Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 September 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 31 August	2 September >

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vishaal Bhuyan[edit]

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

This is an ancient autobiography of someone who is a long way from meeting WP:BIO. SmartSE (talk) 23:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 23:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:BEFORE has shown no significant coverage in IRS. Less Unless (talk) 13:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Of the three sources in the article, 2 of them 404. The third has a broken URL, but if you go back far enough in the history, you can find a working version. Unfortunately, that just takes you to a generic page on https://continuumeconomics.com/. I did a little searching on my own and found nothing useful. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:21, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of governments supporting trap–neuter–return[edit]

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

Non-notable topic that is WP:LISTCRUFT. Fails WP:GNG. There are no citations in the article discussing "governments supporting trap–neuter–return"; the topic is part of WP:WWIN, specifically a WP:DIRECTORY. Normal Op (talk) 23:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 23:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 23:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The list is unclear- what governments and where? Just from a USA persepctive, "government" could mean a town, parish (or county, for everyone else), city, state, federal, etc. Expand that to cover the entire globe- Wikipedia being an online, international encyclopedia and all- and the list has the potential to grow to beyond what is manageable or useful.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 14:42, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The list is already just a random collection of information, without actually being even close to comprehensive.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom's reasoning // Timothy :: talk 04:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neuter per nom. This is a trivial distinction, no more notable than List of governments that collect garbage on Mondays. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:24, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ocean Roar, California[edit]

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

Durham calls it a locality along the Northwestern Pacific RR. Other sources say there was a wharf by this name. Old topo maps show a few structures alongside the railroad and not much else. No signs that it was ever a community or notable in any way. Glendoremus (talk) 23:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ads in early twentieth century newspapers (such as this one) describe Ocean Roar as a campsite. The only other mentions I could find of people living there are this article on the death of the camp's owner, and this article about a child dying there which is worded vaguely enough that it could be describing a camp too. There's nothing to establish that it was a community instead. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 13:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and NGEO // Timothy :: talk 14:06, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Missouri Tigers. Selective merge, per Rhododendrites. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:41, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

University of Missouri Intercollegiate Athletics Hall of Fame[edit]

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

Non-notable because it fails GNG, and it's a run of the mill school athletics hall of fame. GHITS only turns up primary sources, or just incidental mentions of this HOF when a new year of inductees are enshrined. SportsGuy789 (talk) 22:30, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See related AfD for the list of individual inductees. SportsGuy789 (talk) 22:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively to Missouri Tigers. Not seeing justification for a stand-alone article when it could be mentioned in the main article per WP:NOPAGE — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Athletically speaking the school is part is the SEC, Power five conference, a only one in the state of Missouri, so about as major as you get college sports wise. Grey Wanderer (talk) 04:09, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:25, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Autotech[edit]

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

I recommend this page be deleted, because it fails WP:Note There is also no real information, no updates in three years, and no, I've never heard this term used like this. In fact, I only found this page because I'm looking for information about a business with this exact name. Seems like something a creative journalist or manufacturer/marketer came up with. I see that there is another organization called The Autotech Council which appears to be an industry group, but nonetheless I do not think that "autotech" qualifies as an encyclopedic concept. It's more a recognition that technology is increasingly involved in automobile design. 130.45.43.153 (talk) 20:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination on behalf of IP. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An unusual non-wp:notable name for a range of topics that are covered elsewhere in Wikipedia. North8000 (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is mentioned in a number of reliable, independent sources of tech news but never in its own article. The news covers funding or is a list of software specs in a directory of other programs. Brad Thomas Hanks (talk) 17:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn per comments below.. (non-admin closure) ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 22:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cami[edit]

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

Not sure what this is. Appears to be a hoax of some sort. ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 22:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as either G1, G3, or A7. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 22:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and then redirect to Camisole as it was before the recent edits. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 22:13, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Prahlad balaji, it used to be a redirect to Camisole that was removed yesterday -- I've restored the redirect now. — Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: I've restored the AfD nom again and removed the vandalistic content for now. — Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:26, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Panties Productions[edit]

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

Subject is a defunct theater company. The references are both reviews of a play that the company co-wrote, and both in small local magazines. I found no non-routine coverage of the theater company. Paisarepa (talk) 21:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 22:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 22:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 22:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Defunct minor local theatre company. No significant coverage found. Softlavender (talk) 08:39, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Larkspur, California. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Murray Park, California[edit]

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

Durham calls it a district of San Rafael. There is a Murray Park Sewer District in San Rafael. Other than that, really nothing notable about it. Glendoremus (talk) 21:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Larkspur, California, to the extent that there's anything to really merge. Murray Park is described in newspaper accounts as a community, part of which is unincorporated and part of which is within the city of Larkspur. That being said, every article I could find about Murray Park discusses it only in terms of its relationship to Larkspur (see [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]). It seems like the area could easily be covered within the Larkspur article instead of having its own article. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 22:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:27, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shweta Pandit (actress)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. TamilMirchi (talk) 21:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 21:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 21:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:40, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article does not even come close to having the sourcing to show a passing of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 22:33, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Gambit (comics). -- RoySmith (talk) 01:28, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative versions of Gambit[edit]

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

Same as the currently five active AfDs on the topic, fails WP:NOTPLOT. This is not justified as a spinout when summary style writing can easily condense it into the most important points. There is no benefit to merging the existing content due to lack of real world information from third party sources. TTN (talk) 20:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a basic summary to Gambit (comics). BOZ (talk) 23:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge referenced parts of a summary to Gambit, if not already there. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:00, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There were a lot of [volume & issue needed], but I've added those sources to the page.108.208.137.15 (talk) 19:47, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I really fail to see why that page should be deleted, it's no different than a dozen other pages like it.[6]-HARDACAndroid (talk) 19:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HARDACAndroid: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS should answer your question. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as mostly plot info that could still be preserved. Archrogue (talk) 19:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge as plotcruft._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Storm (Marvel Comics). Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:40, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative versions of Storm[edit]

