Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 October 5

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 4 October	6 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. Clear consensus that the article fails notability guidelines at this point in time. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:44, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Youssef Chreiba[edit]

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

promotional and non-notable (though I cannot evaluate adequate the Arabic references, they seem merely to reference matters that do not show notability ) DGG ( talk ) 23:44, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:46, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:46, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — non notable subject with next to no encyclopedic value. Celestina007 (talk) 06:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and block the creator. This is paid for spam, sourced to black hat SEO sites masquerading as news. Praxidicae (talk) 14:33, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Article is promotional and the creator seems like a undisclosed paid editor.--SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 20:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources have been changed and the text was improved to be in line with Wikipedia values. Also, please, do not judge people without any proof. I'm just facing a lot of deletions for my pages in English not like in French where all my submissions were accepted. Moreover, if you don't understand Arabic and don't have an eye on Moroccan medias, I don't see how you can evaluate this page. --MehdiKass (talk) 11:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete note that the creator does not even dispute the fact that this article is paid for spam. Just because the French wikipedia has lousy standards and allows in absolute druk does not we need to permit not-reliably-sourced rubbish into the English-language Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not paid for any edits I make on Wikipedia. I'm not at all expoloiting lousy standars in French Wikipedia. I will have no problem if you delete this. I'm disappointed by your accusations and judgements without any proofs. Thank you for kindness!--MehdiKass (talk) 15:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, A promotional article that does not show notability. Alex-h (talk) 09:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about him aside from his activities in the fashion industry. Definitely a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, PR --Devokewater (talk) 10:37, 12 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 07:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Widerberg (musician)[edit]

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

No clear indication of notability. PepperBeast (talk) 21:49, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Abstain, see comment under. The only Turkish source I found about him is this ~~and is nowhere near a major publisher~~. I found two small English sources [1] in very sketchy websites, one of which triggers the filter. When you search his real name you get a middle school student that was lost 2 years ago. I looked at the Swedish page to find sources, but that page links to a disambiguation. Subject seems to not be notable, unless someone can find more sources. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 16:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: there's absolutely nothing here that would pass the criteria at WP:MUSICBIO. I've gone through the edit history: the majority of edits were made by user:Widerberg and a group of IP editors who have made no edits to other articles, so I suspect there may be some COI editing going on here. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:28, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I appreciate the research by Styyx and dom Kaos, and agree. My minor involvement with this page was when it first appeared. It over-wrote an already existing disambiguation page titled 'Widerberg', all of which was corrected. Xenxax (talk)
Delete I cannot find any sources, and I'm afraid no one else can because the subject is not notable, so no independent coverage exists. Keivan.f^Talk 06:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. and above, no independent coverage, no sign of notability. Alex-h (talk) 09:52, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 10:38, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was able to find more Turkish sources of Mixmag: [2] [3], English sources: [4] [5], and an interview: [6]. The subject has worked together Ian Urbina to produce this. Also unlike I said earlier, Mixmag is a reliable source. I'm still not sure if it should be kept, but he seems to not be that unnotable and might require further discussion. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 13:03, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is strong policy-based consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) Zing^(Talk!) 04:54, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anasuya Bharadwaj[edit]

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

Subject is a non-notable TV presenter. Salimfadhley (talk) 21:44, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Salimfadhley (talk) 21:44, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. She is clearly notable as an actress. (Starred in several films, won notable awards). There is no reason to delete this article.TamilMirchi (talk) 23:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Salimfadhley: Did you do a WP:Before?TamilMirchi (talk) 23:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ab207: @Veera Narayana: Invite these Telugu users to discussion.TamilMirchi (talk) 23:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

question - I confess, I am not familiar with this subject. My AfD nomination was based on the poor quality of sourcing. I could not find reliable, independent sources which significantly cover this subject. If they exist, let's add them to the article and then I can withdraw this AfD. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Sources will be added. Kindly close the discussion.TamilMirchi (talk) 00:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is notable... Hasan (talk) 05:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Played lead role in Kathanam and significant roles in Kshanam and Rangasthalam for which they notable awards. That would satisfy WP:NACTOR. In addition, several reliable sources are added by TamilMirchi.--Ab207 (talk) 08:12, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if this is to be a keep, can we improve the sources on the article? My AfD nomination was based on the very poor quality of sourcing for this article. From what I can see, almost nothing that would satisfy WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. I see comments that say she is "well known" and has appeared in notable films, so there must be some significant coverage that shows she is notable. --Salimfadhley (talk) 11:40, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NACTOR reads "significant roles in multiple notable films", and she does satisfy it. Nearly all the sources in the article are reliable per WP:ICTFSOURCES. Its unclear what more is expected. --Ab207 (talk) 12:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the others. Foxnpichu (talk) 18:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article looks like it has been improved considerably (edited to add, since it was created in 2015) but meets WP:GNG Shameran81 (talk) 23:04, 12 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 23:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stray Bullet (1960 Mexican film)[edit]

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

This film, tagged since March 2019, is basically an IMdB mirror. A WP:BEFORE turned up film database sites, youtube videos, and other wikis. Nothing found that could help this film pass WP:NFILM, as it needs at least 2 reviews and none are to be found. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia...not a film database site. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia has far too many articles sourced only to the unreliable IMDb, especially since we should have none with that as their only source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:07, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Una Lettera dall'Africa[edit]

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

This film has been tagged since May 2019, and is basically an IMdB mirror. A WP:BEFORE turned up film database sites, youtube videos, and other wikis. Nothing found that could help this film pass WP:NFILM, as it needs at least 2 reviews and none are to be found. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia...not a film database site. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.archiviodelcinemaitaliano.it/index.php/scheda.html?codice=DC5796 https://www.mymovies.it/dizionario/recensione.asp?id=46504 https://patrimonio.archivioluce.com/luce-web/detail/IL3000017780/12/ripreso-leggermente-dal-basso-cartellone-pubblicitario-del-film-lettera-dall-africa.html?startPage=0 https://www.spettakolo.it/2018/06/24/crema-film-festival-i-edizione/ (still being screened at festivals today) http://senato.archivioluce.it/senato-luce/scheda/foto/IL3000017780/12/Ripreso-leggermente-dal-basso-il-cartellone-pubblicitario-del-film-Una-lettera-dallAfrica.html?start=12 https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=w19CDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA32&lpg=PA32&dq=Una+Lettera+dall%27Africa+1951&source=bl&ots=b-Ma3f9SlQ&sig=ACfU3U2qDN0ibXJQk7Zkoy37odYom2TVgA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiLw8DAsJ_sAhWwRBUIHaRvDk44FBDoATACegQIBRAB#v=onepage&q=Una%20Lettera%20dall'Africa%201951&f=false https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=AMcKAAAAMAAJ&q=Una+Lettera+dall%27Africa+1951&dq=Una+Lettera+dall%27Africa+1951&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjCv6uAsZ_sAhUSTxUIHbQdBbs4ChDoATAGegQIAxAB https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=uW4s4n7Q5NIC&q=Una+Lettera+dall%27Africa+1951&dq=Una+Lettera+dall%27Africa+1951&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiR0JznsJ_sAhVFQxUIHTWJASUQ6AEwBnoECAQQAQ https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=I-tkAAAAMAAJ&q=Una+Lettera+dall%27Africa+1951&dq=Una+Lettera+dall%27Africa+1951&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiLgqfLsZ_sAhUdQRUIHZ3PA2A4HhDoATACegQICRAB

Keep Hits in enough sources even if not detailed. [7] was screened at the Venice Film Festival, huge poster there. That it's still being shown today in a notable film festival illustrates notability. † Encyclopædius 06:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All of those links you listed are film database sites and passing mentions in books. No in-depth coverage, no reviews. And being shown at festivals do not establish notability. Have you read WP:NFILM? Donaldd23 (talk) 16:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see enough sources that discuss the movie. Is something going on here? I see the nominator in quick succession made AfD nominations for Meri Jung Ka Elaan, Con rispetto parlando, Una Lettera dall'Africa and Stray Bullet (1960 Mexican film), all started by the same user and all non-English mainstream films that obviously would have been discussed by the local media, as this one was. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:21, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, all of those films had 'film notability' tags on them and I almost exclusively send only articles with those tags to either PROD or AfD as I don't believe that articles should have that tag for years, as all of those articles do. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:43, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To further comment, if an editor creates an article and someone comes along and tags it for notability, why do they not address it as soon as it happens? If one person questions its notability, another user is bound to come along and also question it and that editor might find nothing to help it pass the guidelines so they put it up for discussion, as I have done. If these films can be saved by adding something to pass WP:NFILM then great. The notability tag gets removed, which is my goal. Not sure why so many people cannot understand that these articles are being sent for discussion because of a tag that someone else placed on the article. Boggles the mind that an author of an article will leave a notability tag for 10 years (as some of the articles that I have put up for discussion) without even once trying to address the issue. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I get the impression that the nominator knows nothing about Italian cinema of the 1950s or Mexican cinema of the 1960s: the studios, distributors, magazines, directors, actors and so on. The nomination is not based on an informed view that a film such as this would not have been noted by the critics. It is purely based on the fact that the article has been tagged for some time and a cursory search does not show any online English sources. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I get the impression that many editors want to keep articles for sentimental or WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES instead of basing it on WP:NFILM. Reviews are important to passing that, and most of these older films have none that can be found either online or offline...because if they were, they would be added. As I said before, all of the citations listed above do not help it pass WP:NFILM. Donaldd23 (talk) 16:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES is just an essay and is irrelevant. Reviews of this film would have been published during or after the 1951 Venice Film Festival. It is unlikely that an en.wiki editor who knows Italian will have ready access to paper copies of these old magazines and the energy to dig through them and pump up articles like this. However, under the "New Renaissance" program Italy is digitizing and publishing material as it enters the public domain, which will occur in 2021 in this case. The sources will then become much more accessible. User:Encyclopædius has already added enough sources to demonstrate notability. The article can be improved as the old magazines come online. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:13, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per improvements. It should moved to Una lettera dall'Africa (correct capitalization). --151.53.44.45 (talk) 10:18, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep While the sources provided so far are light weight, there is more substantial coverage here: [8], [9] and further mentions here [10], [11]. It is referred to as "the first one of its kind" here: [12]. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 13:24, 13 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 Ken Russell#Later career. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alice in Russialand[edit]

