet WP:NFILM - non notable short film Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jacqueline Wright: per above. // Timothy :: talk 12:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:07, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Data[edit]

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

Inscrutable article on a WP:NEOLOGISM, with sources of questionable reliability. There are some hits for this term on Scholar (see, e.g., doi:10.1109/MCG.2010.26), but I am not clear whether the term refers to the same, identifiable phenomenon in all contexts. I should note that I removed a substantial chunk of this article, which looked to be an unreferenced WP:ESSAY. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The creator of this article left the following message on the talk page for this AfD. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:58, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Data is a new and well-defined term in computer science (DOI: 10.1109/MCG.2010.26) and statistics. But there is not any term in Wikipedia to describe it. The term ghost data has been given a wrong redirection to the term ghost in video games, which is too narrow for the term ghost data. Hence I strongly suggest the Ghost Data should remain for the public good. The description can be continuously improved with help from worldwide.

Comment References 1 and 3 are blog posts and thus unreliable sources. XOR'easter (talk) 22:18, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I have read the term "ghost data" before, But (to my knowledge) it is simply shorthand for information that exists but cannot be readily seen using normal or proven methods. There is no generally accepted criteria for what it is and the meaning will vary in different fields and with different authors. The concept of ghost data would be better addressed in individual articles, such as those mentioned in the article, not in a single article. // Timothy :: talk 17:33, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:48, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Lone Star Conference men's cross country season[edit]

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

My previous draft-ification of this article was reverted. Ludicrously incomplete (only team coverage is Abilene Christian), and no sources suggesting notability. References were a results database and Abilene Christian athletic press releases. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As far as I can tell we don't even have an article on Lone Star Conference cross country in general, and I see no evidence that the 2012 season in particular is notable. Meters (talk) 19:47, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The general subject does not seem notable with only incidental coverage outside primary sources, so highly unlikely that an individual season is. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The topic in general does not appear to be significantly covered in reliable sources, and there is no indication that a particular season meets any criterion for inclusion. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:13, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks adequate sources and seems to only have notability off of one event, an article in regards to a season does not seem fit in this scenario, especially since there's no general/base article. Delta fiver (talk) (UTC) 19:50, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:49, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notinism[edit]

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

WP:NEOLOGISM created by an artists' collective that fails WP:GNG. The refs are either dead or unhelpful, and I couldn't find anything else. I considered a redirect to Holeg Spies, but (1) this term is not mentioned in the target; and (2) I'm not convinced Spies is notable either. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:55, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:55, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:55, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this isn't a notable -ism, it has not been covered in the art press or by anyone else for that matter. I also think the nominator's concerns about the notability of Holeg Spies are justified. Vexations (talk) 20:17, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article fails to establish why this is a notable subject.TH1980 (talk) 04:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No good solid RS here for this concept. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:39, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find any RS Spudlace (talk) 07:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:56, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arjun Sapkota[edit]

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

The musician seems to be non-notable as per WP:SINGER in-spite of references. The article was deleted twice before recently on basis of WP:A7 and WP:G11. See the logs here. Also, see the WP:SPI case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ssapkota23 ~ Amkgp 💬 18:47, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 18:47, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 18:47, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence as written of satisfying musical notability or general notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Although there are some uncertainties regarding the subject, there is currently no consensus to delete the article. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 13:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cobb, St. Clair County, Missouri[edit]

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

Apparently a mill and post office, not a community, according to the State Historical Society (also look under the older names of Howard's Mill and Ritchie Mill). Not on the 1886 topo, but appears on the 1938 one as a point with five buildings. By 1991, there's only two buildings there. USGS apparently isn't exactly for sure where it is/was, as it appears in different locations on the 1991, 2015, and 2017 topos. A self-published family history calls it "the old Cobb store". Whatever it was, GNIS gives it the U6 census code, which is essentially the kiss of death, as U6 is used for non-legally recognized places, which fail WP:GEOLAND. Neither is WP:GNG met, so, sadly, it looks like this one needs to go. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep rural settlement dates to pre-Civil War, per source. Article can be expanded.72.49.7.25 (talk) 04:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Except the source does not call this a settlement. It was a mill, with a post office added later. You aren't providing evidence that it passes WP:GEOLAND; you're just waving your hands in the air and saying WP:ITSNOTABLE. Hog Farm _Bacon 14:28, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī (^talk) 18:44, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to be a settlement. Although this genealogy website is not a reliable source in itself it lists a variety of sources discussing the settlement, For example this book from 1881 describes the settlement on page 296 as having a population of 36, and lists a variety of stores and businesses operating there. 86.23.86.239 (talk) 02:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I could be blind, but I don't see the word "Cobb" or "Clair" (for the county) there on page 296 in any context. Page 296 seems to be in the H's. Did you mean another page? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos: - It's under the former name of Howard's Mills. Evidently there was some form of a community there at some point (enough for a justice of the peace and several stores), so I'm open to this being closed as keep. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:09, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh, okay, I was feeling really stupid there for a minute. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:37, 11 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 13:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

History of rugby union matches between Georgia and Uruguay[edit]

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

Not notable. Doesn't meet WP:NRIVALRY. Only 6 matches, and the only sourcing is WP:MILL sports news reporting of those matches. Per WP:XY, no possible redirect target. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, listcruft, Wikipedia is not a collection of all information. If the nominator agrees, I would also opine to deleted History of rugby union matches between Georgia and Tonga etc. for the same reason. Geschichte (talk) 12:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- There are probably some others that can be deleted, but I haven't done the WP:BEFORE. History of rugby union matches between Georgia and Romania was kept in 2013 due to the Antim Cup. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing here to note the importance of these particular rugby matches. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just uninteresting stats. Nigej (talk) 07:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Sportscruft // Timothy :: talk 12:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Power Rangers Dino Fury. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:50, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dino Fury[edit]

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

The article is WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL and lacks WP:GNG ~ Amkgp 💬 18:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 18:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 18:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Power Rangers Dino Fury, an article with actual content on this topic rather than just a table of "TBA" episode titles and summaries. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Power Rangers Dino Fury for now. Too many TBA's at the moment --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Power Rangers Dino Fury . This is a second article about the same subject, the 28th season of Power Rangers. Meters (talk) 19:17, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Power Rangers Dino Fury - There is already an article on the series under its full name, making this redundant. Its a plausible enough search term that Redirecting to said article would be useful, though. Rorshacma (talk) 16:54, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:57, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

V Aravind Subramanyam[edit]

)

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

The subject of this article appears to be known either as Sastha Aravind or as V Aravind Subramanyam, who is a run-of-the-mill author. There are at least three problems with this article, notability, tone, and conduct of the submitter. Google search on either of the names shows that the subject is in Wikipedia (we knew that) and advertises. The Google hits all appear to be commercial or vanity, not significant coverage; so author notability is not met. As to tone, I have not tried to remove the puffery, so I don't know how much will be left when it is cleaned up, but the article is promotional.

The author has been persistent in pushing this article through into article space. It was moved into article space as VAS, and then draftified by User:Mccapra (thank you), and the redirect from article space to draft space was properly tagged for R2. It was then moved back into article space as SA, and was then tagged as copyvio (of the author's own puffery, but still copyvio). The author then hijacked the redirect that had been tagged for R2. But AFD is not a conduct forum, and AFD is a notability forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See also https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/11956659/profile-of-shri-v-aravind-subramanyam-subramania-samajam as possible copyvio. (This may be copyvio of the author's own web site, but Wikipedia enforces copyright and copyleft strictly.) Robert McClenon (talk) 21:44, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I draftified this because the refs are all to closely affiliated sources. The creator has made no effort to improve the sourcing despite all their manoeuvres to get this back into mainspace. It’s a promotional BLP of a man who does not seem to me to be at all notable. I’m not able to search for sources in Tamil so I’m prepared to reconsider my !vote if another editor comes up with something. Mccapra (talk) 08:39, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 10:55, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dealbanisation[edit]

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

WP:CFORK of Serbianization, Macedonianization and Hellenization, which all cover this topic. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 September 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This seems to be an attempt at creating a non-neutral view on a subject already covered elsewhere. The non-neutral intention is imho made clear by the use of Easter egg links such as the process of denationalisation of Albanians which links to a page stating: Dehumanization is the denial of full humanness in others and the cruelty and suffering that accompanies it, a completely unrelated topic. Place Clichy (talk) 15:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Contentious topic area - needs input by more than 2 people
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:15, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Actually, none of the suggested content fork pages uses term "delabanization", although they do say about persecuition of ethnic Albanians. The content fork argument is hardly valid. However, the term is very rarely used in English; most references on the page come from other languages. That could be a reason for deletion. Nevertheless, the term does appear in a few English language RS, and the page is well sourced and reasonably well written. In addition, I think the persecution of any ethnic minority is an inherently notable subject. Hence my vote. My very best wishes (talk) 20:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:33, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zoozaz1 talk 18:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Western American English. Sandstein 08:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Utah Mormon English[edit]