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

Same as the currently five active AfDs on the topic, fails WP:NOTPLOT. This is not justified as a spinout when summary style writing can easily condense it into the most important points. There is no benefit to merging the existing content due to lack of real world information from third party sources. TTN (talk) 20:55, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:55, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:55, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a basic summary to Storm (Marvel Comics). BOZ (talk) 23:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge referenced parts of a summary to Storm, if not already there. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:00, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as summary of plot info that could be preserved. Archrogue (talk) 19:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge as plotcruft._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:03, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This could be reasonably closed as either Keep or Merge to Thomas Fellows (author), with no obvious guidance on which one to pick, so I'm going with NC. What's clear is that this shouldn't be deleted outright, which is really the important thing AfD has to figure out. A merge is still possible, if talk-page consensus supports that. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:34, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Forget Self-Help[edit]

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

no apparent major reviews, and not worth a separate article. DGG ( talk ) 02:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see reviews in major Christian sources either, just local newspapers.. And all of the material is in the main article on the author in any case. DGG ( talk ) 19:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The target market audience for this book is Christian, and considering that the book got media attention in every single state in the South, a region that is majority Christian, he clearly hit his mark. Player825 ( talk )

@DGG: not surprising that there are no major reviews. Big papers, rarely, if ever, review Christian books. The fact that this book received this much media attention, in an era where papers rarely review books in the first place, is impressive.

With that being said, this book is a popular regional book, not a national best-seller. If the criterium for a book is only a national best-seller, the article should be deleted. Player825 ( talk ) —Preceding undated comment added 16:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC) Player825 ( talk )[reply]

good point. Player825 ( talk ) —Preceding undated comment added 19:08, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge back into author's page. Widely reviewed book per sources on those two pages. "Regional" isn't a reason to delete, and one of the reviews is from Minnesota, so it's not regional anyway. pburka (talk) 03:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

it is already extensively covered on the authors page. DGG ( talk ) 18:33, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect to Thomas Fellows (author). I think there's a good amount of coverage of the book at the authors article but it's also independently notable. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:54, 31 August 2020 (UTC) (vote edited Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It looks like there are plenty of book reviews, on this page and the author's page. That demonstrates notability for the book, and provides material for editors to expand this article further. I don't think that "it is already extensively covered on the author's page" detracts from the notability of the subject of this article. — Toughpigs (talk) 04:08, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Anybody is free to create the proposed redirect to Western baronets. Sandstein 07:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Thomas Western, 3rd Baronet[edit]

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

Subject appears to fail WP:BASIC and, of course, WP:NOTGENEALOGY. He held a number of local positions that aristocrats frequently held. Coverage I could find was only entries in genealogical works. His father was notable as an MP, but he is not. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I fail to see why he shouldn't be notable enough for an article - but the article in question could of course need some improvements. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 22:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Baronets unlike Dukes, Marquesses, Earls, Viscounts and Barons aren't peers of the United Kingdom. So unless a Baronet does some significant work to establish notability, I fail to see why they should have their own articles. Majority of the article's content about said baronet is about how he inherited his father's money and blew it off on boondoggle. Nothing that hasn't been seen before in history. Plus the article is of very poor quality and I don't see why any editor should have to clean-up another editor's mess for no apparent reason. TheRedDomitor (talk) 02:22, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:46, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not very substantial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.217.186 (talk)
Comment clear ATD - redirect to Western baronets if found non-notable. Boleyn (talk) 18:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:37, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Clinton Bogard[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:BASIC. Coverage is WP:ROUTINE, WP:MILL. Nothing that is WP:SIGCOV that addresses the subject directly and in depth. // Timothy :: talk 20:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 20:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 20:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, couldn't find anything beyond very local stuff...seems like enough info is in the Sartell article. Caro7200 (talk) 21:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mayor of a city with less than 20,000 people. Nothing even close to suggesting true notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:58, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Withdrawn (non-admin closure) Hog Farm _Bacon 20:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lethal Weapon 3 (pinball)[edit]

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

My PROD rationale was Non-notable pinball machine. There are no inline citations, but here follows an analysis of the four external links: three links to a user-generated database, and the primary source rules sheet. This looks user-generated. This apparently contains some reliable content per WP:VGRS, but the majority of the content on that page is clearly marked as user-generated, so it looks like only the basic specifications can be considered reliable there. Beyond that, it's sales sites, blogs, and user-generated sources. If deprodding, please give a rationale, and consider if there's any chance in the world this would survive an AFD., which I think is a fairly detailed rationale, as PRODs go. However, it was removed with a vague explanation of "per WP:DEPROD" despite the specific request for one. @Andrew Davidson: - I did a full WP:BEFORE before the PROD. Did you find anything useful before deprodding? Maybe I just missed something somehow. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:25, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:25, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:25, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:25, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Yes, you did miss something. This July 1992 issue of Cash Box magazine has a half-page review of the Lethal Weapon 3 pinball machine on page 25, and this November 1994 issue says on page 30 that "Lethal Weapon 3, which featured the HDHQ-2, a larger dot matrix display which, until now, was considered the industry standard. Lethal Weapon 3 went on to become the most successful pinball run in Data East pinball history." I believe that this demonstrates notability. Hog Farm, since you're looking for feedback about your WP:BEFORE, I would suggest searching on Internet Archive; it's very useful. — Toughpigs (talk) 20:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Toughpigs: - Thanks, withdrawing, it looks notable with these sources. If deprodders would point to sources on a talk page somewhere, it wouldn't have to go to nominations ... Hog Farm _Bacon 20:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:37, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jungle Lord[edit]