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

Film tagged for notability since February. I couldn't find any reviews in a WP:BEFORE to help this pass WP:NFILM. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ken Russell#Later career, where it is already briefly mentioned. Coverage of this film is extremely scant, at best. Even books and articles on Russell don't have any real coverage of the film outside of acknowledging that WP:ITEXISTS. However, there's no reason for it not to be used as a Redirect to Russell's main article, where it is mentioned already. Rorshacma (talk) 05:04, 12 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 19:44, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The 60's Generation[edit]

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

No significant coverage per WP:N. SL93 (talk) 18:46, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:41, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article does not provide any sources. I haven't found any significant coverage in reliable sources either. I don't see a reason why the subject should be considered notable per WP:GNG and WP:NTV. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:14, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Former programming by VH1 Classic. The article does not provide sources and fails both WP:GNG and WP:NTV but I think instead of deletion it should be merged with this article on programming that aired on it's channel's former name. Pahiy (talk) 01:24, 30 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 19:34, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It was an hour of 60s videos played by a computer with no host involved. That's it. No redirect. Nate • (chatter) 01:18, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, No significant coverage to support notability. Alex-h (talk) 09:58, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mrschimpf (Nate). The article is just a stub. No sources, no evidence of notability. The article is dominated by three tags (including the AfD tag - okay, so four tags). Created by an IP address way back in 2005. It wasn't considered notable even back then, and that says something since Wikipedia's notability standards were different back then, and many articles have been kept because "there is coverage" or "there are reliable sources" which wouldn't be reliable now. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 10:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:08, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Friskillo[edit]

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

non notable victim of a routine crime. The only continuing coverage is that one of the criminals, out on parole, committed a similar crime. That does not make the original victim notable DGG ( talk ) 02:10, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 02:24, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep John Friskillo is mentioned as a radio icon in a few sources, so he is notable at least in Mississippi which is why the crime reported by various outlets.--Twixister (talk) 03:10, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This nomination appears twice in today’s feed. Mccapra (talk) 06:02, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Repaired. Raymie (t • c) 06:08, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:14, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:14, 26 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 19:29, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Radio personalities aren't all automatically notable just because they exist, so the fact that the death coverage mentions that he used to be a radio host is not in and of itself a mic drop in the absence of any notability-making career coverage while he was alive and working in radio — but the sources which actually predate his death are all either unreliable sources (Fold3, the self-published websites of directly affiliated organizations) or glancing namechecks of his existence in sources that are not about him in any substantive or non-trivial way. In determining whether somebody is notable as a radio host or not, we're not looking for short blurbs which technically verify facts — we're looking for sources that write about and analyze the significance of his work in detail, and no sources like that have been shown. If the strongest source you can actually show is a 20-word blurb in Billboard's "broadcasting employment notes" column, mentioning that he was program director of a radio station but not going into any further detail about that, then that's not enough. Bearcat (talk) 13:00, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about him aside from his death, an indication of WP:BLP1E. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 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 19:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Lawler[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. This article came through the Articles for Creation process so I hesitated to nominate it, even though it reads like a press release and indeed is sourced entirely to brief articles in newspapers and trade organs picking up BP press releases generated when Mr. Lawler rose to his present position. There is NO "significant coverage." I assume that if there was, the article creator, a BP public relations person, would have cited it. Perhaps someday BP public relations will work real hard and there will be significant coverage. Until then this article should be either deleted or merged into BP. Coretheapple (talk) 19:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my nom. I just wanted to add to my nomination that Mr. Lawler's current position as head of a BP subsidiary does not in and of itself justify an article, under our notability guidelines. I looked diligently for such a provision without success. If I am wrong, kindly advise and I will happily withdraw this nomination. A review of other CEO AfDs fails to see any such guideline cited. Maybe we should have one (I would not be in favor), but we don't. It also bears mentioning that BP America, which he heads, does not have a standalone article. Coretheapple (talk) 19:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable engineer and businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:37, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The CEO of BP has a BLP, but Lawler is the president of BLP America. There aren't many sources, and they don't say much. I can't find any independent RS (there may be one in the article but I can't read it). I thought Arturo at BP had agreed to stop writing drafts for BP, and to make suggestions on talk instead, but perhaps I misunderstood. The problem with his drafting BP bios is that he and/or his colleagues have helped to create the sources, most of which (all but one) appear to be based on BP press releases. If that is correct, this article would be BP's creation in just about every sense. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:10, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I worked at the BP article as well and was quite surprised to see that Arturo had submitted this article. As I said on my WP editor page years ago, one of my major concerns is that corporate America would find a way to weasel into controlling their WP articles. Best to not set a president here. Gandydancer (talk) 18:04, 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 19:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of time and places in cases of Sherlock Holmes[edit]

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

Listcruft and fails WP:IINFO - article reads as original research and the list itself doesn't cite any sources. Even if improved with reliable sources, I don't see how this particular list merits Wikipedia inclusion. ~EdGl talk 18:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ~EdGl talk 18:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ~EdGl talk 18:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR. According to this article, there are no less than 17 competing chronological lists of the stories. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:27, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Elementary my dear EdGl. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:27, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had a chuckle at this; made my morning! ~EdGl talk 13:41, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TRIVIA. Ajf773 (talk) 09:36, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clear trivia. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 07:23, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per nom.ّ, I am not sure if the topic has any uses. Alex-h (talk) 10:08, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:INDISCRIMINATE this is fancruft at its cruftiest. --Paul ❬talk❭ 13:26, 12 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 Arista Records, LLC v. Launch Media, Inc. (non-admin closure) Pamzeis (talk) 09:58, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Launch Media[edit]

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

I'm struggling to find any independent, reliable coverage for this organisation. Its notability seems to be confined to its involvement in a copyright infringement lawsuit, as described at Arista Records, LLC v. Launch Media, Inc, which would be a possible AtD. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 13:54, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Arista Records, LLC v. Launch Media, Inc. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:10, 13 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 07:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kerala Police Academy[edit]

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

no indication of notability for this police training school. No 3rd party sources DGG ( talk ) 17:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion:? This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussions: 2014-03 Kerala Police Football Academy ✗ delete

Note to closer: not soft delete eligible --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable academy. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:15, 13 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 00:16, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Ross Lee[edit]

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

pr for non notable career. Even though I would inrterpret much of what is said as negative from my POV, given the titles of the person's books, he thinks its good self-advertisement. Asf or the refs, NOT TABLOID. DGG ( talk ) 17:32, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a tabloid. If we create an article because someone flew first class with Ashley Olsen, then I think we become one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:31, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Christopher Bauer[edit]

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

Promotional page for an individual who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence fails to satisfy WP:GNG. A before search doesn’t show anything concrete. Fails to satisfy WP:BASIC also. Celestina007 (talk) 17:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Promotional rubbish. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 17:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a clearly overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Teraplane (talk) 23:28, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 10:34, 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 19:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flora Call Disney[edit]

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

Not inherited. If she was a major influence on Walt Disney's work, we need 3rd party sources saying so DGG ( talk ) 18:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disney-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 00:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just being the mother of a notable person does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG no in-depth coverage and reads like a family history project. Theroadislong (talk) 19:15, 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. There is consensus in favour of deleting this article at this time for failing to meet notability guidelines. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James Holloway (actor)[edit]