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

The article is about a dialect that judging by its own article content doesn't actually exist. There's no notable feature that isn't a more general feature of Mormon English but specifically Utah based and common across Mormons within Utah There doesn't need to be an article about everything that people might have thought existed but upon further research found that it doesn't. Wikipedia is not Snopes Mèþru (talk) 04:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:59, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:59, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:59, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but move to Utah English (which redirects here). Utah English is studied: [13][14][15][16][17]. Pikavoom (talk) 09:31, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this dialect is declining and the article mentions decline with age as a central factor. No unique phonetic features of English in Utah have been found. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wikipedia has always had articles on regional dialects, and ethnic or geographic variations on language, especially within the United States where settlers arrived with their own languages and over the years developed an amalgamated dialect in a given state or region. Some of which are dying out, or have already vanished. It is important as an encyclopedia to preserve information about them. So far as I know, it's not Wikipedia policy to delete any article based on, "oh, well ... that's dying out, so we no longer need the information." — Maile (talk) 14:27, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Western American English: To repeat my words at Talk:Utah Mormon English: A great deal of research has been done, yes, but here's what all that research has revealed: very little about uniqueness in Utah. ... If anything, Utah English perfectly aligns to Western American English, with only one or two hairs out of place... and, in fact, only out of place in a minority of Utah speakers. And even those minority features appear for the most part throughout the Western U.S. So what exactly is "Utah English"? (A similar problem/debate, btw, exists with the page English in New Mexico, which is why we settled upon that somewhat strange article title.) In a perfect world, the name of this article would be "Research on Utah English", since that's what it's actually about. But what the research has actually revealed is nothing consistent or cohesive enough for us to call "Utah English" in the same sense as New York City English, Pittsburgh English, or even emerging California Englishes. Wolfdog (talk) 19:09, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Western American English. The studies reveal this is not really a distinct topic. There is a very seperate issue that a whole slew of words have meanings within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that are unique or non-standard from "stake house" to "Proselyting" to "sacrament meeting" to a whole slew of abbreviations like BYC, MTC and EQP, and there is probably more. However it is not really a comprehensive language and I am not sure we have the type of reliable 3rd party sourcing needed to demonstrate it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:36, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- This article says it all "No unique phonetic features of English in Utah have been found". It does not in any way address my use of words comments above, which form a complex set of issues. My grandmother was a Whitney, Idaho-born person who was clearly culturally English. At least 3 of her grandparents were immigrants from England, her father's parents having immigrated after their marriage not long before her birth, and huge amounts of her cultural and world outlook were shaped fully be her being such. She was a very participant member of The Chruch of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, among other things being a temple worker in the Oakland Temple for over 20 years. I never noticed this alleged irregular use of the to do verb.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article shows even less evidence that any linguistic issue it actually discusses varries by religion. If it is kept, per its own terminology it should be renamed to Utah members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints English, unless we want to incorporate text explaining how members of the FLDS Church, the AUB and other polygamist groups, as well as followers of Denver Snuffler also examplify this lingustic trait.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zoozaz1 talk 17:59, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Western American English - the article doesn't list any variations that can be attributed to anything more than normal regional variation, possibly excepting a few weird details (eg. Deseret alphabet) that aren't enough for a separate article but excellent for a subsection in another article. -- a lad insane (channel two) 02:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Western American English. In order to establish a regional variety of a language, one needs isoglosses surrounding the region. Authoritative sources like The Atlas of North American English show none that sets Utah apart. Nardog (talk) 02:32, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Western American English - as noted, nothing here to establish notability or even existence of this article concept. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:48, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to Western American English, not notable enough Dwscomet (talk) 18:55, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yashwant Kelkar[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, and WP:POLITICIAN. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 17:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 17:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if it's kept, it should probably be moved to Yashwantrao Kelkar, the spelling used in all three references cited. Captain Calm (talk) 19:01, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yashwantrao Kelkar was a social activist and not a politician. so WP:POLITICIAN does not hold. Regarding WP:GNG, i) Bombay Stock Exchange(10th largest stock exchange) holds Yashwantrao Kelkar Memorial Talks. ii) Yashwantrao Kelkar awards have been awarded to people working in the field of education by people of repute. 1 2 3 iii) KN Govindacharya considered him as his guardian. Being the founder of one of the most known student org he seems pretty "noticeable"! — Preceding unsigned comment added by YoloSCIS (talk • contribs) 06:18, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Draftify - Draftify as article needs expansion. Article passes WP:GNG as there is significant press coverage [1],[2],[3], [4], [5], [6]. Article is not about a politician WP:POLITICIAN does not apply. Tessaracter (talk) 09:54, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG.[18] Abhishek0831996 (talk) 16:28, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per G5: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Arshifakhan61 Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 11:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Divyarajsinh Jadeja[edit]

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

Promotional article for a non notable business man who fails to satisfy either WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. A review of all the sources in the article & a before search reveals mere announcements, press releases & sponsored posts. Celestina007 (talk) 17:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Fails WP:GNG Fiddle Faddle 19:56, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.VocalIndia (talk) 21:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing but sponsored coverage. – Thjarkur (talk) 10:23, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:49, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --SalmanZ (talk) 10:02, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 02:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trading212[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Native advertising. scope_creep^Talk 16:15, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:47, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:47, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:47, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Events described don't establish WP:NCORP, article has PROMO issues. 1292simon (talk) 05:18, 4 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 per the Snowball Clause. The article's creator jumped the gun before the album title, release date, and track list were confirmed, but that info became available in the following days. Note that the AfD template at the top of the album article should not have been removed until after this here discussion was closed. (non-admin closure) ☆ DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) ☆ 18:51, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PWR/UP[edit]

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

I'm nominating this article to be deleted because the title of the upcoming AC/DC album hasn't actually been confirmed by the band themselves. Plus the album doesn't have a release date yet. MetalDiablo666 (talk) 15:58, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MetalDiablo666 (talk) 16:07, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MetalDiablo666 (talk) 16:07, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – There's no debate the album exists nor that it will be released. It should be renamed according to convention (AC/DC's upcoming album or whatever the guideline dictates) because no title is confirmed. There's enough source material out there to sustain an article. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree! Louis.Cruisader (talk) 22:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to AC/DC – I just took a look on AC/DC's social media pages and they don't mention anything about an album title. 172.58.35.14 (talk) 18:48, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So what? This is the pleasure of pure speculation! Louis.Cruisader (talk) 22:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - I also feel like the album page is notable as a single preview has already been released. Coupled with the reunion announcement, it should be renamed until the title is confirmed, and any speculative sourcing deleted. I cleared the "possible" tracklist that was unacceptably cited to a forum post. TJD2 (talk) 22:11, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unacceptably cited? Poor little guy! Louis.Cruisader (talk) 22:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Louis.Cruisader, Please comment on content, not character per Wikipedia rules. Nothing you have added to this discussion has been productive, and I feel like removing everything you have written because of this. Yes, a forum post is not encyclopedic and is not ever considered a reliable source. Please conduct yourself in a more respectful manner next time, and if you have anything constructive to add, or even a vote, feel free to do so. TJD2 (talk) 03:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - Since the title has not been officially confirmed by the band. Mr. Punk Pirate (talk) 22:28, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Album's been announced, if this article gets deleted now it'll just get recreated again shortly. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 01:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

True! Louis.Cruisader (talk) 04:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This should not even be a debate, the album has been confirmed and it is by a notable band, the fact that it does not have a release date means nothing. DCook58 (talk) 03:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the article should stay, but do you think it should be renamed, as PWR/UP hasn't been confirmed as the album's title? TJD2 (talk) 04:43, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

Rename - whilst it is still speculative, I concur that if this article is deleted then it will just get recreated by others until the album details are officially confirmed. No different to a number of upcoming super hero films. Dan arndt (talk) 11:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - See various sections of WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NALBUM. Everyone who voted to KEEP above is enthusiastic about a new AC/DC album, but should take the opportunity to learn about Wikipedia policies. Wikipedia is not a speculative service, and is not a promotional source for future things that don't yet exist. All we know as of yesterday is that AC/DC has planned a new album for 2021, and there is no confirmed release date or title. "PWR/UP" is a Twitter handle they are using for publicity purposes right now, and it may or may not be the title of the album. The fact that they have announced a new album -- and that is all that is really confirmed so far -- can be mentioned at the band's article. Wikipedia will still be here after the album has a confirmed title, tracklist, and release date. ☆ DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) ☆ 13:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As seen below, as of today (Oct. 6) we do have a confirmed release date of Nov. 13 for the album, and it has already gotten plenty of press due to interest in AC/DC's comeback after tough times. Might as well keep the article now, but the title is still causing some confusion in various music media sources. Give them another day to straighten it out. ☆ DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) ☆ 19:39, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to AC/DC: Per Doomsdayer520. The upcoming album's name, tracklist and release date haven't been confirmed yet, though it's announced that one of the songs will be part of it. That said, it's definitely WP:TOOSOON. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: The release date next month [19] and the title [20] have now been confirmed. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:20, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