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

My PROD rationale was Only finding coverage in wikis, sales sites, blogs, and web forums. Clearly not a notable pinball machine. Deprodded by Andrew Davidson with a generic rationale. I did a second look for sources, and my PROD rationale still stands. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:22, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:22, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:22, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. – Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 20:25, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is a full review of Jungle Lord in this 1981 issue of Cash Box magazine on pages 37-38, detailing some innovative features of the game, including a Double Trouble drop target scoring challenge. There is also coverage in The Complete Pinball Book: Collecting the Game and Its History (Rossignoli, 2011) which discusses the game's release in the context of Williams' output, and highlights another new feature of the game. I added information to the article based on both sources. — Toughpigs (talk) 21:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Toughpigs is a pinball wizard – he's got such a supple wrist! Me, I must get one of those big pinball compendia but, for now, note that it was a top-selling machine back in 1981, as noted by Lodging Hospitality. For a detailed review, see Buffalo Pinball which, in summary, is great gameplay, shame about the art. And for a good technical walk-through of a rock star's customised model, see TNT Amusements. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Surprisingly, those pinballs are turning up to be more notable than me and some others thought. I think we should add Internet Archive search link to the find sources template. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:59, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to sources found and there is no appropriate merge target. Better to have a short article about this than nothing at all. Archrogue (talk) 19:41, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:12, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sahil Seth[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:BASIC. Coverage is WP:ROUTINE, WP:MILL. Nothing that is WP:SIGCOV that addresses the subject directly and in depth. // Timothy :: talk 20:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 20:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 20:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We can't have articles on Indian civil servants who are in the news for that mere fact. The news about him being appointed as an advisor to a BRICS steering committee (non-notable and transient position) is trivial coverage. - hako9 (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No WP:SIGCOV. --Ab207 (talk) 15:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Routine news coverage for appointment to a non-notable position. Otherwise not covered in RS. Generally only senior bureaucrats having served at important posts are able to meet the notability criteria. Roller26 (talk) 22:07, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:13, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Persaud[edit]

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

Non notable cricketer, has not played cricket at a level that satisfies WP:CRIN, with the previous PROD being removed because he plays for Atlantic Region, which doesn't play cricket at FC/LA/T20 level. StickyWicket (talk) 20:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 20:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 20:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable cricket player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:59, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:33, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment cannot recommend delete or keep at this point. Seems the article creator needs more time possibly make the article meaningful/notable. Dharp86 ^Dharp86 12:59, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. How on earth can he manage that, unless he arranges his own first-class, List A or Twenty20 competition for Persaud to play in? StickyWicket (talk) 14:26, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dharp86: - The Jamaica Tallawahs are playing in the first semi-final of the 2020 CPL as I type. Persaud was not in the starting XI, and unless they win this match to progress to the final (very unlikely) AND he plays in that match, he won't meet the notability requirements. At least not until he actually plays in a match. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The presumption of notability based on one match (or even a few matches) that is offered by NCRIC/CRIN has been debunked. If the required sources to meet GNG/BIO/SPORTBASIC do not exist now, even if he had played today, without a truly spectacular/match-winning contribution it's highly unlikely that the sources would arise tomorrow. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:45, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strange, must have missed that discussion on the project page... StickyWicket (talk) 18:21, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For those who truly may have missed something, there have been many discussions at WT:CRIC (including this current one in which you have commented), many recent AfDs (e.g. this & this, in which you have contributed) and this current discussion at WT:NSPORT (which you have also commented in). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 19:01, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

“The presumption of notability based on one match (or even a few matches) that is offered by NCRIC/CRIN has been debunked”, well the WT:CRIC discussion goes dead at the end of July (save for Lugnuts working on notable competitions) and the one at WT:NSPORT is ongoing, so no, nothing has been debunked, the discussion is, as you said, ongoing. StickyWicket (talk) 19:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus of the discussions (and outcomes of the AfDs) are clear, which is why discussion has moved on to the detail of rewriting the guidelines, removing the "one-match" criteria. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 20:13, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:47, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great Southern Wood[edit]

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

no reliable sources to show notability under WP:NCORP DGG ( talk ) 19:46, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 21:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 21:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I added a short Birmingham Business Journal notice as a reference but I don't see that or anything else found in searches as sufficient to demonstrate notability here. AllyD (talk) 05:47, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Betty Schueler[edit]

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

A wife-and-husband team of non-notable occult writers who both appear to fail WP:BASIC and WP:NAUTHOR. I could not find any reviews of their books. There is some coverage for a Betty Schueler who was a union organizer at BWI Airport, but I'm pretty sure these are different people.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:25, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:25, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:25, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 19:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Both articles should be deleted, but should there not be another one listing the other article, rather than there being a redirect here? Non-notable authors, fail WP:NAUTHOR, WP:GNG, WP:BASIC. Both articles created by a COI editor, and also edited by subject. Netherzone (talk) 19:58, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Netherzone: This was my first bundled nomination, so I could well have bungled it. I tried to follow the instructions here, but I may well have missed something re: redirects, etc? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @AleatoryPonderings:, I've never done a bundled AfD either, so am unfamiliar with the process. Perhaps another editor can take a look? Netherzone (talk) 20:26, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both - per Netherzone. Surprised they've been up this long. Probably only because no one noticed. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:08, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both per nom. What a good idea. one vote - two non notables removed. A twofer. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 14:47, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both As stated - this person is not notable, now if you could prove that she was the union organizer at BWI airport maybe we would have something. Maybe she would be willing to switch careers? Sgerbic (talk) 15:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Crabtree (journalist)[edit]