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

minor actor , according to the article itself , his 2 best known roles -- are a unnamed minor character in a series , and a partially named, but exceedingly minor character in another.. The refs are PR or mere notices, like the NY Times DGG ( talk ) 18:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:49, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:49, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete roles as minor as his do not add up to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The arguments from DGG, Johnpacklambert, and Shellwood are prejudice opinion and come from people who are not professionals in the field of the article's representation. There are substantial references listed for the article. If any of them are not of full credibility, challenge those and/or remove them. Look at the entire article and not just the first two sentences (which have been adjusted/modified). Let's make the page better, like the other peaceful community members have started to do. Judging from DGG's record, he is best known for nominating articles that are more than suitable for inclusion for deletion. Lastly, pages build overtime and this page has significant credibility to continue existing in its current without further interruption. comment added by 0705csd (talk • contribs) 15:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite the opinion of the article's creator, the deletion rationale is sound and well-founded. Subject does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR, WP:ANYBIO. There is a paucity of content cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking." --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just on its own the article makes no realistic attempt to demonstrate notability, the refs are lightweight and mostly interview based and give a good impression of being based on press releases. It signally fails WP:GNG. What concerns me more is the strangely familiar text of the article's defence above by its SPA author. Is somebody being paid here ? Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:55, 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 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 00:23, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Johnson (film producer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:PRODUCER. No indication of being notable. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 16:51, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:55, 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Burke (lawyer)[edit]

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

lawyer, with nothing notable about them, except one reference to participation in a peripheral matter of a major case, No other 3rd part Reliable sources for notability. I tried to draftify, but was reverted by the contibutor. DGG ( talk ) 16:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable not yet elected candidate for public office.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:44, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has been published about more than twice in widely distrubted newspapers in Australia.TruthInfects (talk) 02:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:07, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:07, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable lawyer doing his job; no coverage other than that routinely expected of a lawyer representing a party whose case is in the news. That news coverage might suggest that the cases themselves are notable, but that possible notability is not contagious to the attorney. WP:NOTINHERITED. TJRC (talk) 16:20, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Also 4th reference is usless as article is hidden behind paywall. Teraplane (talk) 21:55, 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 speedy keep. Closed per WP:NACD and WP:SKCRIT#1. No cogent argument for deletion advanced and this has been open for over a month now with no input beyond requests for clarification which the nominator has not responded to. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:33, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Community preference (EU)[edit]

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

I start this discussion has the one that created the article in the first place following evidence that “Community preference” isn’t actually A principle or a legal requirement within the European Union. Now I neither support deletion or support further expand in the article however we need more information regarding community preference to see whether it is viable for it to have its own article or not. (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 20:51, 3 September 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Comment Discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion of my own at this time. @MOTORAL1987: If you wish nominate other articles for deletion in the future, please fully follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thank you. --Finngall ^talk 16:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 16:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @MOTORAL1987: Could you clarify what Wikipedia policies support deleting this article, in your view? I am having trouble understanding your nomination statement. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This AFD should be withdrawn or closed. The nom is not seeking deletion ("Now I neither support deletion or support further expand"), and AFD is for proposals for articles to be deleted. It would be better for them to open a discussion on the article's talk page, possibly soliciting input on one or both of the Wikiprojects that cover the article. If, after determining that deletion might be appropriate, they can restart the AFD.

Note, sometimes an AFD proposer is not certain that deletion is the right course, and there's nothing wrong with an AFD to cement a decision like that; but it's not helpful for purely exploratory discussions like this one. TJRC (talk) 15:54, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conan Altatis[edit]

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

Non-notable filmmaker, failing WP:FILMMAKER and WP:GNG. Most references are there to validate other facts about film he wrote / acted in (such as who the director was) and don't mention him at all. The references that do are mere mentions. There is no in-depth coverage. The films Altatis has acted in are mostly short ones shown at film festivals, failing WP:NACTOR. See also the recent Googling that JoelleJay carried out and has documented at Talk:Conan Altatis. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 17:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, much as per nominator, I looked and couldn't find in depth sources about the subject as such. There are at most a few name drops in articles about films. --GRuban (talk) 18:27, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Google returned 29 results only (similar entries already removed). The sources are simply passing mentions, failing WP:GNG. HiwilmsTalk 07:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about him aside from the articles he wrote on his own website, Conan Daily, which is considered unreliable, per previous noticeboard. Perhaps a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 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 keep. Last minute reprieve, by the looks of it. Continued discussion of possible merger to be done on talk page, please. (non-admin closure) Nightfury 15:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Saphier[edit]

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

There is no RS coverage of this person, thus failing notability and also preventing us from building a proper page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:40, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 07:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion:? This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-04 ✍️ create

Keep - researching was difficult due to the literally THOUSANDS of hits which are in-depth in which she is the commentator, so it's hard to find articles which are actually about her. But there a quite a few in-depth featuring her, not just on Fox News, where she is a regular contributor, but also on Huffpo, AP, CBSNews, MediaMatters, Bipartisan Press, Mother Jones, Business Insider, Esquire, WaPo. The list goes on and on. This doesn't even really seem to be close.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or, as a compromise, Merge with Fox News - not incredibly impressed that the most hits about her are on Fox, but as Onel says, there is plenty of coverage out there to write an article. As I have strong opinions on Donald Trump and related people who think COVID-19 is nothing more than "a bit of the sniffles" (and that's putting it politely), I'd rather not get involved in improving this, though. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - she appears to be notable enough. I take no stance on the content or political leaning of her opinions. Bearian (talk) 15:11, 13 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 18:36, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yogacharya K. B. Sahasrabudhe[edit]

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

Article uncited for 11 years now. Nothing usable found on web, nor in index of any of a shelf of books on yoga as exercise. Subject seems not to be notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:39, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article does not meet GNG, BASIC or ANYBIO. // Timothy :: talk 13:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sorry i didn't find any WP:RS for this one. So clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. VocalIndia (talk) 17:36, 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 redirect to Twelve (Iz*One album). You can undo if things change without needing to ask Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:37, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beware (Iz*One song)[edit]

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

article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject Bill Cipher, Stan, Twins, Dipper - Gravity falls and J.Smile 14:28, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (undecided) - It is confirmed as an upcoming release in about two weeks and it will probably hit the Korean charts, like most of this group's other releases. Normally I would say "delete" because it is a future item, but the situation will surely change two weeks from now. We could just let it go and revisit the page later if the song somehow flops. ☆ DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) ☆ 18:43, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The voter below raises a great point about the poor reasoning of the nomination. This could possibly be closed on procedural grounds. ☆ DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) ☆ 13:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NSONG. Technically we should redirect the title to the album or group until the song's release, at which point it will hit the charts or unexpectedly fail, either way generating the qualifying coverage for an article. But technically the nominator has not provided a valid rationale for deletion, since the topic of this article is a song, not a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble. Are kpop/jpop articles terrible? Yes. Are they a battleground for competing promoters and fans whose English language skills confine them to copy/pasting Google Translated press releases and appending entries to endless lists of tedious minutiae? Yes. Does A7 apply to songs? Regrettably, no. But this song will pass NSONG right around the time this AfD is over, meaning that even if is deleted here it will just be recreated. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 20:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It’s probably not a very good idea to just presume it will eventually become notable enough. Foxnpichu (talk) 10:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft. Move it to the draft space as it is not yet notable, but is likely to become so when it releases so there is no point in deleting it just to remake it shortly after. If it proves notability once released, move it from a draft back to an article. Nangears (talk) 01:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have another idea; Redirect to Iz*One - if it becomes notable, just revert the redirect. If not, then no damage is done. Foxnpichu (talk) 10:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree - as per WP:Redirects are cheap - Arjayay (talk) 20:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Twelve (Iz*One album): Barely found anything about the song aside from an allkpop article. Definitely WP:TOOSOON. It can be restored once the song is notable enough upon its release. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 08:20, 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. Tone 08:16, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aruba–United States relations[edit]

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

There have been several discussions which have concluded that foreign relations of entities that do not have a foreign policy are not notable. See e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foreign relations of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (after which Foreign relations of Aruba was deleted) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Netherlands Antilles–United States relations which concluded with a redirect to Netherlands–United States relations. The current page is extremely poor and unmaintained although it does mention that foreign affairs are conducted through the Dutch government. Its only reference is an archived page which also states that US consular activity in the Dutch Caribbean is actually conducted from Curaçao, not Aruba, and the page about that was already deleted after AfD.