True, but various sources are reporting the title as PWR/UP, POWERUP, and Power Up. There is still some confusion on what the album is called, affecting the title of the WP article we are presently discussing. ☆ DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) ☆ 19:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a bit of confusion about the spelling of the title. Rolling Stone have it in straight English, but other sources are using the "PWR/UP" format. It should clear up in a day or two. A word from the record company would help, or a glimpse of the cover. I would've preferred to wait until an exact title emerged before naming the article (as I said at the top) and used a placeholder title, but you know how these things snowball. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:57, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or redirect (If needed): When I made this article, I made it with the sources I had available to me at the time, which were mostly Ultimate Classic Rock and Loudwire sources and a few others whose names escape me right now. The article has since been improved upon many of times since I created this page with a lot of credible sources including Rolling Stone and so I applaud each and every one that has contributed this page. Anywho, if we were to redirect this, someone is going to undo the redirect and just restore the content. Deletion is not a good thing for this article, as all the content would be gone, and would have to start from scratch again. If we must do something, I'd recommend a redirect, that way when whatever the variation of the title is (Power up, Power/up, and POWERUP, etc), we can undo the redirect, restore the content, and then move the page to the correct title, otherwise, I just recommend keeping the page as is, especially with all the sourced content. As had been stated above, we should know the title here very soon, at which point we can just simply move the page to if it is not PWR/UP. Moline1 (talk) 01:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is a notable release by a notable band. I don't even know why this is being considered for deletion. Sure, information may be limited, but deleting it doesn't make sense. If we delete it now, it's going to be created again later. If the name isn't fully confirmed, maybe we could just rename the article. Bowling is life (talk) 01:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' - I went ahead and renamed the article because the album title has been confirmed as "Power Up". Can we close this AfD now that the album has officially been confirmed? TJD2 (talk) 04:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, end AfD: Name confirmed as Power Up, track list released and a date is set. Deleting this page would be vandalism, it fits all criteria and confirms what was previously speculation. DCook58 (talk) 04:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Changed my vote, per reasons above. Turns out that the album's name and release date are already confirmed. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:57, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greek Neolithic development theory[edit]

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

Fringe/pseudo-scientific "theory" pushed by a single-purpose account. No trace of any published coverage. Of the alleged prime source, a 2020 work by one "Petros Laios", not the slightest trace can be found anywhere. A second source (Dimitris Papadopoulos, Neolithic Greece) is probably made up too – there is an actual print book of the same title edited by one Papadopoulos, but neither the editor's first name nor the alleged year of publication match. It's also not clear how a book allegedly from 1986 could possibly be a source for a theory three other people purportedly developed in 2020.

The author of the article has done literally nothing else on Wikipedia but spamming references to this "theory" all over the place. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:53, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:53, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:53, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I nominated this seconds after FP. I cannot find the sources either, nor can I see a difference between this and Neolithic Greece (clearly the same as one of the alternative names in the article, "Neolithic Greeks". Doug Weller talk 15:59, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find the sources either, nor could I find anything else corresponding to the name of the article. Fails WP:V and, a fortiori, WP:GNG. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I also couldn't find any sources at all about this theory, though to be fair that could be because I searched in English not Greek. However, I think it's telling that this recent review (published this month in fact) of the Souutheast European Neolithic makes absolutely no mention of it, or any of the authors mentioned in the article. At best this could be a few lines in Neolithic Greece, but not until some reliable sources materialise. – Joe (talk) 09:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I, too, have tried in vain to find anything regarding the sources mentioned in this article. I have also used some rather creative search patterns in order to find some of the "sources" that the same editor has tried to insert in the Neolithic Greece article. No luck. --T*U (talk) 17:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Whilst trying to assume good faith, this appears to have just been created for promotional usage by a single-purpose account. That, and WP:SNOW. Sorry. Foxnpichu (talk) 18:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, I can't see anything to prove this concept exists - Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Badly written but topic seems notable, assuming there is sourcing for it. What is the reason for the AfD please? Elinruby (talk) 18:42, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- No, there is no sourcing, and no, there is nothing notable here. You may be under the mistaken perception that this article is about "Greek neolithic development" (whatever that may be). That might well be a notable topic, or at least the "Greek neolithic" certainly is (but we already have an article about that). But that's not what this article is about. It's about one specific – alleged – "theory" regarding some development in that Greek neolithic, and that "theory" is apparently nothing beyond "something some school kid just made up one day". It doesn't exist except in the mind of a single person, probably the person who submitted this article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a confusing comment Elinruby. You say seems notable, assuming there is sourcing for it, but six different people before you have said that they couldn't find sources – so what makes it seem notable? – Joe (talk) 09:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 02:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kageno[edit]

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

It exists and has a small amount of coverage but doesn't meet WP:NOTABILTY. Boleyn (talk) 15:18, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:36, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:36, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. The nominator did not show that there has been as substantial change since the last two nominations which both resulted in keeping the article. It also seems that no substantial research has been done into the subject's notability. (non-admin closure) — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:33, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PayU[edit]

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

Looks like and advertisement. No in-depth coverage. fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORP Priyanjali singh (talk) 15:15, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Priyanjali singh (talk) 15:15, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Priyanjali singh (talk) 15:15, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Priyanjali singh (talk) 15:15, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Zomet Institute. (non-admin closure) Dps04 (talk) 16:45, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shabbat B'Shabbato[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY. This has been in CAT:NN's backlog for over 11 years. Possible WP:ATD is merge/redirect to Zomet Institute. Boleyn (talk) 15:06, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect since redirects are cheap, but this is clearly a non-notable publication. Debresser (talk) 17:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing notable about this phrase Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Zomet Institute, which is the organization that is responsible for the publication. Alansohn (talk) 13:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Zomet Institute. Mccapra (talk) 08:44, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to TV Asia. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by TV Asia[edit]

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

Unnecessary list as the channel airs only syndicated programming. Also, a good majority of the links in the article are to non-existent pages. The article does not cite a single source throughout the body, a problem for which it has been tagged since its creation in 2013. Fails WP:SAL. TheRedDomitor (talk) 14:45, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TheRedDomitor (talk) 14:45, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. TheRedDomitor (talk) 14:45, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. TheRedDomitor (talk) 14:45, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely lacks sources and any information other than the name of the program. Anyone could add their hoax article here, and nobody will notice. Dimadick (talk) 16:15, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to TV Asia, even if its parent article is... not very good either, I still think a redirect would be fine. Foxnpichu (talk) 16:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We have 35 articles in Category:TV Asia original programming, I clicked on the first few and they only mention other stations or networks, which would suggest that some or all of that categorization is incorrect. So I don't know if the category is completely incorrect in claiming that there is TV Asia original programming, or if there's a legitimate basis for it such as a relationship with those stations. It would be helpful if related content were cleaned up or addressed first so it's more clear to see what, if any, valid content there is that would belong in this list. postdlf (talk) 20:00, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As stated here, most, if not all of it is acquired programming. Foxnpichu (talk) 20:54, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just checked, All of it is acquired programming.Sunshine1191 (talk) 02:25, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- as per the nominator's rationale, the article fails SAL. Complete lack of sources means also fails GNG. Don't think a redirect will achieve anything particularly as the article isn't going to have much notability in the future either and is an easy spot to add hoax articles, not to mention the TV channel's article itself is completely unsourced. Sunshine1191 (talk) 02:25, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to TV Asia - as noted, there are no sources to substantiate the content, and its of questionable notability - fails GNG. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. I don't think a redirect for something as ambiguous as TV Asia is appropriate. "TV in Asia" or variants might be typed into the search as "TV ASIA" // Timothy :: talk 14:30, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to TV Asia. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 02:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn as newly added citations establish notability. (non-admin closure) Donaldd23 (talk) 18:27, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mario Bros.: Peach-Hime Kyushutsu Dai Sakusen![edit]

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

Non notable Mario film, tagged since April 2019. Nothing found in a WP:BEFORE except videos, other wikis, Mario & Nintendo fan sites, and links selling the DVD/Blu-ray. No reviews found to help it pass WP:NFILM. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 16:27, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 16:28, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect to Mario (franchise)#Anime~~ - Enough information is covered there. Foxnpichu (talk) 16:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Keep - My bad. Looks like it has more coverage than we originally thought. Foxnpichu (talk) 18:19, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there are some sources. [21] [22] [23] (Oinkers42) (talk) 11:39, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Oinkers's sources. I also find it very hard to believe sources do not exist in printed, perhaps Japanese-language media given the movie's 1980's release (per WP:OFFLINE)._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:57, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In addition to the CBR and Kotaku sources, I also found a listing in Guinness World Records 2016: Gamer's Edition that verifies that this was the first film based on a video game. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per discussion above. Captain Galaxy 20:20, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete without predjuice to redirecting should Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salique (singer) close as "keep". 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 02:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let Me In (Salique song)[edit]

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

A song released on a minor record label: while it reached No. 1 in the iTunes chart, this is considered unreliable under WP:BADCHARTS. The cited sources are standard press releases, and I cannot find any other significant coverage. An alternative to deletion could be a redirect to the musician's page, if it survives its own AfD discussion ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 14:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:53, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 02:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anyay Abichar[edit]

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

Non notable film, tagged since Jan 2019. Nothing found in a WP:BEFORE except the usual film database sites, music links, videos, and passing mentions in books. Seems to fail WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 14:11, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:11, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:11, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:11, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - concerns around WP:GNG and WP:NFILM; zero reviews Spiderone 23:10, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:55, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pop-up yoga[edit]

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

Article tagged for notability since 2010. Google search reveals almost nothing (scroll through it, there are hardly any actual hits); term has, er, popped up a few times as if it were a trade name of unrelated businesses, or is used very loosely - does not denote anything particularly distinctive (yoga that briefly appears, yoga outdoors, participative yoga, yoga with few rules, whatever...). I'd merge and redirect, if there was anything substantive here, but there isn't. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:53, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no reference to justify the notability. fails GNG. Priyanjali singh (talk) 15:42, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Doesn't seem to be a well-defined concept. Nigej (talk) 19:20, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:43, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian rules football junior leagues[edit]