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

A former anchor on WSPA-TV who appears to fail WP:NJOURNALIST and WP:BASIC. Coverage I'm seeing is either primary ([7] – profile from his station) or very local ([8]). He was on TV for a long time, but I don't think that makes him notable. Previous AfD closed as no consensus with one keep !vote in 2013, so would be nice to get a clearer result this time. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable one-market broadcast journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:11, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Certainly fails WP:N based on what's in the article now, and my own (admittedly limited) searching didn't find anything better. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No objection to creating a redirect to Lake of the Ozarks if anyone sees a need. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:16, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Niangua Bridge[edit]

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

Looks like a non-notable bridge. I don't think bridgehunter.com, the one source, is particularly reliable, so that doesn't help with notability. While there's some similar features with the bridge described here, I think that link is for a different structure, probably the Little Niangua Suspension Bridge, based on the differences in information. This is apparently a different bridge, as the subject of this article closed in 2003, while the news article linked is from 2019 and indicated the bridge is still in use. Again, This appears to be a different structure. I'm not convinced this passes WP:GNG or WP:NFEAT. I've been prodding a lot of these non-notable bridge stubs, but I'm less confident on this one, mostly because of all the search engine noise for the Little Niangua Suspension Bridge, which is apparently sometimes known as the Little Niangua Bridge. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lake of the Ozarks. I also struggled to find sources because of a bridge with a similar name. I only found WP:ROUTINE coverage of things that happened at the bridge, or a mention in passing. Fails WP:GNG and WP:GEOFEAT. However, per GEOFEAT information can be included in an article with more notability, which Lake of the Ozarks has. Since there are no sources on the page, the info can't be merged. Z1720 (talk) 22:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 08:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete Something is seriously wrong here, because the Google car for some reason drove down someone's glorified driveway, where you can get a look at this thing and see quite clearly that it is no kind of truss or arch bridge, but is instead an ordinary girder bridge of the sort seen at nearly every highway overpass in the US. I seen no notability here; I'm not even convinced that it has a name. Mangoe (talk) 18:51, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as bridge cruft. Based on the bridgehunter photo, this seems like a big enough bridge to have something written about it, but somebody's got to come up with the WP:RS to show it meets WP:N. I'd be fine with moving to draft space to allow somebody to work on it, or even the redirect suggested above. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:49, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two Prime[edit]

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

paid for spam about a non notable crypto firm Praxidicae (talk) 18:23, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt it is clearly a non notable firm with possible paid editing COI concerns. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 18:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 19:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 19:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:NOTPROMO; there are also serious concerns of the creator being a WP:UPE. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 19:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't matter in this case who wrote it, it does meet WP:NCORP DGG ( talk ) 23:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NOTPROMO. --SalmanZ (talk) 09:51, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:50, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Night Club (1958 film)[edit]

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

An article about a Bollywood film, sourced only to (non-WP:RS) IMDb since creation in 2016. A WP:BEFORE search turned up only a 3-line plot synopsis in BFI, a blog, and the press pack. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 18:05, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not supposed to be an IMDb mirror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:55, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NFILM. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:06, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 11:16, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:31, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kahin Aar Kahin Paar[edit]

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

An article about a Bollywood film, sourced only to (non-WP:RS) IMDb since creation in 2008. A WP:BEFORE search turned up an entry without a plot summary in BFI, a blog, and the press pack. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 17:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not supposed to be an IMDb mirror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 21:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Pasting a comment that I posted on a similar AfD earlier this afternoon. This page follows many other pages that I have been observing in the last few weeks (and perhaps before that as well), of Indian films from the 1950-1980s, that have been showing up for deletion. By the current rules of WP:NFILM, they all fall short of the requirements, primarily because of the lack of English language online sources of reviews for these films, resulting in an undue number of films from the 1990s. This should be a topic of discussion for one of the India Projects, to think through at an aggregate rather than discussing each of the films on a one on one basis in an AfD. I agree with the high level sentiment that Wikipedia is not IMDB. However, in the same vein, Wikipedia is not just a replication avenue other recent online sources (read as recent newspapers). Ktin (talk) 18:23, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A search on कहीं आर कहीं पार shows several sources that discuss the film. This is just a passing mention and unfortunately this, this and this snippets are truncated, but if a 1971 Hindi film had a star with the stature of Joy Mukherjee and we can still find digitized versions of Hindi books that discuss it, notability is clear. The film magazines of the time would of course have reviewed it in depth, but they are unlikely to be online in search-accessible format. As Ktin points out, this probably should be discussed as a general issue at one of the India projects. We should not delete articles on films that are probably notable given their cast, director, budget etc. just because it is hard to find online sources. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES is not a valid argument to keep an article. Sources MUST be found and attributed. Also, just because they had notable cast, director, etc. does not mean the film is notable, as WP:NOTINHERITED applies. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:45, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concur (nom). If there are RS sources, add them. So long as they are WP:Verifiable, their language is irrelevant. If sources are found and added, and the article thereby saved - great, good result. But - enwiki requires articles to be sourced, and that is non-negotiable. This article currently fails that test. Narky Blert (talk) 21:17, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and JPL Spiderone 11:17, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:08, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeresere school[edit]

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

Non-notable primary school. Created along with several others, which will be joining this AfD shortly. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are also non-notable primary schools:

Delete only a very select few primary schools are notable and there is nothing indicating any of these schools are part of that extremely rare exception.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I redirected these articles some months back as I thought they were not notable. The creator removed the redirects, then the nominator redirected them again, and the creator once again undid the redirect. The articles are unusual in that we know an unusual amount of detail about their sanitary arrangements because of some field research they were involved in. This means the articles have an unusual number of atypical sources, but I don’t believe they establish notability. Mccapra (talk) 05:09, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete I totally disagree with this deletion of this article on a village school in Ethiopia. Thanks to sanitation reports we can illustrate the situation of such schools in developing countries. And the articles hold much more information than sanitation only. For schools in, say, England you are not harsh like that. See for instance this list of schools in just one county: List of schools in Surrey; most of those schools have their own page on Wikipedia! And such is the case for almost every district in the UK or US. So, Wikipedia will allow pages for schools of rich countries, but not schools of poor countries? This is not a case of "Run of the mill" and promotional language. That problem is related to, either school directors who would use Wikipedia for advertising their school, or professionals who would try to beef up their CV by making sure their school is on Wikipedia. Neither is the case here. However, if the same rules are applied for schools in developing countries and rich countries, only the elite schools of developing countries would be represented on wikipedia, which would give a wrong image of the state of the educational system. The few articles on schools in Ethiopia illustrate the daily struggle even for simple things like a toilet at school.Jnyssen (talk) 04:56, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - you do realize you point to a list article as an example of why we should keep these primary school articles, wherein not a single primary school on the list has a separate article?Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see but scroll down on that page and lots of grammar and private schools have a page. Roughly, for US and UK, about 40% of the schools have a page on wikipediaJnyssen (talk) 14:16, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "about 40% of the schools have a page on wikipedia" is false, why are you making up utter nonsense? Okay, I don't know if we have a correct number for that, but I can tell the schools we do have a page on are high schools; we do not have pages on elementary schools. Primary schools are not notable without extraordinary coverage. Reywas92^Talk 18:03, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the US if 1% of existing sub-high schools have articles I would be shocked. I am not sure we would even be at that percentage if we counted any school that covers below the high school level, clearly not if we limit it to high schools that are not high schools at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:58, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:46, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maniyani[edit]

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

Article is not sourced and is in a very poor state. According to [9], [10], and [11] the Maniyani are the same as Yadav. I redirected to Yadav, however this has been undone by the original author, so here we are. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 16:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:08, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:08, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 22:34, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. as WP:G4. The versions are not identical, but they have substantially the same issues with the same elinks. Primefac (talk) 14:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 Predictive Programming[edit]

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

Non-notable conspiracy theory. Praxidicae (talk) 16:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reasons as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9/11 In Movies Theory; somebody with the access should do a comparison to see if this is just a recreation of that, because it looks awfully familiar. XOR'easter (talk) 20:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to access some of the content...I agree. It's pretty much the same. Praxidicae (talk) 13:11, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wide agreement here that the subject does not meet our eligibility criteria. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Skoda[edit]

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

Non-notable businessman. Previously deleted at AfD, but with completely different content so this needs to be reevaluated. – bradv🍁 16:25, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete This is nothing more than free (or rather, I assume paid for but hosted for free here) PR about a guy who doesn't have a lick of actual independent, in depth coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 16:26, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pure puffery, no matter who wrote it. I'd support a speedy G11. DGG ( talk ) 23:26, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I couldn't find any credible source that doesn't look like a press release. – SD0001 (talk) 21:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definitely meets WP:NBIO. There are enough referenced, reputable external resources. The subject has been interviewed by Fortune, Forbes, Inc, Entrepreneur, News Herald, was a featured guest on Fox Business news a few times and so on. He raised $3 million to his first venture, and $26 million to the following ones, having in-depth articles about him and his companies. As always, there is room for improvement, but at the moment, I think deletion is unjustified. The article can be cleaned up a bit more instead.--38.130.110.27 (talk) 09:51, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To the person that posted the above Keep: Interviews are not considered good sources as they are first hand, unless the interview has some bio from the writer. Plus is there a reason you just randomly decided to vote on this from an IP rather than having a legit account? I suspect COI. Expertwikiguy (talk) 01:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with Lightburst user, this is a PR article created by the subject. They are not notable. Speedy G11! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:F6C0:EE0:E549:DE8A:61C0:22FE (talk) 02:45, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:11, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Theofilos Chrysochos[edit]

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

Article about semi-pro footballer who played 17 minutes in a fully-pro league (Cypriot top level) many years ago. Although WP:NFOOTBALL provides a presumption of notability in such cases, there is a longstanding consensus that the presumption is invalid when there is a comprehensive failure of WP:GNG (particularly when the footballer has played such an insignificant amount in fully-pro leagues). There is no online English- or Greek-language coverage of this footballer in reliable sources other than the most routine of mentions (e.g., [12]), so there is no way to demonstrate the article could satisfy the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 16:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a very brief summary of his career, and that was all I found on him, beside trivial references. Looks like he is currentry a player of Orfeas Nicosia. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 22:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - technically meeting NFOOTBALL is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively. Giant Snowman 11:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - very clear GNG failure which takes precedence over the borderline NFOOTY pass Spiderone 11:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete REDMAN 2019 (talk) 17:37, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Delaware Civil War units. Content can be merged from history. Sandstein 19:48, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sterling's Infantry Company[edit]