@Nakon, Liam987, Northamerica1000, Squeamish Ossifrage, NukeThePukes, LibStar, Tavix, L.tak, MelanieN, Seyasirt, Bearian, Раціональне анархіст, Natg 19, Nick-D, Solntsa90, and Egsan Bacon: courtesy pinging contributors in discussions mentioned above. Place Clichy (talk) 14:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Place Clichy (talk) 14:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Place Clichy (talk) 14:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Place Clichy (talk) 14:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Place Clichy (talk) 14:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I would not oppose a redirect to a relevant Netherlands article. Bearian (talk) 22:02, 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. Editors are free to undelete for the purpose of transwiki if Wiktionary wants this content. Sandstein 16:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bahiraṅga[edit]

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

Dictionary definition. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:08, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yep, there's no underlying topic for an article here. WP:NOTDICT applies. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikify to wiktionary. Mccapra (talk) 17:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikify to Wiktionary as a dicionary definition. NonsensicalSystem^(err0r?)_(.log) 14:12, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see why we'd traswiki a word in another language. Bearian (talk) 15:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC) P.S. I want to add that if this word represented a concept, I would go ahead and keep it. 15:23, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 08:16, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Ray Tanner[edit]

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

Non notable actor, fails to satisfy general notability criteria and WP:NACTOR. A google search returns with trivial mentions. The added sources fails to establish notability. The article was draftified but the author recreated it with the same material and also managed to remove proposed deletion without making improvements needed to determine notability. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 14:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 14:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not satisfy acting notability guidelines. Google search finds that he exists and uses social media. We knew that. Too many of the sources are social media. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:26, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am wary of an article that is created in both draft space and article space. This appears to be a proponent who is trying to prevent draftification and is hoping that the reviewers will just leave the article in article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:26, 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 keep. Consensus is the coverage rises above BLP1E, and satisfies GNG. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Simons (politician)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NPOL as a small-town mayor and does not appear to meet WP:BASIC. There is coverage, but it is local to Oregon. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG. The Oregonian, Register-Guard, Willamete Week, Seattle Times, etc. These are not all just "local" papers; The Oregonian is the largest newspaper in Oregon and the second largest in the Pacific Northwest by circulation. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:02, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't expect all notable mayors to get national media coverage. State-wide coverage is sufficient. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This violates one event rules. He receives trivia following short coverage for being exceptionally young, no actual substantial coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Another Believer. I added, as an External link, an NPR interview of the subject on the "Think Out Loud" program Also, AfD noms conducting WP:BEFORE need to be aware that the WP article title for DAB purposes is sometimes not a good search term. In this instance, searching on "Ben Simons mayor" was more effective than "Ben Simons (politician)". I stopped at 5 non-Oregon sources below. Per WP:ARTN, ...if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability. . This article meets WP:GNG. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 05:06, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Small Oregon town elects first teenaged mayor". WNYT NewsChannel 13. 2018-11-09. Retrieved 2020-10-05. (Albany, New YorkY)
"From high school graduate to small town mayor". www.kitv.com. Retrieved 2020-10-05. (Honolulu, Hawaii)
McGowen, Jordan. "18 year-old Mayor elected in Oregon". WILX.com. Retrieved 2020-10-05. (Lansing, Michigan)
Boston, Alysen; Editorial Board (Nov 16, 2018). "Our View: Qualifications, not age, should be criteria for public office". Moscow-Pullman Daily News. Retrieved 2020-10-05. (Moscow, Idaho)
Associated Press (November 11, 2018). "Oregon teen mayor: People can serve no matter their age". The Washington Times. Retrieved 2020-10-05. (Washington, DC).

Keep. Passes WP:GNG. Lefcentreright ^{Talk | Contribs | Global} 12:12, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless somebody can improve the article. Mayors are not automatically notable just because they exist, happening to be the youngest mayor in his own town's history does not make him more special than other mayors of the same town all by itself, and the existence of a WP:BLP1E blip of "town elects new mayor" coverage immediately after his initial election does not secure passage of WP:GNG all by itself — the test for mayoral notability is the ability to write a substantive article about his work in the mayor's chair, documenting and sourcing specific projects he spearheaded, specific effects he had on the city's development, and on and so forth, all sourced to ongoing career coverage rather than just repeated reverification of his initial election victory. If you can't write an article like that, then a mayor does not get an inclusion freebie just because it's possible to source his birthdate and where he went to college. Bearcat (talk) 17:55, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His age is a curiosity but part-time officials in very small towns are generally not notable from routine coverage. A merge to Yoncalla, Oregon may be appropriate. Reywas92^Talk 04:35, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NPOL and WP:NOTNEWS, all of the coverage of him is from his election, it's routine, and he is not an official of any sort of political division that we would consider remotely notable. If he continues to receive coverage we can take another look, but he's definitely not permanently notable just for winning a hyper-local election at a young age. SportingFlyer T·C 20:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added some content and one source related to projects completed in his first year in office. However, if this is not enough to meet NPOL, merging with Yoncalla, Oregon where there is a mention of his election already, would be appropriate, as suggested by Reywas92. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 08:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine with adding this information to the Yoncalla article and that is probably the correct result. The local news station article on a local mayor, which is the "first year in office" article, wouldn't be enough for him to have a standalone article given how we treat local American mayors, especially of small towns such as this one. He's still not really eligible for a standalone article (in spite of the ARS !votes below) as all of the coverage is a one-off or hyper-local but I think this would be well suited for the town article. SportingFlyer T·C 22:37, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As nom, I'd also support a selective merge to Yoncalla, Oregon. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 22:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG the coverage in RS is there. Notable for being the youngest mayor ever elected in Yoncalla, Oregon and he received significant coverage as Another Believer has stated. At the least we have a WP:NBIO pass. Lightburst (talk) 20:38, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. User:Liz, User:Lightburst and User:Grand'mere Eugene are right in their reasoning. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:18, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this level of coverage is clearly exceptional for a small-town mayor, he passes GNG and WP:MILL. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Capital C Corporation[edit]

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

Startup company, had first round of financing in late 2018, does not meet WP:NCORP. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 13:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:19, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:19, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails NCORP. Rotine directory article, but WP is not a directory. DGG ( talk ) 22:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and DGG. I can see nothing of notability here. Fails WP:GNG. The range of new articles created by the author of this suggests that payment rather than encyclopaedic breadth may be their incentive. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Author now blocked as a sock Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:11, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom and WP:NCORP. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 16:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. -Hatchens (talk) 16:20, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I did some editing to remove peacockery, etc., but the article is doing little but setting out the company's wares (still with some unresolved superlative buzzwords), supported mainly by routine announcement coverage, fastest-growing lists, etc. which are not sufficient for WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 14:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 08:16, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jagat Singh (raja of Isarda)[edit]

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

Royal genealogical entry and no sources provided to indicate otherwise. He was born in post-independence India and so was always only a titular Raja (King) as the princely states had been abolished by the time he came to the throne. All the books listed in the ref section are about his mother Gayatri Devi and notability isn't inherited. Fails WP:BIO and WP:V. PROD failed to register properly due to a Twinkle error, so listing it here. Sunshine1191 (talk) 13:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sunshine1191 (talk) 13:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sunshine1191 (talk) 13:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion:? While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. All the books listed in the ref section are about his parents. Nothing else provided to indicate notability. Fails WP:BIO. TheRedDomitor (talk) 01:37, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 08:16, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sahasavanthudu[edit]

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

Film tagged for notability since January 2018. Nothing found in a WP:BEFORE except film database sites. Seems to fail WP:NFILM, but has many notable actors. Can we get a consensus? Thanks. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:51, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:51, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:51, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion:? While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Though this website stories reviews and other archives for the majority of NTR's movies, it hasn't stored any review for this film. However, the songbook is available. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:15, 13 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 00:27, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Garmiani[edit]

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

Non-notable BLP article, with questionable sourcing. Salimfadhley (talk) 12:39, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:20, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:20, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article Garmiani, because it clearly shows that the person is not suitable for Wikipedia article — Preceding Pakmusicana comment added by Pakmusicana (talk • contribs) 10:25, 7 October 2020 (UTC) struck vote by sockpuppet of Saqlain Malek. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Saqlain Malek.[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Queen (Queen album). Consensus that this article should be redirected (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:16, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Son and Daughter[edit]

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

Okay, it's a song by Queen, but not nearly enough in-depth coverage from reliable sources to meet WP:GNG, and clearly doesn't meet WP:NSONG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Queen (Queen album) - I was actually surprised at how little coverage there actually is on this song in reliable sources. While it does not have nearly enough coverage to sustain an independent article, it should certainly at least redirect to the notable album that it came from. Rorshacma (talk) 05:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Queen (Queen album). I concur with Rorshacma. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:28, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 08:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Pourret Wythe[edit]

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

Child actor, who was the replacement on stage for a significant role, but that has been their only significant role, so does not meet WP:NACTOR. And not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 14:19, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The child actor in question has had significant roles in three major theatre productions, ie multiple productions, as per WP:NACTOR, in the United Kingdom. Those three productions are Harry Potter and the Cursed Child, Annie and Billy Elliot the Musical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:D663:C700:2402:9A71:B0E1:6338 (talk) 21:59, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I'm not clear on which role the nom refers to as significant and which they claim were not significant. This young actor has been performing steadily in professional theatre, including in the West End and national tours, since she was eight years old, and now she has appeared in at least two West End shows, an off-West End show, a long-running national tour and numerous pantomimes. So, which roles were not "significant"? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:01, 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 redirect to Smile (band). Consensus that the article should be redirected (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doing All Right[edit]

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

Simply not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG, and doesn't pass WP:NSONG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:49, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:49, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:NSONG, there is simply not enough coverage. The summary in the redirect target is sufficient, there is no justification for a standalone article. Polyamorph (talk) 09:27, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Smile (band). --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:29, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DAuto Engineering Private Limited[edit]