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

A list of non-notable organizations, with only one blue link and none of the others having potential to become notable. Fails a few policies and/or guidelines, the most relevant being WP:GNG and WP:REDNOT. Has been sitting around in essentially this form since 2006 and while Afd is not cleanup, Wikipedia isn't a respitory of non-notable organisations. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally agree with the nominator that none of these are likely to ever have articles since they are all minor leagues. As such, there's no need for a list article about them. Since Wikipedia is not a directory and the main point in lists is to help with navigation. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, grown-up sport gets non-trivial coverage, child sport does usually not. Geschichte (talk) 12:19, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Geschichte = these are kids teams and nothing to indicate the need to have a page dedicated (and probably constantly updated_ on wikpedia. This sort of list belongs on the organising bodies website or something. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A list of (red-linked) non-notable leagues is not useful. Nigej (talk) 07:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A list of non notable clubs and WP:NOTDIR also applies. Ajf773 (talk) 09:37, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 02:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Antaraṅga[edit]

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

Dictionary definition. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:17, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:54, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:54, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NOTDIC; I see no potential for this page to be anything more than a dictionary definition of the term Spiderone 21:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:57, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mont-Dragon[edit]

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

Non notable film, tagged since 2012. Nothing found in a WP:BEFORE search to establish notability. PROD removed because of "notable cast" but notability is not inherited. WP:NOTINHERITED. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:17, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:17, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:56, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to satisfy WP:NFILM. Celestina007 (talk) 00:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since it seems like there isn't any reviews about it. Which means it fails WP:NFILM. It's telling that the French article only cites a single source that is a dead link and going by the title was not a review of it anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 13:11, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

South Shields FC International Tournament[edit]

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

Non-notable football pre-season warm-up tournament featuring an English semi-professional team and the under-23 teams of three professional clubs. Contrary to the article stating that it is held every year, as far as I can see it has only ever been held once and received only some minor coverage in the local press -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 16:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:06, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:06, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:06, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - complete lack of secondary sources Spiderone 17:07, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:38, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Number 5 7 12:17, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough for it's own article. HawkAussie (talk) 05:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Nigej (talk) 07:27, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn, misspelt whilst researching. (non-admin closure) — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 14:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ascriptivism[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Seems to be WP:NEOLOGISM — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 11:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 11:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 12:48, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, not an uncommon topic in philosophical sociology [24][25][26][27][28][29][30], has been in use since at least the 1960s. – Thjarkur (talk) 13:54, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 02:54, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nirmal Shah[edit]

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

Subject only had passing mentions in the sources and GNG for BLP requires extensive coverage of the subject. Also had to remove a deadlink, so it's worth reviewing whether the subject passes any other notability criteria. Infogapp1 (talk) 10:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Infogapp1 (talk) 10:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Infogapp1 (talk) 10:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG as written. Northern Escapee (talk) 18:32, 11 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. Speedy-deleted in line with A7 and G3 (hoax) – article makes no credible claim of significance and most of it (alleged 9/11 survivor and "Granny Reward" winner) reads like sheer nonsense. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 17:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

H Cube[edit]

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

Does not meet MUSICBIO. Impossible to verify much of it. Many alleged details are inconsistent with year of birth (1990). Pikavoom (talk) 09:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article shows no real signs of notability. Rob van vee 10:28, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - arguably as an A7 speedy. No evidence of anything remotely close to notability per WP:MUSICBIO. The page was created by an SPA who has been repeatedly warned off adding the draft of this page to other articles and seems to be here solely to promote the artiste. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 13:55, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Very poorly made article made in what appears to have been created a promotional manner. Foxnpichu (talk) 16:24, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. ... discospinster _talk 15:44, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rayn Ibna Mash[edit]

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

Young actor, not sufficiently notable. Pikavoom (talk) 08:53, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt - hoax, not mentioned in any of the references or anywhere else online Captain Calm (talk) 08:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The image is a hoax and copy from somewhere else, I nominated it on commons too. Pikavoom (talk) 09:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 13:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:20, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22nd century in fiction[edit]

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

Same scope as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/4th millennium in fiction and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Far future in fiction for a different time period. -- Beland (talk) 08:50, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 08:50, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:14, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:15, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:15, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Indiscriminate listcruft with no clear criteria for inclusion. This only really works as a category._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ into 22nd century - Definitely shouldn't have its own article, but there is some information here that could be value of the parent article. Foxnpichu (talk) 16:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In response to some recent !votes, I'm going to go for a Redirect instead. Foxnpichu (talk) 23:43, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Much like the mentioned Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/4th millennium in fiction, there are really no reliable sources that discuss the specific time period as an overall group or concepts that would allow for a proper article to be created, and this current mess of a list is nothing but an almost entirely unsourced list of pop culture WP:TRIVIA. As such, there definitely should not be a merge to the actual 22nd century article. Rorshacma (talk) 17:58, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, there needs to be specific RS discussin this topic, not things cobbled together from related articles. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This might be worth while if we could create a sourced article on it, but it has no purpose as a stand alone list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Would need RSes that actually discuss the 22nd century as represented in fiction. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NOT#PLOT because this topic is fundamentally misconstructed as a list of primary sourced trivia. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:47, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/4th millennium in fiction and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Far future in fiction, as suggested by nom. These articles are collections of trivial unsourced references, with no third-party sources to establish notability. Jontesta (talk) 16:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yet another indiscriminate list of pop-culture trivia with no unifying theme except setting, which for the most part is usually irrelevant to the plot. Or, as the TV Tropes community would call it, "People Sit on Chairs". Also, there's no sign of meeting WP:LISTN. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too much fancruft, too little encyclopedic value. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom --Devokewater (talk) 09:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fiction set in the 21st century[edit]

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

Same scope as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/4th millennium in fiction and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Far future in fiction for a different time period. -- Beland (talk) 08:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 08:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete Per WP:LISTCRUFT, specifically that it is too broad to effectively update and maintain. This really only functions as a category. The content is also largely unreferenced and almost entirely skewed towards gaming and anime, which is ridiculous as there is plenty of fiction set in the 21st century. It's useless for the average reader for this reason._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rework/retitle per some of the discussion in the article talk. I would support something similar to what I suggested there, with the current article moved to "fictional futures of the 21st century" and a new article for 21st century fiction potentially created (or maybe not, as that would probably turn into listcruft), or else a merge into a broader "fiction set in the near future" type article, such as @Johnpacklambert: suggested on my talk page (ping him into this discussion as he seems to have interest). BlackholeWA (talk) 13:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Much like the mentioned Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Far future in fiction, I do think there is potential for some kind of prose article on the concept to be made for this one. However, as this current list is nothing but a very poorly sourced mess of WP:TRIVIA and pop culture references, there is nothing that should actually be retained in order to do so. I think an article on a broader topic as suggested by BlackholeWA is a fine idea, but again, this does not need to be kept in order for that to happen, as there is essentially nothing of value here. Rorshacma (talk) 18:03, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was looking for information about science fiction set in a particular year, and, despite its incompleteness, this (and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Far future in fiction) was one of the best sources I could find. Reworking it to be more encyclopedic or moving it to another wiki might work, but as it is it was already useful to me. Oct 5 2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:148:200:91F0:897B:DA4D:7AD9:9C43 (talk) 14:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what we have here at present is a total mess that ignores the vast majority of fiction actually with this setting. There is potential for exploring the changing ideas of what the 21st-century would be like and how this has been expressed in fiction. We would need sourcing to prose articles that discuss this, not just original research directly connecting to works of fiction that depict this. To keep this we would need actual reliable source sourcing which we currently lack. Do not get me started on how irregular it is to treat this as a sub-set of fiction of the future when some of hte century is now in the past.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Would need RSes that actually discuss the 21st century as represented in fiction. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:59, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a catalog of primary-sourced trivia, failing WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:LISTCRUFT that has already devolved into a repository of non-notable additions. Zing^(Talk!) 05:50, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/4th millennium in fiction and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Far future in fiction, as suggested by nom. These articles are collections of trivial unsourced references, with no third-party sources to establish notability. Jontesta (talk) 16:08, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. Citations added since the proposal have established notability. (non-admin closure) Donaldd23 (talk) 14:36, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extraordinary Women[edit]

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

Non notable film, tagged for 11 years. Nothing found in a WP:BEFORE. PROD removed because a "citation" was added. However, said citation was just a notice that the documentary was shown at an event which does not help the film pass WP:NFILM. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 00:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since nomination the article has been improved with the addition of content sourced to additional reliable sources. Although there are no reviews listed the coverage in references 2,3 and 5 just about adds up to a pass of WP:GNG. It is also of note that the film was promoted by a minister of the Dominican Republic, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:27, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:43, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the post-nom sourcing that has been done. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 08:34, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2009–10 Cambridge United F.C. season[edit]

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

There are some good sources in the article but notice that they discuss events from previous seasons and nothing to do with the 2009–10 Cambridge United F.C. season. This fails WP:NSEASONS anyway but I also think it fails WP:GNG. Spiderone 08:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 08:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - well-written article but ultimately fails GNG/NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 10:45, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NSEASONS. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 15:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per Spiderone's rationale for nominating. Celestina007 (talk) 00:04, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NSEASONS, a lot of effort has been put into the article. I am surprised it's also been up for 10 years! Govvy (talk) 08:57, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 5 7 12:17, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 19:11, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Olita[edit]