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

I hate to do this, because I'm very much interested in the American Civil War, but I'm not seeing how this is notable. WP:MILUNIT is generally not expanded all the way down to companies (except for artillery) for the ACW, as the battalion and regiment were the Land forces units that are capable of undertaking significant, or independent, military operations for that war. If this had ever seen any combat, that might be one thing, but it just guarded a railroad in the home front for less than a year. Besides Dyer, I'm not finding much. This may not be reliable, and appears to largely be a reprint of Dyer. This is an attributed copy of Dyer. It's too small to pass WP:MILUNIT, and one source (Dyer) and a bunch of reprints of it don't meet WP:GNG. I'm thinking that the best choice is to redirect to List of Delaware Civil War units, but as I can see this being controversial, I'm taking it here. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:05, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:05, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:05, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Delaware Civil War units. Fails MILUNIT due to size, and while there are a few exceptions to the idea that sub-units aren't notable, like ACW artillery batteries, they generally played an important role in multiple major battles. This particular company doesn't appear to have done anything notable except guard a railway line for under a year. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:07, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Reasonable exception to our usual rule about independent sub-units. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:52, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Delaware Civil War units: I don't think it's independently notable, but we might as well keep the little information present at the target article. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:49, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clearly little support for this rather odd deletion rationale. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:15, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cheng Lei[edit]

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

The subject fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. The sources cited in the article are unreliable. This article is about a male Chinese television presenter who has not got much wide media coverage at all compared to the Australian-Chinese journalist and television reporter Cheng Lei (journalist) who is a female with the same name. I hope that deleting this article will help to move Cheng Lei (journalist) to this title. It is important to avoid the miscommunication and misunderstanding of the article from the viewers perspective. Abishe (talk) 14:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 14:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 14:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 14:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; the Cheng Lei (journalist) has more relevance. -Hatchens (talk) 15:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A more notable person having the same name is NOT a valid rationale for deletion. Both the nominating statement and the above delete vote give no rationale for deletion other than "someone else is more notable". ~~I cannot judge the foreign-language sources provided so I won't !vote on this person's notability, but~~ Based on the new English sources added to the article, I am changing my !vote to "Keep", and the closer of this discussion should ignore the nominating statement as well as any votes that are based on "X is more notable than Y". Discussion of which person is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is separate from deletion discussions. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep English language source here[13], clearly provides that this guy is a notable Chinese tv host and would be unquestionably notable if he was from a western country. The fact that in a country of over a billion people some share the same name is not a rational cause for deletion, all the people listed at John Smith would be deleted then - atleast the likes of John Smith (cricketer, born 1834). GuzzyG (talk) 12:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GuzzyG --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:08, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If he hosted Idol and Top Gear in Australia, he’d be notable. Or at least no less notable than hundreds of other people we have bios for. The other Cheng Lei wasn’t well known before she was, erm "Shanghai'd". I wouldn’t mind if this was moved to another title and a DAB page added, if that would help avoid the false impression that this Cheng is somehow more prominent. Pelagic ( messages ) – (06:15 Thu 03, AEST) 20:15, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the host of this many tv shows is clearly notable, and as clearly stated above, someone sharing the same name is not a valid deletion reason. matt91486 (talk) 08:12, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:48, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vaibhav Walia[edit]

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

Biography of a politician whose only claim to notability is being the national secretary of the Indian Youth Congress. He was part of an election campaign team from Gujarat State assembly but never contested an election, let alone winning it. The provided references are mere passing mentions and I could not find significant coverage, Fails WP:GNG, WP:NPOL. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 14:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 14:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 14:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 14:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:NPOL, WP:GNG, as well as WP:ANYBIO. —usernamekiran (talk) 23:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 22:33, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:15, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Zirkle[edit]

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

This is an article about a non-notable failed political candidate that was already deleted once at AfD in 2006, but was recreated for some reason when it obviously shouldn't have been. As things currently stand, all of the references in the article except for one are dead links and the only thing he seems to have gotten any coverage for is attending a KKK rally. Which doesn't make him deserving of an article on it's own. So, this article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO, just like it did when it was originally deleted. Really, it shouldn't have been recreated. Adamant1 (talk) 13:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This guy has never even won a primary. He is one of very few politicians who I think needs to be evaluated under the rules about fringe figures, which in this case clearly show he is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:05, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:52, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:52, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People do not get articles just for being unsuccessful candidates in political party primaries — and no, being a perennially losing perennial candidate doesn't bolster his notability either — but nothing else here is any stronger as a claim that he would somehow be more enduringly notable than other unsuccessful candidates. Bearcat (talk) 17:00, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:10, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Oden[edit]