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

Fails NCORP. There isn't a single independent, reliable source that covers this company in detail. M4DU7 (talk) 11:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 11:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 11:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 11:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable company created by a company employee. Jumpytoo Talk 10:15, 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 00:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mismatched[edit]

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

A simple case of WP:TOOSOON. And when I say too soon, I really mean waayyy too soon...so much that there is confusion even between RS on whether it's a film or a web series[13][14] (Checked on the Netflix site...it's a series). Can also be draftified if any editor wishes to gradually update the article as an when substantial developments take place. Either ways, doesn't belong in the mainspace currently. TheRedDomitor (talk) 10:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TheRedDomitor (talk) 10:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TheRedDomitor (talk) 10:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion:? This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-09 ✍️ create

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shahab Khan (Actor)[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. Shahab Khan has been create protected after multiple recreations by various sockpuppets, Draft:Shahab Khan is also salted (and has been deleted in an MfD (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Shahab Khan). The actor does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR, and his name has been added to multiple articles, repeatedly, by a plethora of sockpuppets, so there is clearly a promotional effort going on. This article was moved to draftspace but then moved back by the article creator despite the total lack of sources. bonadea contributions talk 09:07, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 09:07, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 09:07, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete preferably speedily. There is no evidence this satisfies WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Praxidicae (talk) 13:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly a non notable actor. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 14:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR - nothing to show this person is more than an average actor with bit roles, nothing significant. Feels like there is some undeclared WP:PAID editing, at a minimum WP:COI - putting this much effort into someone with minor roles like this isn't normal. Ravensfire (talk) 16:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete this account Shahab Khan is a famous television personality... Who has appeared in several successful TV shows. And he has been nominated for best supporting actor twice. Google who is Shahab Khan.. You guys will come to know.. Every Bollywood celeb knows him... I hope you all will understand.. Thank You.. Jesus bless you all... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imarmaan (talk • contribs) 10:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Imarmaan is employed by Shahab Khan to promote him. This is not the first account created for that purpose – see SPI and e.g. this thread – and from time to time some IP shows up and quickly spams the articles about every single TV show where Shahab Khan has appeared, like this. (One favourite tactic has been to add Khan as a "starring" actor in films or TV shows where none of the sources even mentions his name, e.g. here.) It would be easy enough to go through the articles where his name has been name dropped for promotional purposes and remove them citing WP:UPE and almost certain sockpuppetry; WP:CASTLIST (not to mention WP:V) recommends only including names that are in fact sourced, so in a way it would be uncontroversial to do that.

Unfortunately, this is a systemic and very wide-ranging problem.

rant about the systemic issues

Take Adaalat as an example – a series with more than 450 episodes where Khan appeared in one episode (according to IMDb), but he was added to the longish and unsourced list of "recurring" roles. The list of "episodic" roles, presumably meaning people who appeared in one episode, is huge and sprawling and also unsourced – so what ought to be done there and in many, many other articles is to go through it and cut every name that is not supported by an independent source. I did remove Khan's name from that article, but the same issue comes up in almost every article where Khan's name has been added, and it is not a satisfactory solution to just remove that name when there are others, maybe dozens of others, that are probably equally inappropriate. It is not strange perhaps that Khan's PR agency keeps spamming his name, when so many other names are spammed.

This does make it very clear that Khan is not notable per WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG though, so there is that. --bonadea contributions talk 11:33, 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. Tone 08:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rothschild Memorial Archway[edit]

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

does not appear to be significantly notable in its own right--mentions only, anf a mere listing at the unviesity site. There are available merges. DGG ( talk ) 08:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Princeton University as there doesn't appear to be any independent notability for the archway itself. Alansohn (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Princeton University does not mention this archway. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:35, 13 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) 09:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kalakari film festival[edit]

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

Pure promo of a non notable film festival that fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Sources added mention the subject trivially. Faizal batliwala (talk) 08:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Faizal batliwala (talk) 08:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Faizal batliwala (talk) 08:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per Nom. Zero evidence of notability. DMySon 08:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Looks like spam to me. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per all of the above Spiderone 10:56, 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 Affinity (band). Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1971–1972[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NALBUM. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Affinity (band). No evidence of notability per WP:NALBUM. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Affinity (band). Album was supposed to be released in 1972 but was cancelled, and finally released 30 years later, at which time it received no reliable notice. The tiny amount of known information about the album can be mentioned at the band's page. ☆ DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) ☆ 13:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Affinity (band). Article does not meet NALBUM // Timothy :: talk 01:08, 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 Carrie Bradley. Consensus is that the subject does not currently satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NBAND, and that Carrie Bradley is the best redirect-target. The existing contents of the article should not be merged without providing adequate sourcing. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 09:42, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

100 Watt Smile[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NBAND. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:42, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:42, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:42, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Currently supported by a link to an archived version of an affiliated blog site, and no sources I can find that tick all the right boxes. GirthSummit _(blether) 05:47, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Carrie Bradley. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I could support a redirect to that title; without any content supported by in depending sourcing though, I'm not sure that there's anything worth merging. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:07, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Carrie Bradley using sources such as this, there's also an album review there, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Article does not meet GNG or NBAND. There is no sourced content here and I can't support merging unsourced content, especially in this case because the merge would be to a BLP and I think WP needs to strictly follow sourcing guidelines in BLPs. // Timothy :: talk 16:23, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ive just given a reliable source, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:39, 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 delete. Tone 17:09, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NW Shoegazer Bliss[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Barely found anything about the album. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 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. Tone 17:09, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Northwestern Presents... Rock Stars Attack![edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Barely found anything about the album. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 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. Sandstein 16:36, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Launch CD no. 46[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC / WP:GNG. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Launch Media, the company which published the CD. There's no evidence of significant coverage. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 07:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dom Kaos: the issue with that is that "Launch CD no. 46" is not mentioned in Launch Media, meaning that this would probably be eventually bounced to WP:RfD and then probably back here because it has too much of a substantial history for RfD to be comfortable with. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 12:31, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I'd intended to change my vote after taking a look at Launch Media, but must have forgotten to do so. DELETE per nomination and per the above comment. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 10:01, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simply not a good idea for an article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:56, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:18, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Subject to Change: Artists for a Hate-Free America[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:20, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:20, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:20, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Barely found anything about the album. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 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 redirect to Floater discography. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 09:48, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Boy plus three[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Floater discography: per WP:NALBUM, there's no evidence of notability as a standalone recording. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 07:29, 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. Tone 17:09, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

9xdead[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBAND. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable band. The sourcing in the article is trash. The "Metal Hammer - Louder" page takes you to the homepage of the site so that's crossed out. The rest of the presented sources are concert sites, social media and databases. The same sources are found in a Google search. So I did not found any reliable sources. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article does not meet GNG or NBAND // Timothy :: talk 13:04, 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. Tone 17:09, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

.5 Honkey/Wreckage + Ruin + & + Regrets + (Redemption)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:XY. Barely found anything about the album. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet NALBUM. // Timothy :: talk 12:48, 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 List of Hellblazer characters#Ritchie Simpson. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie Simpson[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded by User:Andrew Davidson with copypaste rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for a proper rationale in the PROD). So here we go, as usual. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:47, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:47, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:47, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:47, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The topic lacks the needed significant coverage in reliable sources to sustain itself. TTN (talk) 22:07, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Constantine (TV series)#Cast and characters, this character fails WP:GNG, with the article being sourced mostly to primary sources, with the singular secondary source being a less than one sentence long passing mention. It also fails WP:PLOT, since it is essentially entirely comprised of in-universe information. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:29, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Hellblazer characters#Ritchie Simpson: Valid alternative to deletion per WP:ATD-R where he already has an entry. 2pou (talk) 09:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Hellblazer characters#Ritchie Simpson. The character first appeared in the comics so that is a more appropriate destination than the TV show character list. Rhino131 (talk) 03:33, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: redirect where? More discussion is needed on this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:51, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge with List of Hellblazers characters#Ritchie Simpson, but we should transfer his media appearance there as well. --Rtkat3 (talk) 21:51, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect as an WP:ATD. Topic lacks significant coverage in reliable sources but working to build a consensus. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to List of Hellblazer characters#Ritchie Simpson per reasoning from @Rhino131. Haleth (talk) 13:31, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Hellblazer characters#Ritchie Simpson - A basic summary of his plot is already included there, and there is no reliably sourced information in this article that needs to be merged. Rorshacma (talk) 05:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mahalakshmi (Tamil actress)[edit]

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

Non notable actress who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence fails WP:GNG. The first source used in the article is unreliable as it lacks editorial oversight and the second is an interview which makes it not independent of the subject. She is termed a “serial actress” because she acts mostly in TV-series and not in sense of she being a prolific actress. WP:NACTOR is also not satisfied as she doesn’t feature in lead role characters. Celestina007 (talk) 17:06, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:06, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:06, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:06, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:06, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:06, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 02:03, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:51, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Article does not meet GNG, BASIC, ANYBIO or NACTOR. Notability and sourcing guidelines should be strictly followed for BLPs. // Timothy :: talk 02:39, 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 redirect to Nasty woman#"Nasty Woman" Apparel. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Brinkman[edit]