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

The article fails WP:NACTOR. He's only had ONE notable role as Idi Amin in Rise and Fall of Idi Amin. Sure, he played Amin again in Mississippi Masala, but that was a mere cameo. I do not object to a redirect to Rise and Fall of Idi Amin, but I leave that to consensus to decide. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 18:52, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:31, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:31, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and recommend quick close. WP:NACTOR is only an indication of where a person is likely to be sufficiently notable. Olita clearly passes WP:BASIC by virtue of the "significant coverage" in the Kenyan newspapers already cited (he "will be remembered as one of Kenya’s outstanding film stars" according to his obituary in The Standard) most of which deal with him specifically. It is true that the article's tone needs work but this is not an issue to be resolved in a deletion discussion. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:40, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:58, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Beyond coverage in life, when he died he received national and international attention. as puts its: "He will be remembered as one of Kenya’s outstanding film stars for not only his sterling role Rise and Fall of Idi Amin, but also in other movies that he featured in prominently. Rise and fall of Idi Amin premiered in Kenya in 1981.".--Chuka Chief (talk) 15:53, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Brooklyn Nets. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:18, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brooklyn Brigade[edit]

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

pure fancruft, non notable fanclub with no in depth meaningful coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 19:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:32, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:32, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:32, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Brooklyn Nets There seems to be sufficient connection. https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/28504690/the-fight-new-york-next-generation-fans-starts-barclays-center-lower-bowl Graywalls (talk) 01:35, 28 September 2020 (UTC) But, I do add that there's a lot of fancruft contents. What I mean is merge only the bare minimum, then redirect. Not introduce a whole bunch of cruft materials into the target. Graywalls (talk) 01:24, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Brooklyn Nets - looking at these sources, only one or two of them specifically mention this fan club - and a few of the best sources are not RS. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Brooklyn Nets. Cruft aside, there is enough high-quality sources already cited on the page to at least warrant some mention on the team page. No prejudice to this becoming a standalone page if more material is available at a later date.—Bagumba (talk) 09:57, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Zoozaz1 talk 17:24, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zerodha[edit]

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

Most of the references are based on company announcements, basic financial reporting, interviews and other churnalism, not notable industry awards, mere mentions/listings, etc. In other words, the usual plethora of mentions that you find about any company with a functioning marketing department. 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⁺⁺ 20:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:26, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:26, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is India's largest stockbroker. The company has received sustained coverage in the past 3-4 years to convince me that it meets NCORP and CORPDEPTH. M4DU7 (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey M4DU7, can you point to any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability? Post links your best WP:THREE here. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here are a few sources: [31], [32], [33], [34]. I remember reading more detailed articles in the past couple of years but can't seem to find the right keywords to search for them. M4DU7 (talk) 11:13, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I believe the sources provided above by M4DU7 show the article meets GNG // Timothy :: talk 13:14, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Nigerian Professional Football League. Fenix down (talk) 08:34, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

League Management Company[edit]

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

This is the corporation that administers the Nigerian Professional Football League. All events seem routine for such a company, and coverage in independent sources (of the company, as opposed to the league in general) is limited to passing mentions. 1292simon (talk) 07:39, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:27, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:27, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:27, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 08:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect with/to Nigerian Professional Football League, not independently notable. Giant Snowman 10:44, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - agree with above. Reads as promotional. Should be merged into other relevant Nigerian football articles. Nigej (talk) 07:13, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:17, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Raju Gauli[edit]

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

Non notable cinematographer. This has been draftified once already, so there is little point in doing so again. It obviously cannot be improved in Draft space. WP:BEFORE has been unable to suggest references that are useful. Fiddle Faddle 06:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 06:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 06:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 06:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note Only "films" should be listed in the "list of Film-related deletion discussions" per WP:DSFILM. People, such as cinematographers/actors/directors, should only be listed in "list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions" and not the Film-related deletion discussion. Thank you. Donaldd23 (talk) 16:44, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Donaldd23, No good deed goes unpunished, I see. Perhaps you might delist it from that section? Fiddle Faddle 16:47, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's already there, so no harm, no foul. Just pointing it out for future reference. Donaldd23 (talk) 16:50, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Donaldd23, I used TW for AfDs, and it is not always made obvious what to add in. Is it preferable to leave that element less filled when unsure? Fiddle Faddle 17:00, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Donaldd23 (talk) 16:50, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Nom pretty much sums it up. I too can not locate in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources pertaining to subject of our discussion. Celestina007 (talk) 20:00, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:59, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Hoose[edit]

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

Not a notable basketballer. Doesn't meet WP:NBASKETBALL. Only independent reference in the article is WP:MILL in a small local paper, and isn't substantial. The only additional coverage found [35] is also local and insubstantial. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:24, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:24, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:24, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn’t meet WP:NBASKETBALL or WP:GNG. Rikster2 (talk) 23:19, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly fails WP:NBASKETBALL. Coverage is way too local, and one could even argue that it is not substantial, so does not meet WP:GNG. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 16:54, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A little bit of home-town coverage, and that's it. Not close to meeting WP:GNG. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 18:43, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 07:10, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Progression of Saarland association football caps record[edit]

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

Notability concerns - doesn't appear to meet WP:LISTN. Only source is RSSSF. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there are many similar articles, all sourced to RSSSF or similar (e.g. Progression of Latvia association football goalscoring record, Progression of the Netherlands association football goalscoring record, Progression of England association football caps record). Depending on how this AfD goes, it might be worth discussing some of these. Spiderone 07:54, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:55, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 08:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - given the short-lived nature of the national team, this is not needed as a separate article. Giant Snowman 10:43, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't get it, regardless of notability, whats the article suppose to be about? Whats the point of it? Govvy (talk) 11:43, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It shows, throughout history, who has held the record for most caps for Saarland at any given time. The challenge is to prove how this meets our notability criteria as I'm not aware of any significant coverage of this topic anywhere. Spiderone 16:48, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and GiantSnowman. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of coverage in secondary sources indicates that this doesn't have the notability required for a stand-alone list Spiderone 08:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find the subject matter very lacking and odd outside of normal statistics pages. I feel that we should nominated all the other articles that pertain too Progression of national team etc to be put forward to AfD also. Govvy (talk) 09:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it actually borders on WP:SYNTH as well. Geschichte (talk) 12:28, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:51, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - just uninteresting stats. The whole concept of a "progression" of this "record" seems very obscure to me. Nigej (talk) 07:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as long we have other such articles such as Progression of England association football caps record. Deleting this one would be just an instance of the systemic bias. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 21:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not generally seen as a great reason to keep an article; I plan to nominate the England article for deletion after this one concludes anyway Spiderone 21:33, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. "When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." Ludost Mlačani (talk) 07:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you explain how this article passes WP:LISTN or WP:GNG? For the record, I think the England one fails LISTN as well so your only argument for notability of this article is resting on other articles that also fail LISTN Spiderone 07:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying it passes anything, I am saying we need a centralised debate as we clearly have a limited set of subjects, for which we need a general rule. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 17:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately that's not way the English Wikipedia works. Because of the completely stupid WP:GNG concept, it's quite easy to end up deleting something like the current article while keeping something like Progression of England association football caps record. Nigej (talk) 17:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will be nominating the England one after this discussion. It depends on the consensus established here. If this one gains a consensus of 'keep' then there would be absolutely no point in putting the England one up for AfD. Spiderone 18:07, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:17, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heropanti 2 movie[edit]

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

Already moved to draft once, creator moved it back to main. This article should be deleted due to WP:NFF as it hasn't commenced shooting yet. It might, [36], start shooting at the end of the year, but that is a bit away. Pikavoom (talk) 05:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at the very least WP:TOOSOON. Fails WP:GNG. Fiddle Faddle 08:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per Nom. Priyanjali singh (talk) 15:50, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Nom. Johand¹⁹⁹ ^(Talk) 16:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a case of WP:PROMO promoting the "influencer" of the film and WP:TOOSOON imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing to show that filming has started, fails WP:NFILM, some obvious attempts at promotional editing happening here, just WP:TNT and rebuild once good sources emerge showing filming has started. Ravensfire (talk) 20:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not even close to passing GNG Spiderone 10:50, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Willis (author)[edit]

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

An author on WP:FRINGE topics. No sources in the article other than his own books, and nothing independent found, just his own website and his publisher's. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reviews in reliable, non-fringe sources to establish WP:NAUTHOR. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:29, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This seems to be sourced to his own works. We need sources by others about him. Merely finding a way to have books you wrote get published does not make someone default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:42, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Mostly self-published author with little outside notice. I searched for several of his books, and they can be found at the usual retail sites and a few have picked up amateur reviews in blogs. But despite his huge body of work he has not earned the independent coverage about his works that is necessary to pass WP:AUTHOR. ☆ DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) ☆ 19:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Doomsdayer. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Black Cat, Kentucky[edit]