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

This article is about a non-notable local mayor who fails WP:POLITICIAN, because he hasn't held a high enough office. Nor is he a "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Especially since what little coverage there is on him in the article is extremely lackluster and doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG. Also, there is no evidence he is a "major political figure." Apparently he lost a run for state assembly or maybe he would be, but being a mayor of a local smallish (mid-sized?) town doesn't cut it. So, this article doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN. "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability Adamant1 (talk) 13:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Gleeanon409 (talk) 08:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable mayor of a not that significant place per the nominator's analysis.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 21:23, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 21:23, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per GNG/Basic, I found Reenergized, Ron Oden returns to Palm Springs politics, Former Palm Springs Mayor Ron Oden back for seconds, Former PS Mayor Ron Oden speaks out about seeking 2nd term, Candidate Q&A: Palm Springs Mayoral Candidate Ron Oden, Palm Springs’ first openly gay Black mayor discusses changes city should make, Pride: 10 prominent Black pioneers, Honoring With Pride: Greater Palm Springs Pride recognizes recipients of its 2019 Pride Honors Awards for furthering LGBTQ causes in the Coachella Valley., Black History Month: 11 black LGBTQ trailblazers who made history, Out in the Sun: Palm Springs has transformed into an LGBTQ destination spurred by political change and a hot real estate market, A different kind of Eden: Gay men, modernism, and the rebirth of Palm Springs, Phenomenological study of transformational leadership characteristics. Gleeanon409 (talk) 09:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is some local coverage, but not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to pass WP:GNG, and clearly doesn't pass WP:NPOLITICIAN.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless somebody can actually improve the article. The notability test for mayors is not automatically passed just because his name shows up in the local media where it's expected to show up, or because it's possible to find technical verification of the election results, or even because it's possible to verify a few stray facts about his personal life — the notability test for a mayor is passed by the ability to write substantive content about the concrete significance of his mayoralty: specific things he did, specific city-building projects he championed, specific effects he had on the city's development, and on and so forth. But I'm really not seeing very much of that here — supporting local organizations doesn't make him special in and of itself as that's not unusual for a mayor to do, so the most substantive such claim here is an unreferenced assertion that he doubled the city's budget, which isn't enough all by itself if there's very little content about what that extra money was spent on. Basically, to make a mayor notable enough for inclusion, there has to be a lot more meat to his article than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:09, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable as first gay black mayor. There is a decent amount of coverage for the man. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 17:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while onel5959 points out he does not appear to pass WP:POLITICIAN, which requires "Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels", the guideline also states "although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline". Given the secondary coverage of him, this should be okay. Sxologist (talk) 00:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The coverage in the Advocate - along with the claim in the Advocate that the subject's win was covered by Good Morning America and Le Monde suggest that the subject is much more notable than most and passes WP:NPOL (see WP:POLOUTCOMES) and WP:GNG. --Enos733 (talk) 16:11, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:06, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hardly call Good Morning America an in-depth reliable secondary source. There's only a single source that mentions it also and he doesn't come up on the actual Good Morning America site anywhere. So, it's a questionable claim IMO. Even if it wasn't though, there's zero evidence Good Morning America covered him in an in-depth way and it would also be extremely laughable to say they are reliable for anything. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:11, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My claim is not that the substance of the GMA or La Monde articles would pull the subject over GNG, it is that there is reliably sourced information that the subject's mayoral victory was covered (or at least mentioned) in national and international press. This make the subject more notable than most. In fact, if you read WP:POLOUTCOMES, it almost is if it was referring to this subject. --Enos733 (talk) 15:47, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For reasons cited by User:Editorofthewiki User:Sxologist and User:Enos733. WP:Not paper. Indeed, the article and the cited sources are not what they were when this was nominated for deletion. WP:Before and WP:HEY. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:17, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per citations in article establishing notability beyond just-another-mayor. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:57, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Major coverage in Los Angeles Times should be sufficient. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:18, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree being black gay mayor plus Los Angeles Times enough to establish notability.

TruthLover123 (talk) 00:59, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Got more than just local coverage. Dream Focus 03:54, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:10, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merritt E. Cornell[edit]

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

I'm not seeing anything notable enough about this pastor for the article to pass either WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Since all the references in the article are primary or extremely local (but still primary) and nothing comes up about him a search except for passing brief mentions in a few books about other people. He did write an anti-"spiritualism" (according to him spiritualism is demonic delusion. Who would have guessed?), but there's zero evidence that it had any impact on anti-spiritualists. Whoever they are, or where during the time he wrote it. So, he's not even notable as an author. Adamant1 (talk) 13:22, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 21:25, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 21:25, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 21:25, 1 September 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) 22:30, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2017-06 ✗ G12

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:47, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson H. Barbour[edit]