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

Potentially controversial, but this should be redirected to Nasty_woman#Partnerships. The best coverage of her is in a relatively local newspaper [15], otherwise articles are about the Nasty Woman t-shirt, not her. Her art career doesn't seem to meet WP:NCREATIVE and is maybe even a WP:BLP1E for short term-notability.The vice source, seemingly the most promising source is misleadingly titled, it's actually an op-ed written by her, not about her. Independently fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO, non-notable outside of her association with Nasty woman. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:39, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has some problems. However, assuming that this is the same Amanda Brinkman, I think it's a keep. She is widely quoted in the press as a business consultant, and there is also coverage of her new TV show "Small Business Revolution".ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:39, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The WIRED article is an interview presented by Salesforce, meaning that it is of doubtful significance (likely reliable, but I don't think it's a good indication of significance. All it tells us is that she works at a small company and hosts a non-notable tv show). The other article is local coverage, again not really indicative of significance. Also how did you determine that this is the same Brinkman? Our article doesn't mention 'deluxe' or 'Small Business Revolution' once. Also, where do you see this 'wide quoting' in the press? I saw little indication of that and even if that was true, how does it meet our notability standards? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:53, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict above): Coverage of 'Small Business Revolution' is essentially limited to local publications except for a short fox news article. And regardless, this would go to establishing the shows notability before it made her notable. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:55, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. A google search proves it is is the same person. I can appreciate that you are trying to discount the sources, but to me it is plain that she is widely mentioned in the press. Other examples include this California paper, this Buffalo TV station and this Fox 12 Oregon segment. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:05, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that A google search proves it is is the same person. just doesn't convince me whatsoever. In fact, a google search proves to me that they are definitely not the same person. See, for instance, this linkedin profile, that of the subject of this article. In what I can see, there is a section that says "other people named Amanda Brinkman", which holds the profile of the other Amanda you have been talking about. Apologies if I've absolutely messed up here, but you seem to have conflated two different people. Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:20, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Self-trout Sorry: You are entirely correct!!! I found this very confusing, but an image search is the way to tell them apart. Let's say Redirect as proposed for the Amanda who designed the Nasty Woman T-shirt. The nomination rationale is correct: she does not have enough notability on her ownThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:25, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein ^talk 13:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 02:02, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:51, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nasty_woman#"Nasty_Woman"_Apparel per WP:ONEEVENT. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:07, 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 keep. Withdrawn. Consensus is clearly going against me, and it's been open for about three weeks, so might as well withdraw it. (non-admin closure) Hog Farm _Bacon 14:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Needmore, Missouri[edit]

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

State Historical Society says "Needmore is the name of a store." 1956 topo calls it Needmore Church; the GNIS entry is pulled from a Corps of Engineers pamphlet, not any topos. I'm awaiting a response to my request for Newspapers.com access through WP:LIBRARY, but Google Books isn't bringing up anything useful. There's also another Needmore near the Illinois line, so searches need to be filtered for that. This Needmore looks like a WP:GEOLAND fail. Hog Farm _Bacon 14:13, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 14:13, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 14:13, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a community, with a church and store. Some people were born here. Some public records. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 18:10, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid stub about a rural trading point. People were born here, worshiped here, and shopped here.72.49.7.25 (talk) 03:48, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 02:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:51, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per above. Arcturus (talk) 16:40, 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. Tone 17:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ivy, Missouri[edit]

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

State Historical Society calls it a store. The topos never show Ivy until 2011, when things got copied over from GNIS. All pre-GNIS topos label Ivy as "West Union Church". Google Maps shows a Missionary Baptist church named West Union at the site. I've applied for newspapers.com access through WP:LIBRARY, but in the meanwhile, I'm searching for Google Books hits, and finding none related to this site. Doesn't seem like a WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG pass. Hog Farm _Bacon 14:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 14:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 14:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or merge with township in which Ivy is located.72.49.7.25 (talk) 03:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, zero indication this was a real populated place and not a GNIS fuckup. I do have Newspapers.com access and it gave me absolutely nothing but noise for Ivy, Missouri. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:38, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 02:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:51, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence that it was a community and whatever else it might be, does not meet basic threshold for notability. Glendoremus (talk) 02:09, 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. Tone 17:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Swan Lake (Martins)[edit]

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

For those who don't know how Swan Lake works: most versions we see today shares similar choreography, especially the two lead dancers' parts, but choreographer / stagers can add some of their own choreography and make an alternate ending.

George Balanchine's version and Matthew Bourne's version have their own pages because they are significantly different from the classical version (I intend to rewrite / expand / cleanup the Balanchine version page at some point) I don't see why should the Martins staging have its own article as most of the information is covered on Swan Lake#Alternative endings and List of productions of Swan Lake derived from its 1895 revival, and as far as I can tell, it's a version of the classical ballet.

And on the cast list of this article, it is impossible to record all of them as there are many revivals with a number of casts each run, and injuries can always alter the cast. Several lists of ballet casts are deleted after I nominated them. Corachow (talk) 14:29, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:36, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment by nominator Upon further research, I discovered that the only main difference of the Martins version is everything is cramped into two acts. Corachow (talk) 15:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 02:00, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:51, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; the few cited performance reviews do not seem enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:28, 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 no consensus. Since most people qualified their views as "weak", I don't think either side had the upper hand. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:36, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crossed Out[edit]

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

Non-notable band. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:12, 18 September 2020 (UTC) Powerviolence band from Encinitas, California. Despite their "legendary" status (and they are quite awesome, might I add, along with the genre itself - despite the rather stupid name of the genre in my opinion) I couldn't find anything reliable, just the usual junk like databases, streaming service links, download sites, playlists (including the one included in the article), youtube videos and trivial mentions (they are mostly mentioned in the context of the powerviolence genre). I have found some album reviews but they are featured on sites of dubious reliability, including the ones that are already cited in the article. Just because they are mentioned among other names in the context of this genre, does not make them notable. But prove me wrong. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per nom. Agree that they are somewhat legendary, as far as that goes, but there's no way that enough RS are going to be found in 10-12 Google pages... I'm mostly ok with the existing refs, aside from the blog, but they're not much. Caro7200 (talk) 19:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:CREATIVE for their contributions to a genre Wm335td (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete due to the lack of multiple in-depth reliable sources. Although they do seem to important to the genre of "powerviolence" it's not clear exactly how much because the few sources that claim it are either other bands or a person saying that someone else said they were. Which doesn't really pass WP:CREATIVE IMO. Since reputable sources still have to discuss their influence, preferably in an in-depth way, and it can't be based on a game of telephone or what other bands have said about them. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:46, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 02:00, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - so this was never going to provable by the conventional in-depth coverage or normal WP:BAND criteria. However, BAND#7 or potentially NMUSICOTHER#3 (a criterion I have never used) offer possibilities. But only if they can provide at least some minimal reliable coverage as @Adamant1: notes. The current sources don't do that. But with The Music Sound, maximum rock n roll newspaper, New York Hardcore (n.b. iffy about previews, keep trying) I feel they do. By all means, the coverage is light (but reliable, I feel), but that was always going to be the case for anything seeking to utilise these criteria. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:27, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Gilewska[edit]