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

I cannot fathom what this possibly is, but if fails WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG. This place is not mentioned in Rennick's county listing, or his index. Rennick's annotated topographic map has "Black Cat N" written at one point, but it is unclear what exactly that is supposed to mean. I'm finding no meaningful newspapers.com references that seem to be about a community, it's all about literal cats, a high school mascot in nearby Hickman County, and a type of coal. This Google Books result mentions a Black Cat in connection with the McCracken County jail, but it's apparently part of the jail, which further research suggests is in Paducah. Nothing I can find indicates what in the world this possibly is/was, so I say it's safe to say that notability guidelines are not met. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Symsonia 1:24,000 USGS topographic maps for different years lack any indication for its existence as a settlement or neighbourhood. At the USGS Historic Topographic Map Viewer, I found that the 1938, 1951, 1982, and 2010 Symsonia 1:24,000 USGS topographic maps lack any indication of a settlement at the location given for Black Cat, Kentucky. The road associated with this location is marked as "Black Cat" in Google maps. However, the 2010 Symsonia 1:24,000 USGS topographic map shows the name of the same road to be "By-Pass Road." Paul H. (talk) 03:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not able to find any RS to establish that this place exists, no GHITS. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:14, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Multiverse (religion)[edit]

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

This article is WP:Synthesis, cobbling together various religious doctrines related to 'other worlds/realms' and committing original research by labelling them with the topic of "Multiverse (religion)". Under "Spiritualistic research" it becomes WP:PROFRINGE. In actuality, the multiverse is really only discussed in reliable sources (aside from sources about modern works of fiction) as a possible consequence of certain physics theories. Based on the way they are used, it appears that the vast majority of sources in this article do not actually say that these religious ideas can be called multiverses (I checked a few and those definitely did not), nor do they imply that there is some commonality between these ideas that suggests that they all can be considered as one "multiverse" topic. Of the three that do use the term "multiverse", one is an unreliable blog source, one is a dead link (and may be unreliable), and the last is in a journal of "Mormon thought"; these wouldn't get this past WP:GNG anyway. I suspect that for some, as the lead implies, perennial philosophy is why they believe that different religions all teach about a "multiverse". Crossroads ^-talk- 04:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely delete, totally fringe – and cringe – indeed. If the concept of multiverse would have any resonance in the scientific field, Hanegraaff (first source, prime authority in the history of esotericism) would definitely have mentioned it, but he does not, not even in his Esotericism and the Academy (2012); one could wait for the moment that esotericists would abuse Hanegraaff's work for their own purpose, and it seems that is exactly what happens in this article, opening and closing with reference to his Guide for the Perplexed. Thanks for this deletion request. Eissink (talk) 08:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Keep The nomination's claim that multiverses are purely a matter of physics is false. Here's a book on the subject – God and the Multiverse – and there are plenty more with similar titles. As the topic is notable, our policies WP:ATD, WP:IMPERFECT and WP:NOTPAPER indicate that we should improve the article rather than deleting it. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article now makes claims on historic religions, while the book you mention concerns postulates of "recent decades": the approach to the term 'Multiverse' is entirely different. If the latter concept would justify an article, then it would have to start from scratch, so there is no need to keep the current article for that. Eissink (talk) 10:00, 3 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Not only does a single book not satisfy WP:GNG anyway, but even if we did have any content from that book, it would belong at multiverse, not in this fork article. The description starts off by saying, "In recent decades, scientific theories have postulated the existence of many universes beyond our own." It's about religious and philosophical perspectives of the same multiverse that some scientists postulate. Neither that nor ATD, IMPERFECT, or NOTPAPER overcome that this article is WP:SYNTH and a WP:POVFORK. Crossroads ^-talk- 13:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fringe synthesis. XOR'easter (talk) 15:53, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - This is definitely a case of pure WP:SYNTH. Even if there is an argument that a legitimate article with a similar title could be made, this should not be kept in the mean time, as Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thoughts. Rorshacma (talk) 18:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete syhth abounds here. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 18:14, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too many issues with WP:SYNTH and suboptimal sources, too little to keep if using one of the rare decent ones that could support the topic. Alternatively selective merge in religious cosmology, perhaps. —Paleo Neonate – 07:47, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SYNTH, as others have said. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fringe and Synth. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:24, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails WP:FRINGE and WP:SYNTH. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:SYNTH of unrelated religious beliefs. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom and above delete points, especially fringe synthesis.Footlessmouse (talk) 22:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom and WP:FRINGE-yness.--Surv1v4l1st ^{▌Talk|Contribs▌} 20:12, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:07, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson's Underworld[edit]

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

WP:ROTM haunted house in Jackson, Michigan that fails WP:GNG. The voluminous references are all local, WP:ROUTINE coverage. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dog the Bounty Hunter and Alice Cooper have come, most of the news articles aren’t announcements and Jackson’s Underworld is widely known, just like Erebus Haunted House which is displayed on Wikipedia, with only local coverage. CardFume (talk) 13:39, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Someone else tried to get this removed from Wikipedia when it was originally created and their removal was closed because it had enough coverage and reliable sources. CardFume (talk) 14:27, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @CardFume: Diff please? No logs for this page or previous AfD that I can see. Ah, you might be referring to this, which only indicates that the article wasn't eligible for speedy deletion. It can still be eligible for deletion at WP:AFD even if it's not eligible for speedy deletion. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While the article looks packed with sources, actually looking at them show that many are not reliable, secondary sources, and the majority are just from the same handful of extremely local news sources. The arguments above that it is notable because a notable person has visited does not establish notability per WP:NOTINHERITED, and the argument that there are articles on similar attractions is invalid per WP:OTHERSTUFF. Searching for additional sources just turns up the same kind of routine coverage in very local sources, and nothing that would indicate that it has any notability outside of the community it is in. Rorshacma (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It sounds like a great attraction, it might be useful on WikiVoyage (I don't know their policies) for Jackson [37], but the article does not meet WP guidelines. // Timothy :: talk 17:22, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Basketball positions. Can amend the target by further discussion on talk. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tweener (basketball)[edit]

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

Not a very notable term and the 2 sources are weak. Someone in SoCal Area (talk) 03:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 October 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:42, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Undersourced with too many issues. Pamzeis (talk) 04:15, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Deletion is not cleanup. Alvaldi (talk) 09:39, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable concept. Tweeners are ranked, discussed and discussed more, and even used by journalists to define their own writing.--Pikavoom (talk) 06:06, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This just means it's worth mentioning in Basketball positions, not have its own article. Someone in SoCal Area (talk) 16:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per CAPTAIN RAJU sources. Alvaldi (talk) 09:52, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Excessively bloated article. Largely WP:OR it seems. Redirect to suitable list, eg Glossary of basketball terms or Basketball positions. Nigej (talk) 07:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Basketball positions, unless we can write an article with less WP:OR. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:23, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The term seems to be applied on many occasions as per the links mentioned by Pikavoom, one of them is upon the International Basketball Federation's web-page. A keep would be appropriate in my opinion. Delta fiver (talk) (UTC) 09:54, 11 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 02:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Cleary[edit]

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

Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a person notable only as a municipal councillor. Halifax NS is not a city where the municipal council are all deemed "inherently" notable just for existing, so the ticket to notability here would be to show some evidence of nationalized significance. But six of the eight footnotes here are primary sources that are not support for notability (press releases from directly affiliated organizations, the convocation program of his own alma mater, multiple repetitions of his own self-published LinkedIn résumé) — and of the just two sources that are real media, one just glancingly mentions his name in the process of not being about him, and the other just offers technical verification of his election to the municipal council seat. This is not in any sense enough coverage to deem him notable just for being a municipal councillor. Bearcat (talk) 02:39, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:39, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:39, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the well reasoned nomination.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is to delete this content. The proposed replacement content at User:AJFU/sandbox2 would be a different article requiring a separate AfD discussion if it ends up in mainspace again. Sandstein 08:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of cloned animals in the Jurassic Park series[edit]