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

The article does not meet GNG, BASIC or NACTOR. // Timothy :: talk 02:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 02:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 02:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:26, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find any RS that cover her in depth. There are some mentions in Google books but only passing in cast lists. It's possible that there is coverage in non-digitized Polish print sources from when she was alive, but I can't support keeping an article for which the GNG-providing sources are purely hypothetical. (This appears to have been translated from plwiki which likely has different notability guidelines). (t · c) buidhe 09:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would like to offer a different rationale. The mentions in Gbooks show a short if sustained career in the industry. These very early actors weren't documented very wheel, particularly if they bit-part actors and they were working-class. Only the star in general were feted and subsequently documented. Most of the stars are now in Wikipedia and editors are turning to less well know. There is consensus I think, particularly at Afc/NPP that these very early stage actors are notable. scope_creep^Talk 09:50, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, an article cannot be kept based off the belief that sources might exist. Wikipedia does not exist to right great wrongs. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:40, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Misciting RGW is not a useful argument, that piece is largely satirical. Montanabw^(talk) 17:32, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Devonian Wombat is citing Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, which definitely isn't intended to be satirical. Either way, their point holds: "this obviously must be notable" is not a policy-based reason to keep an article that does not verifiably demonstrate notability. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:38, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an article of historical interest. There was no internet when she died in 1986. I am sure that if anyone has access to the Polish press of that period, they would find all the necessary source.--Ipigott (talk) 17:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly another example of a notable individual who doesn't "google." The internet was in its infancy (see ARPANET) when she died, but there are news sources from the time, probably not in English. Also, as there was a copyvio issue with the article earlier on, some material used may have been deleted and is not currently visible. Montanabw^(talk) 17:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The world exists beyond the English version of Google. -Yupik (talk) 22:29, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Originally closed as keep but I was asked to relist to give editors an opportunity to find more sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 18:37, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I posted to Wikiprojects Poland talk page and Wikiproject Film asking if anyone could help locate any sources. I will also search again. // Timothy :: talk 19:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I really would like to solve it but I don't see any sources outside few mentions in passing. She might be mentioned in this pre-war publication but I don't know how to open djvu files I am getting. She has an entry in this online Polish theatre encyclopedia but it seems just a wikidata style entry (but the site is reliable maintained by a gov't institution pl:Instytut Teatralny im. Zbigniewa Raszewskiego): [16]. Her entry in a similar database run by a another government institute exists but is even more barebones: [17]. This is a bit better (has a short paragraph of text), portal seems maintained by National Film School in Łódź: [18] Few pictures at [19] and [20] which are also maintained by government agencies. I cannot find anything other than a passing mentioned in book / journal sources, but plenty of old Polish sources are not digitized or indexed properly. This is borderline, but when I think we keep one-sentence sport-bio entries because they meet some game-played criteria based on a single game record or such... eh, she played in few old movies too and is as notable as many minor players we have substubs on, probably more given her inclusion in the cited databases including that threatre encyclopedia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus, I checked the source you mentioned [21] (I think any browser with support for HTML5 should open it). She is listed as a cast member on pp.10 and 14 and her photo is on page 14, but no details. // Timothy :: talk 17:20, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I still haven't been able to find any sources. I checked Polish Cinema: A History by Marek Haltof and found nothing about her (two of her films are listed, but without details and no mention of her). // Timothy :: talk 17:10, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 01:59, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:50, 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. The sole Keep !vote does not seem to cite specific policy/guideline on why the article is notable, and is specifically rebuffed. As such, notability does not appear to be demonstrated Nosebagbear (talk) 10:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Almon, Missouri[edit]

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

I don't think this place passes WP:GEOLAND. GNIS sources it to a rural schools map (Since school != actual community in the time this was active in rural America, it seems a little odd to source it to a school directory) and gives it a census code of U6, which means it is not an officially incorporated place, meaning it likely fails WP:GEOLAND. Does not appear on pre-GNIS small-scale topos. The State Historical Society calls it a post office. A search for coverage only brings up a bunch of WP:SPS family histories and mentions that someone "from" Almon died. Does not seem to meet WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:18, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:18, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:18, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Revised article to include year of first settlement. Nominator is dead wrong to imply a community must be "incorporated" (Municipality) in order to be notable on Wikipedia. Unincorporated communities are an integral part of most all US county templates.72.49.7.25 (talk) 03:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Read WP:GEOLAND. Not every cluster of buildings is notable. Hog Farm _Bacon 10:43, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 01:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No apparent evidence of significant coverage as an independent commuity that would qualify for WP:GNG or WP:GEOLAND. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:15, 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. Consensus that notability is not shown Nosebagbear (talk) 10:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tumi Aru Moi[edit]

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

Non-notable film, and no significant coverage in any of the independent and reliable sources for the film, no reviews about the film from notable critics. Fails WP:NFP, WP:NFSOURCES, and WP:NFO AngusMEOW (chatter • paw trail) 21:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to concerns around WP:GNG and WP:NFILM Spiderone 19:16, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 01:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:12, 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 keep. Tone 17:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Slavica Ecclestone[edit]

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

I do not see how this justifies a separate article. notability is not inherited -- even if it comes with a L 740 million settlement. DGG ( talk ) 09:39, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:03, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:03, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:05, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I just added a required citation. Regardless of her subjective merits, there is actually enough in-depth coverage from multiple reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:46, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We need an essay explaining what "not inherited" does and doesn't mean. Yes, her notability derives largely from her relationship to Bernie Ecclestone, but she is notable in the sense that reliable independent sources have taken notice of her. It doesn't matter why she's famous: she is famous. pburka (talk) 15:36, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the rule that deals with the situation is NOT TABLOID. DGG ( talk ) 06:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)`[reply]

In contrast with the examples cited in WP:NOTNEWS, being featured in the Sunday Times’ Rich List is an indication of enduring notability. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - NOTINHERITED means that someone isn't just directly notable for someone else's notability. It doesn't mean that if their coverage (and the actions that sparked that coverage) came about because of another, that they too are waived. Plenty of coverage on Slavica specifically. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:06, 12 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 Hackintosh. Sandstein 19:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ryzentosh[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism. All (well, two) sources are in German language. Couldn't find reliable sources with the term mentioned. Purplneon486 (talk) 17:54, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Purplneon486 (talk) 17:54, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion:? While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-08 ✍️ create

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:32, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, only mentions are two short ones in one German publication and then some forum posts. Not in widespread use, has not received significant coverage. – Thjarkur (talk) 16:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hackintosh. It's not that the term isn't in use [22], but it's certainly not well-covered, nor sufficiently distinct from the above to be worth a separate article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:57, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hackintosh with the same reason as Elmidae.--Maxeto0910 10:48, 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. Consensus that he doesn't meet any of the relevant biographical notability criteria Nosebagbear (talk) 10:03, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Frishberg[edit]

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

I'm not convinced that this gentleman meets Wikipedia's criteria for a biographical article. —S Marshall T/C 22:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 22:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable as a radio personality or a businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 11:57, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't find anything that suggests he's notable --Devokewater (talk) 10:40, 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. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:03, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Full Moon Flashlight[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP: A9, because there is no viable statement of the album's importance, while the musician's article was recently deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Connors. ☆ DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) ☆ 14:01, 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. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Invisible Tape[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:08, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:08, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:08, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP: A9, because there is no viable statement of the album's importance, while the musician's article was recently deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Connors. ☆ DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) ☆ 14:01, 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 of not meeting NALBUM Nosebagbear (talk) 10:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wide Awake Drunk[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:07, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:07, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:07, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP: A9, because there is no viable statement of the album's importance, while the musician's article was recently deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Connors. ☆ DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) ☆ 14:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 10:36, 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. Consensus that notability doesn't seem currently established, and a draftify consideration was specifically opposed. As always, should the subject change and notability become more establishable in the future, a request for a draft can be made at that point Nosebagbear (talk) 10:01, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nama-i haftegi-i kuhistan[edit]

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

The article does not meet WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for WP:GNG and no WP:RS exist to show that it meets any criteria of WP:NJOURNALS. The three references in the article are identical and the two external links go the same site, one to the home page with no info on the journal and one which contains a digital version of the publication. // Timothy :: talk 22:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 22:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 22:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. Not a COI precisely, but the creator of this article seems to be affiliated with an archive at the University of Bonn. Presumably they were looking through the University's collections and wanted to make this (apparently quite obscure) journal known. Perhaps if we gave this new article some time to develop, a claim to notability might arise. At present, it does not look notable. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 22:59, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AleatoryPonderings, I'd be happy to see this result. Translatio.Uni-Bonn, if you can post sources/reasons for thinking this might meet WP:GNG or WP:NJOURNAL, I'd be happy to withdraw the nomination. // Timothy :: talk 23:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Two relists later and there has been no effort into improving this. Draftification should be reserved for situations where we have some reason to believe that improvement will occur, not as a back door to deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Translatio.Uni-Bonn has created a whole slew of similar articles, all without much sourcing. --Randykitty (talk) 08:34, 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. Noting the BLP concerns. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:37, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Saavedra[edit]

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

I question whether this journalist meets Wikipedia's notabilty criteria. Especially because this short bio mostly consists of incidents of his incompetence or unethical behavior. It might technically qualify as an attack page. There is also a chance that RMSdw, who is edit-warring on this article, is Ryan Saavedra from the Daily Wire who, along with RMSWA90, has only edited this one page. [Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the Two WaPo pieces, a CNN piece and in-depth Mediaite piece (which describes him as influential) are sufficient in terms of pointing to notability, but I don't have particularly strong feelings about it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:20, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. [23] and the Mediaite piece are possibly enough for WP:BASIC, but their reliability is not transparent to me. The other sources look like passing mentions. For a person whose MO is generating controversy by owning the libs, you'd expect to see a lot more … AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:43, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SOAP, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:COI. Dosafrog (talk) 13:39, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dosafrog I agree with you on deletion, as you can see, but I am mystified by your reference to that IP address. Frankly it smacks of WP:OUTING and I would suggest excising that portion of your comment. I just don't see how it's pertinent, frankly. Coretheapple (talk) 22:17, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coretheapple Yeah, I agree. I'll get rid of it. Dosafrog (talk) 04:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with nomination in every respect. Reads like a list of goofs. Coretheapple (talk) 14:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:JOURNALIST and WP:GNG. KidAd talk 08:17, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NJOURNALIST. Essentially WP:Attack page, therefore basic WP:BLP violation. Loksmythe (talk) 15:54, 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 Radio Free Roscoe. Consensus of no independent notability Nosebagbear (talk) 10:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Free Roscoe, Volume 1[edit]

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

Article about a television soundtrack album, referenced exclusively to its own liner notes with no evidence of any reliable source attention from any sources beyond itself. Albums aren't handed an automatic notability freebie just because they technically metaverify their own existence, however -- to establish their notability they need to have accomplished something that would get them over WP:NMUSIC, such as charting or winning notable music awards or having enough third party attention from media independent of themselves to pass WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 02:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Radio Free Roscoe - Don’t see why this needs its own article. Foxnpichu (talk) 10:46, 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 03:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Free Roscoe: Season One – Greatest Hits[edit]

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

Completely unsourced article about a television DVD, making no claim of notability except that it exists. Given the inappropriate external links to purchase pages on Amazon and Video Service Corp, I suspect that the purpose of this was to drive sales more than anything else -- but that makes them WP:ELNO violations, because helping topics drive traffic to their Amazon profiles for profit is not what Wikipedia is for. Something like this would need real reliable source coverage about it in media to establish its notability, not just technical verification from online video stores, to qualify for a standalone Wikipedia article as a separate topic from the series as a whole. Bearcat (talk) 02:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:52, 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 redirect to List of Radio Free Roscoe episodes. Sandstein 16:36, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the Key of F[edit]

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

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

Two completely unsourced articles about individual episodes of a television series, written entirely in-universe and featuring no real-world context (critical reaction, etc.) to establish the standalone notability of the episodes. As always, individual episodes don't automatically get standalone articles just because they exist -- they need to be the subject of reliable source coverage about the episode to warrant being covered separately from the series as a whole. And for a series which produced 52 episodes overall, there's no immediately apparent reason why these two would somehow be uniquely more notable than the other 50, either. Bearcat (talk) 02:44, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:44, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:44, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect both articles to List of Radio Free Roscoe episodes. Both articles fail WP:GNG and are not noteworthy because they were not nominated for awards or feature a significant event. A search on Google did not yield WP:RS. Z1720 (talk) 21:07, 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 02:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plymouth Rock Comedy Festival[edit]

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

Comedy festival that took place two years (2010 and 2011). 2012 and later editions never happened, per website. The one article in a reliable source, from the Boston Globe, isn't so much about the festival as an award being given ([24]). No WP:SIGCOV, fails WP:GNG. Raymie (t • c) 02:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 02:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 02:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:11, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:44, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ismaila Alfa[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a local radio host, not adequately referenced as clearing our notability standards for broadcasters. I originally created this as a redirect to our article about the show he hosts, but it was then spun out two months later as a standalone BLP by an editor who's under suspicion of being a sockpuppet of a previously banned user -- and that editor used just three footnotes total, of which two come from the subject's own employer and thus aren't notability-making sources as they aren't independent of him, and having just one hit of third party coverage in any other source besides his own employer is not sufficient in and of itself to claim that he gets over WP:GNG. As always, local radio hosts do not get an "inherent" notability freebie just for existing as radio hosts -- he needs either a stronger notability claim (e.g. noteworthy awards or hosting a national show) or considerably more sourcing than this before he qualifies to have his own biographical article as a separate topic from the show. I'd just redirect this back to the show myself, but I'm not interested in getting into an editwar with the other editor (who's very likely to spark one if they are who they're suspected of being) without backup. Bearcat (talk) 00:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 00:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 00:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable local level radio host.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:40, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NJOURNALIST and WP:NMUSICIAN. As a journalist, he has not been recognised or cited by his peers. As a musician, his music has not charted in Canada and has not been certified. I wish I could say "keep" but I think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. I found three sources with Google (excluding CBC, his employer): [25] [26] [27] but these do not confirm notability. JSTOR, Academic OneFile and ProQuest did not produce additional results. Canadian music charts did not provide any additional sources, either. Z1720 (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about her aside from her activities. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Him, not her. Just FYI. Bearcat (talk) 16:56, 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. Although limited participation the quality of the discussion is high with well argued delete arguments that have been tested Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Quinn (broadcaster)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a single-market radio broadcaster, not properly sourced as clearing our notability standards for radio broadcasters. As always, radio hosts are not automatically notable just because it's technically verifiable that they exist -- but the only advanced notability claim here is that he won a minor journalism award that doesn't get enough media coverage to be a notability-making award per WP:ANYBIO (as witness the fact that there are no sources indicating when he won it, or what piece or pieces of work he won it for). And of the nine footnotes, one is just a redundant repetition of one of the others, so there are really only eight sources -- but of those eight, three come from his own employer and one comes from a university j-school magazine, none of which are notability-making sources, and the four that are okay are all just same-day coverage of the initial announcement of his hiring for his job, with no evidence of ongoing coverage about his work in the job. This is not enough sourcing to make a single-station local radio host notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Bearcat (talk) 00:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 00:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 00:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable one market broadcast figure.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Firstly, I will acknowledge that Bearcat is a seasoned WP editor of good repute. So, I will not fault their judgement, and will not hesitate to go with what they finally decide. But, I find it hard to believe that this is an AFD that we should be chasing. I am a self-confessed "keep"ist, in that I would vote keep as long as there is a reasonable amount of material that exists out there that proves WP:NOTABILITY / WP:GNG. My rationale being that if something meets the bar (however low) and does not lower the quality, authenticity, and reliability of Wikipedia at an aggregate -- the article can stay. What is the marginal cost of a 'keep'. Zero, as long as it doesn't lower the quality, authenticity, and reliability of Wikipedia at an aggregate. Secondly, In today's OTT market, there is no concept of a "one-market broadcast figure". Without going into semantics, all shows produced are national (nay, make that global!). Thirdly, in keeping with standards for WP:BLP and WP:GNG, the subject of the article has coverage in multiple media sources, each being WP:RS in their own right -- Vancouver Sun [28][29] [30], The Globe and Mail [31][32][33], Georgia Straight [34][35], and CBC News [36](can't fault the owner to be a WP:RS news source as well). Fifthly, at the risk of being accused of WP:OSE please have a look at Category:CBC Radio hosts. Cheers and good luck. Ktin (talk) 23:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, Category:CBC Radio hosts is filled with hosts of national CBC Radio programming, not hosts of the local morning or afternoon shows in every individual city where the CBC airs local morning or afternoon shows — and no, for the purposes of passing our notability requirements for broadcasters, we don't reify local hosts into national hosts just because radio stations have web streams now.

And when it comes to the sources, you're not really building the case you think you are. From the Vancouver Sun, you've provided the initial announcement of his hiring and a blurb which just namechecks his existence as the moderator of an upcoming panel discussion — but we're looking for sources that are substantively about him, not sources that just mention him in the process of being about something else. From the Globe and Mail, you provided the initial announcement of his hiring and two links where he's not the subject of the pieces but the bylined author of them — but a person doesn't get an article by being the author of coverage of other things, he gets an article by being the subject of coverage written by other people. From the Georgia Straight, you've provided (yet again) the initial announcement of his hiring and the fact that he once won a category in its "Best of Local Stuff" reader poll — but local alt-weekly reader polls aren't notability-clinching awards in and of themselves. And when it comes to journalists, yes, we do consider coverage from the person's own employer to be less valuable than coverage from external sources — it's not a question of whether the CBC is reliable or not, it's a question of whether the CBC is independent of the subject or not. And even the context in which that CBC link exists — "woot woot, our employee was named in a listicle of prominent local figures in a local interest magazine" — still isn't a notability-securing context.

So in reality, all you've really shown that speaks to notability is a multiheaded WP:BLP1E blip of "person gets hired for job" pieces the day his hiring was announced, and nothing else that actually builds notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 12:40, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat, I am genuinely curious. Did you even click on the category link before making that statement that you have made above? Ktin (talk) 03:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I actually work with it on a regular basis, because Canadian media (broadcasting, literature and film) is literally my primary editing area on here. I will grant that CBC Radio has had a fair number of employees who crossed the local-vs-national distinction by having had local roles at one time in their career and national ones at another — people can Matt Galloway it by hosting a local show for years and then going national, and people can Jeff Douglas it by hosting a national show for years and then deciding to move on to one of the local shows because they're tired of the pace of life in Toronto and want to move back to a smaller city again. But if a person has crossed that divide, then their basis for notability is the national hosting gig, not the local one — and there are also sometimes cases where a person who has only been a local host and thus is not strictly notable as a broadcaster per se also has some other claim of notability besides broadcasting, such as writing (Waub Rice) or politics (Joann Roberts) or receiving the Order of Canada (Andy Barrie). But we don't deem local radio hosts notable for being local radio hosts per se — we do sometimes have articles about people who have other notability claims and then oh by the way were also local CBC Radio hosts at some point in their career, but that's not the same thing as deeming them notable because of the local CBC hosting gig per se. Bearcat (talk) 12:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Barely found anything about him aside from him taking over as host of CBC’s "The Early Edition", perhaps an indication of WP:BLP1E. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 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.