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

Fails WP:LISTN, no indication that the topic is independently notable from Jurassic Park. While the article is relatively clean, the footnotes are extensive WP:PLOT summaries. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the footnotes can just be removed if they're problematic (they weren't there to begin with, but have accumulated over time). Not sure what's wrong with having the list in itself. FunkMonk (talk) 00:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fandom-style trivia unnecessary for a general encyclopedia. The creatures that can actually be considered characters can be mentioned elsewhere, so I don't think this has any real potential to be reworked. TTN (talk) 01:06, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is all trivial and WP:FANCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 08:38, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - more appropriate for a 'fandom Wiki'; fan trivia which doesn't belong on Wikipedia Spiderone 08:55, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As stated by others, this is Wikia-cruft that is too trivial for a general purpose encyclopedia. Non-fans will not have much use for information such as the exact dinosaurs that appeared in the Jurassic Park movies._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DELREASON#14: Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia. This is content perfectly suited for a fan site (e.g. Wikia/Fandom), but not for an encyclopaedia like Wikipedia. TompaDompa (talk) 12:52, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think the nominator meant to refer to WP:LISTN, not WP:NLIST. The topic meets the requirements of LISTN, even if the sources in the current article do not reflect that. I agree it needs work, but that is not a good reason to delete. I believe the article can be salvaged. I already wrote a different version with plenty of sourcing that I think demonstrates clear notability. The trivial plot info is almost entirely eliminated in this rewritten version, which instead focuses on real-world info, such as production details on how the animals were created for the films. Also, the page currently gets around 500 page views daily, which would seem to suggest that there is an interest in the topic among readers. AJFU (talk) 15:07, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting. My first thought about User:AJFU/sandbox2 is that it seems not to be a different version of List of cloned animals in the Jurassic Park series but rather a different article altogether (that would perhaps more accurately be called Depictions of prehistoric creatures in the Jurassic Park series or something along those lines) which overlaps in scope with the article under discussion. I may have to read it more carefully before making a proper assessment, however. TompaDompa (talk) 15:19, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with this. I support keeping the article with a possible move to an alternate title, but it needs to be redone to focus on the depictions from a real-world development perspective instead of being an in-universe fancruft list. And there is certainly a fair amount to be talked about. I would suggest a hybrid between that sandbox article and the current list; that is, the page should focus on the development of specific depictions rather than a general summary. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AJFU: You should request a move for that draft article to mainspace at Dinosaurs in Jurassic Park so it can be a viable redirect target. I'd gladly modify my opinion to redirect if that were the case._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of them are dinosaurs, though. Some are pterosaurs and one is a mosasaur. AJFU (talk) 15:52, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AJFU: It's mostly about the dinosaurs, so I don't think splitting hairs about the title would help much. Animals in Jurassic Park could also work, but that sounds unusual._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:17, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There has been disagreement throughout this discussion about the name. I assume that a separate move discussion will be necessary. AJFU (talk) 22:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AJFU has proven its possible to make a decent article from this. Dream Focus 02:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is far better suited for a Jurassic Park Wiki.TH1980 (talk) 04:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Either [Keep but replace with AJFU's version and histmerge] or [Move AJFU's version to a better title, like Dinosaurs in the Jurassic Park series, and Redirect this title there] - AJFU's version shows there is a well-sourced, notable topic here. But it looks like their version draws from this article (e.g. the table), so we shouldn't lose the history of this article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:06, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The current title was chosen because not all the cloned animals in the Jurassic Park series are dinosaurs. FunkMonk (talk) 10:35, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the accuracy of the taxonomic nomenclature is deemed more important than being WP:CONCISE, it's better to use a construction with "prehistoric" than one with "cloned". The inclusion of a cloned human being is a bug, not a feature, of the current title. TompaDompa (talk) 11:33, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Prehistoric" would not be entirely inclusive, as a few of the dinosaurs are fictional hybrid animals created by scientists, combining the DNA of various dinosaurs into one. In other words, they are modern/fictional animals rather than prehistoric ones. I'm not sure if the hybrids actually count as cloned animals, though. At the talk page, I suggested Reptiles in Jurassic Park, which would cover the dinosaurs (prehistoric and modern/fictional), as well as pterosaurs and mosasaurs. AJFU (talk) 15:52, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Reptiles" would on the other hand be too inclusive, as it would include the snake in the "clever girl" scene in the first Jurassic Park movie. The point is this: what makes this topic notable is not the in-universe mechanism(s) bringing these creatures into being (seriously, the cloned human does not even remotely belong on an article like this), nor anything to do with biological taxonomy (hell, "dinosaurs" would technically include all the birds in the movies as well), but rather that these creatures exist in the fictional universe of the movies but not in the world we live in. We could call the article Depictions of prehistoric and fictional creatures in the Jurassic Park series (or just prehistoric and fictional creatures in the Jurassic Park series) to cover all bases, but I honestly think it's a bit pedantic to avoid using the term "dinosaurs" because it is not technically accurate; we can clarify the finer points of the taxonomic nomenclature in the WP:LEAD of the article instead of using a clunky but accurate title. "Dinosaurs" is the term anybody looking for this information is most likely to use, by far. TompaDompa (talk) 16:52, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But it is simply incorrect, and Wikipedia shouldn't spread misinformation just because it's easier to pander to common usage (Pteranodon, Mosasaurus, Dimorphodon, Dimetrodon, etc., weren't dinosaurs). "Extinct/Prehistoric animals" would be the most appropriate term if we can't go with the current title for whatever arbitrary reason. FunkMonk (talk) 21:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The current title is complete and utter garbage, because it defines the scope in a way which fails to capture why this topic is noteworthy. The in-universe explanation behind their existence is not what makes them noteworthy. The inclusion of the cloned human being should be a dead giveaway in this regard. This is not some minor issue (or "arbitrary", as you put it), this is a major problem with the scope. Do the sources treat the in-universe cloning as the defining characteristic of this topic, or is it the fact that these creatures do not exist in the world we currently inhabit (either because they are extinct or because they are fictional) but do in the world of the movies? Should the article not include those creatures who are (in-universe) descendants of the cloned animals but are themselves the products of sexual reproduction (if a sequel is set a couple of generations down the line when all the cloned animals have died and only their offspring and further descendants remain, do we not include the non-cloned animals in our article whatsoever)? We have to strike some kind of balance between accurately describing the scope of the article, actually having a good scope (which is the point where I refuse to compromise), and not getting a terribly unwieldy title (such as Non-avian dinosaurs, pterosaurs, mosasaurs, other prehistoric creatures, and fictional transgenic hybrids thereof in the Jurassic Park series). Your suggested title, for instance, wouldn't include the fictional species such as the Indominus rex – is this intentional? With regards to the use of "dinosaurs" in the title: to my eye, an inaccurate title which requires a clarifying note/correction in the WP:LEAD (such as "Besides dinosaurs, the series has also depicted pterosaurs and mosasaurs [...]" or AJFU's "The series has also featured Mosasaurus and members of the pterosaur group, both commonly misidentified by the public as dinosaurs.") is the lesser of two evils when compared to messing up the entire scope of the article (this bears repeating: the in-universe cloning is not this article's raison d'être, the reason this article exists is that these creatures exist in the films but not in real life) in order to fit it to a different title. The scope is more important than the title – fit the title to the scope (if need be), not the other way around. With the current scope, this article should be deleted; this scope does not make for a valid Wikipedia article. Like I said before: User:AJFU/sandbox2 is not a different version of List of cloned animals in the Jurassic Park series but rather a different article altogether, though the scopes overlap. TompaDompa (talk) 23:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Err, your excessively long rant fails to address the proposed more fitting alternate titles "List of extinct/prehistoric animals in the Jurassic Park series" which would solve any such problems. FunkMonk (talk) 00:02, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggested title, for instance, wouldn't include the fictional species such as the Indominus rex – is this intentional? TompaDompa (talk) 00:06, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would still be closer to the mark than "dinosaurs" or "reptiles", since the components of those hybrids were other animals anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 00:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with FunkMonk here. "Indominus rex", "Indoraptor", and these other hybrids are a relatively new invention (5 years old as of writing), while non-dinosaur prehistoric animals have a considerable presence going back to the original trilogy. There is no free lunch here: no title can capture both non-dinosaurs and hybrid dinosaurs without being unwieldy, and I would rather sacrifice Colin Trevorrow's inventions. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but do we then sacrifice the accuracy of the title or do we not include the fictional ones in the article? And how unwieldy is Prehistoric and fictional creatures in the Jurassic Park series really, comparatively? Obviously "creatures" could be replaced with "animals" or "species" or something. TompaDompa (talk) 00:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with your suggestion, actually. I thought that you and/or others would have objected to something of the sort. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Article fails WP:LISTN and doesn't seem to have any direct detailed coverage in reliable third party sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOT#PLOT. Not opposed to a merge if a suitable target can be found. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:04, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I have been seeing WP:NOTPLOT as the latest thing thrown around lately by the same users, after the litany of invalid "The article fails to establish notability" nominations fell through the mud. That's a not a criteria for deletion or an indication of notability. If something is poorly written, you rewrite it (per WP:DEL-CONTENT). AfD is not a clean-up forum, nor is deletion the go-to solution for when you have a problem with an article. Dark knight 2149 00:24, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Replace with User:AJFU/sandbox2 - It recontextualises the valuable parts of the list article with extensive reliable sources and is already shaping up to be a potential WP:FA candidate. Going through this draft, there is zero justification for a straight deletion per WP:GNG, WP:ATD, and WP:DELREASON. Dark knight 2149 00:24, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing against the use of the draft, but it is so different in scope that a title like "depictions of prehistoric animals in the Jurassic Park series" is more appropriate, and such an article should be able to be created with no prejudice even if the decision for this article is delete. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The draft includes some things from the current article, mainly the lead section and a table of appearances. Both of these were modified in my version, but the current article should probably still be retained for attribution. AJFU (talk) 15:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with User:AJFU's version as necessary for a reliably sourced article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Replace with AJFU's draft and rename. It gets a bit in the weeds but at least would deserve its own discussion. There is agreement that the list shouldn't stay as is so while I'd normally say delete and AJFU's draft can enter mainspace whenever ready, AJFU's draft appears to have merged content (at least the lede) from the existing article, so the current list's history would need to be kept for attribution purposes. Please do attribute the source of your text if copying from other sources/Wikipedia articles in the future. I like Dinosaurs and cloned reptiles in the Jurassic Park series but that'll be its own discussion too. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 00:49, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Let this page stay. We have to list each species somewhere on this website including the hybrids that appear in the tie-in video game. Plus, @FunkMonk:, @AJFU:, and @Dream Focus: are right about their claims. We can even go with the sandbox idea if the outcome is delete, but we'll still have to put the hybrid dinosaurs from the films and the video games in it's own subsection of that page. Right? --Rtkat3 (talk) 21:48, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why it has to be in a list like this. As I proposed, an article similar to AJFU's sandbox, but with treatments of individual animals, can meet this goal while not being fancruft. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify your proposal? The sandbox already includes a list of individual animals, so it's unclear to me what would be done differently. AJFU (talk) 16:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, did you change the list recently? I must not have seen it. This looks fine. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:43, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is the same version that was originally proposed. AJFU (talk) 15:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The hybrids from the films are already listed. I'm not sure which video game(s) you're referring to, but the recent games themselves don't seem that notable, so I can't imagine it's any different for the dinosaurs that appear in them. In other words: without reliable sources, there wouldn't be much to write about these animals. AJFU (talk) 16:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was mentioned somewhere that the Stegoceratops was planned to appear, but was scrapped. It did appear in the toyline and the tie-in video games where the players can also obtain prehistoric sea creatures and some Tertiary creatures. Some of the Tertiary creatures also have hybrids as well. --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- @Rtkat3: WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP:MERCY, and (often) WP:PERNOM are not good reasons to keep something. Dark knight 2149 19:19, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- this looks like it got lost on the way to Wikia. Definitely suited for a fan wiki, but not here. Reyk _YO! 13:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a bunch of cruft that fails WP:PLOT and WP:LISTN. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:PLOT and WP:LISTN. Jontesta (talk) 16:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If there is consensus to use the draft version, I am unsure exactly how to proceed. One suggestion was to do a histmerge with the current list, and other suggestions were to move the draft to mainspace and then redirect the current list there. Also, there is the issue of the title, which I assume would need to be determined through a move discussion. I am unsure which would come first, the move discussion or the implementation of the draft. AJFU (talk) 22:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@AJFU: I recommend just moving it to main space at whatever title you feel is appropriate right now. If you are truly uncertain, just open a WP:RM right away seeking input/recommendations on the best name. The RM forum tends to have different participants than the AfD forum, and you can always ping the participants here if you'd like them to participate. It shouldn't hold up this deletion discussion, though.
As for attribution, there are several ways to do this per WP:ATTREQ. This is my personal opinion, but I don't think you need a history merge (as long as this isn't deleted outright). The articles are significantly different enough, that stating material was copied from here is sufficient. I have added a {{copied}} template to the talk page of your sandbox, and that should cover you. I guessed at some of the specific revision ids based on timestanps in the histories, so feel free to correct them, if necessary. -2pou (talk) 00:19, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to wherever the sandbox ends up, and if it gets moved to a more refined title, EmausBot will take care of it at that point. -2pou (talk) 00:19, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aurats[edit]

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

New page review: This article has two elements. The first is just wrong and unsupported by sources, and the second is already largely covered in another article, though there may be some scope for a partial merger.

The lede in this article defines ‘Aurats’ as women of a particular yet oddly mixed set of ethnic origins. The four sources provided to support this assert no such thing. They simply describe how the term ‘aurat/avrat’ has been used in different languages within specific Muslim societies to refer to women.

‘Aurat’ is a term which can be used to refer to women in general, and it has a range of meanings and connotations which are already discussed under the variant ‘Awrah’ which redirects to Intimate parts in Islam. The rest of this article kind of explores these aspects of the term, abandoning the anthropological/ethnic basis set out in the lede. The rest of the article seems to have been put together by googling the term and compiling snippets of sourced material together without any real coherence, I’m afraid it’s not much more than word salad with sources for each vegetable. Mccapra (talk) 03:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 03:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 03:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 03:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 03:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 03:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thanks for listing this one. Any reason why this article has been written as plural of an Indic language word? Seems very strange. Also, the disambiguation page has something very strange going on — it lists a meaning to Aurat in Urdu that I think is vandalism. To the best of my knowledge Aurat means a woman in Hindi / Urdu. [38]. I went in and fixed it fwiw. Ktin (talk) 03:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi as far as I can tell it is to do with a complex set of disambiguations and redirects which meant that the basic term ‘Aurat’ was already being used as a title for something else, but it is hard to make sense of it all. Mccapra (talk) 05:33, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article does not appear to be particularly clearly written. If this is a real topic, the article needs to be cleaned up. Also, I think we dealt with a similar article a few months ago in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aurat (word). The result was no consensus, but ultimately the page was moved to Draft:Aurat (word). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:49, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Previously I had self nominated article for AfD discussion and subsequently transferred to draft and split. After draft split some one prematurely brought back to main namespace. Personally I don't have any issues if it is sent back to draft namespace. Unless original title space of word Aurat gets allotted to this article will take quite long time for development. IMHO Bookku (talk) 05:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was moved back into mainspace by a blocked sockpuppet for some reason. Mccapra (talk) 05:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zoozaz1 talk 00:28, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication that this is a coherent concept that is supported by the sources given. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:29, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment just for record: This comment is just for record for academic and research consideration in posterity and no other purpose.

In my personal point of view bringing in article in article namespace when Wikipedian community is mentally unprepared for and this AfD discussion both are untimely. Since as a case study I wanted to discuss some related issues like suppression of titles leading to systemic bias at policy village pump before bringing this draft to article namespace. Now I will do that some point of time after closure of this AfD.

In brief three different kind of users are uncomfortable with this article.

The first impatient secular category which insist to define career before baby grows, same people will criticize any article first as coat rack of hair and skin but not ready to acknowledge it as 'body' acknowledging it as a prospective living body and cultural body are not even distant considerations for them, If baby starts coming from the side of head they will say it is all head, if baby comes out from side of feet they will say it's only feet, after baby comes out a little more they will say it's just naked and throw it out with bath water. If some one writes about Japanese umbrellas first in article about Japanese people they will say it's all umbrella nothing to do with Japanese If some one adds about Kimonos they will immediately start crying foul no no it is just coatrack. They just won't be able to fore see article developing into Japanese people step by step. At least this AfD creator has experience of adding content and expanding articles, most other deletionist won't have it and will still consider themselves morally superior. If one detaches from Wikipedia and just hear it will find the whole thing amusing and funny.

Now the next category opposing the article is religious but prudish just speaks about rules and all but internally they are uncomfortable to find in some part of the world women are called with the same words which define private body parts in other part of the world.

For example there nothing wrong with words that refer to private human body parts if used respectfully, but if used pejoratively then their is problem. Real issue is in intention. These category of editors need to understand whatever way expression Aurat entered in usage in certain global geographies for 'women' as of the today those geographies use it with respect though issues of misogyny and patriarchy are interwoven.

Now unfortunately it is true that in Medieval era the invading aristocracy and their forces used word 'Aurat' for women of general classes pejoratively is true and common minimum link between all women called as Aurat Whether Azeris, Kurdish or South Asian. Those who have idea of and know that uncomfortable history, patriarchy and misogyny will get discussed at some point of time in this article would be uncomfortable with existence of such article though that is not the only reason of existence of this article. Even if Azeri and Kurdish and medieval era persian and Ottoman Turkish refs take time to come by as a student of South Asian studies I can confirm that there are more than enough reliable resources that discuss about Aurat as women again newly prudish South Asians too are taking time to support the article is another issue.

Through RfCs on other project page, I have already proven Muslim women participation on Wikipedia projects is almost not existent on most Wiki projects including English Wikipedia. Other women editors largely refrain and restrain from Islam and Muslim related topic and progressive literary sources Muslim male wikipedians too visit randomly once in while when they will come across this article see it's scope positively and work to expand is a long time process specially when original main title of the article Aurat is encroached upon and suppressed in process of continued systemic bias.

Last but not least with above explanation it is not difficult to understand, one of the comment in deletion proposal insists to compares wome Intimate body parts equal to women and argues article is not needed, does not come as a surprise at all.

Well as of now, I am not expecting or requesting any positive action with present stiffing Wikipedia culture at all absolutely. Not even relisting of the article for more discussion in any way what so ever. This comment is just for record for academic and research consideration.

Thanks Bookku (talk) 09:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bookku: In your first comment above you said "Previously I had self nominated article for AfD discussion and subsequently transferred to draft" so if you already felt it should be deleted and sent to draft all I'm doing in nominating it here is agreeing with you. If you still want to work on the draft I think draftify would be a good outcome for this discussion. If you are not interested in working on it any more there's no point in draftifying it and it should just be deleted. The reasons for nominating it are not as you have set out in your note. The reasons are 1. It makes statements that are not supported by sources and 2. in the sections where it makes statements that are related to sources, it just randomly collects snippets of text to make something that does not, overall, make any sense. If this is an encyclopaedic topic it needs more work before it can come into mainspace. This is, as you indicated, a draft, and as such it doesn't belong here. Thanks Mccapra (talk) 09:41, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bookku:, it's a little difficult to tell whether this most recent comment is one that you wanted responses to but you've posted it publicly so I might as well reply. This prose style, and the prose of the article itself, are big reasons why the article is being considered here. Please don't think that I'm intending this as denigration or insult but it is very difficult to parse as English prose. It borders on word salad, frankly. I can get a sense of what this means: ...same people will criticize any article first as coat rack of hair and skin but not ready to acknowledge it as 'body' acknowledging it as a prospective living body and cultural body are not even distant considerations for them... (probably something like: "...people will call an article a WP:COATRACK prematurely..."). Phrases like, The first impatient secular category which insist to define career before baby grows... and If baby starts coming from the side of head they will say it is all head..., on the other hand, suggest that English is not your first language and you are trying to translate concepts from another language overly-literally. While the English Wikipedia is open to, and encourages contributions from, those whose first language is not English, competence in English is very highly recommended in order to communicate effectively both in articles and in discussions such as this one. You may want to try adding this article to whichever Wikipedia project is in your native language first and then bring it here once it has been accepted there. That strategy usually results in fewer frustrations and misunderstandings all around. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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