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

This author doesn't seem notable. All the references in the article are primary except for a basic obituary listing. I couldn't find anything even slightly resembling multiple in-depth reliable sources about him either. While it looks like he's written two books, there's no evidence either one is notable at all. Let alone enough for him to notable for writing them. So, this article fails both WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Adamant1 (talk) 13:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 21:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 21:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 21:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -Couldn't disagree more. Barbour has long been recognized as very influential in the field of religious studies, especially in the history of the Adventist movement and the Bible Students (one group of which became the Jehovah's Witnesses). Just some works that highlight this: Dr. George Chryssides (Jehovah's Witnesses:Continuity and Change 2016 Ashgate Publishing); Dr. Zoe Knox (Jehovah's Witnesses and the Secular World 2018 Palgrave Macmillan); and Dr. M. James Penton (Apocalypse Delayed: The Story of Jehovah's Witnesses 1985, 3rd Edition 2015 University of Toronto Press). And those are only the books I literally have on my desk at this moment, all by respected scholars in the fields of religious studies and history. There are more. While the article certainly needs work, and I will dedicate what time I have atm to improving it, he is noteworthy enough to have an article. Definitely passes WP:GNG and WP:NBIO.Vyselink (talk) 00:16, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As indicated by Vyselink, subject is notable in the scope of Jehovah's Witnesses and the Bible Student movement, and (to a lesser degree) Adventism generally. The Find sources template readily indicates that there are sources both by and about Barbour.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:42, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of sources are available (such as [14]) which are significant. – SD0001 (talk) 21:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has reliable sources coverage as identified in this discussion that show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:28, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My guess is that all the sources provided in the first vote are just passing mentions. Since they are about Jehovah's Witnesses and the only connection he seems to have to them is that he published a magazine that later became the Watcher Tower. So, it's extremely unlikely they involve in-depth coverage of him, because zero to do with the Jehovah's Witnesses church outside of that. None of the sources are specifically about him either. There isn't anything in-depth on him anywhere else that I could find either. Despite the second voter self righteously harping on me about using the Find sources feature. Which I did and only came up with trivial crap. Him writing stuff doesn't mean jack squat to this despite the completely false claim that it does and there are no sources "about him" anywhere. Nor does the role he played in the church Seventh-day Adventist church matter. Likely it was squat, because the sources being provided aren't from or about the Seventh-day Adventists. Yet that's supposedly where his claim to fame comes from. I never said he wasn't mentioned anywhere anyway, that's not the standard for notability though. Multiple reliable in-depth reliable sources about him is and I don't see them existing anywhere. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm the 'second voter' (with my whole two sentences supposedly constituting 'self-righteous harping' 🤦‍♂️), but neither I nor anyone else mentioned Seventh-day Adventists, which is a more specific topic than Adventism generally. No one claimed Barbour was significant to the SDAs in particular.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:07, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would call mentioning the find sources template as if I didn't use it when I did the AfD a little self-righteous. Anyone with a basic understanding of the AfD process knows it's not just about "sources." Otherwise, we could all use Twitter as one and call it a day. As far as Barbour being significant to the SDAs, his connection to them is mostly what the article is about, it's the first thing mentioned in the introduction, and the article is part of a series on Adventism. Last time I checked JWs aren't an Adventist domination. If he's not significant to SDAs in any way though as your claiming, great. All the more reason to delete the article. Since it's apparently mostly making false claims by saying he is important to SDAs and giving his connection to them undue (or really any) weight. I think TNT would apply in that case. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:37, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please back away from the dead horse. It seems that the editor is (still) unaware that Adventist does not mean the same thing as Seventh-day Adventist (a significant subsection). Neither anyone at this AfD nor the article about Barbour claims he was a Seventh-day Adventist. The Adventist origins of Jehovah's Witnesses and the Bible Student movement, including Russell's association with Barbour, George Storrs and others, are well established.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:42, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BASIC: [15], [16], [17]. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Per WP:G10 as mentioned by several !voters. There is no need to draw this discussion out. We are also already venturing into WP:SNOW delete territory Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn Gentry[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO1E applies. WP:BLPCRIME requires convictions, not accusations or investigations, lest we generate attack pages. Without the coverage of this judge's apparent misconduct, I posit the subject is a low-profile individual. Chris Troutman (talk) 12:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 12:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 12:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 12:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, this is simply news. Caro7200 (talk) 13:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable and violation of BLP. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 14:22, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G10 (attack page) and maybe REVDEL and salt. Nothing but an attack article on a non-public figure, who has been accused but not convicted of several things. Take out the NOTNEWS BLP violations and there is nothing left to put in the article. Wikipedia should not be hosting this. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I blocked the author of this - it's an edit pattern very similar to UPE spammers, except this time the content is different. MER-C 16:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG. Also, meets criteria for WP:ATTACK, I agree with HouseOfChange. Angus1986 (talk) 17:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G10. Normal Op (talk) 17:25, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is time to rid Wikipedia of unsourced articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:48, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon October[edit]

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

This musician doesn't seem notable. What little coverage there is out there about him is in relation to a single event, him being a runner up on a reality show. Which doesn't pass the standard of Wikipedia not being a news source and I don't think it passes the notability standards for musicians either. Outside of that, his musical career seems pretty unremarkable otherwise. There isn't even a listing for him on AllMusic. So, the article fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, and WP:NMUSIC. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:50, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:46, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:46, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet any of our inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:04, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 20:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Al Ahly SC Stadium[edit]

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

There is no stadium in egypt named Al Ahly sc staduim But there is Al Salam Stadium (Al Ahly we Al Salam) --احمد سامي (talk) 12:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Al Salam Stadium (Egypt) is current stadium, lack of sources about this 'new' one. Giant Snowman 11:20, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:15, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:15, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 10:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Passes WP:GNG and WP:NFILM as highlighted in the discussions (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 17:30, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Truck Driver (1994 film)[edit]

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

Non notable film, nothing found to support it's notability claim in a WP:BEFORE except film database sites and youtube videos. Tagged for notability for 3 years. Donaldd23 (talk) 11:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 11:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 11:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep-- Initially, I was skeptical about finding anything online, a real shame because it's one of the most notable Nepalese films. It turns out I was wrong; I had planned to argue with some WP:HEY but it's no longer certain that I'll be able to continue editing. As such, I am leaving this here, for others to pick it up, if they can.

WP:GNG -- This, this and this have SIGCOV, but there seems to be some overlap, so it's not a comfortable pass of GNG. But for a pre-internet film from an LDC, this is a strong proof of WP:NEXIST, especially considering the years that had passed between the film and these coverages.
WP:NFILM -- According to sources, it is the career-defining film of Ashok Sharma (I am shocked that this person does not seem to have an article, proof of his notability is also in the sources above). It was the first film he directed, employing everyone on credit (without paying), and when the film was completed, no one would show it. So, he had to show it in "hi(gh?)-vision video halls", whatever those are, instead of real movie theatres. From what I gather, the real theatres ran his film after it started making profit, making some sort of an exception to their rule of only running Nepalese films if they were made by the Royal Film Corporation. The film became so successful that he cleared all his debt and had leftover with which to make more films (he remains an established figure in the industry today). This piece on the history of Nepalese cinema mentions the film as an example (to make a comparison between old style comedic films and new ones). This list of best Nepali films mentions Truck Driver as one of the most important films of the Nepalese industry. This piece uses it for examples of Nepalese films set on the road. This one mentions it among the notable films of Sri Krishna Shrestha. This source (repeat mention) says the film celebrated hundred days, which makes it one of the most successful films in Nepalese cinema (if there were a Nepal specific SNG for films, celebrating 50 days would be one of the criteria). Some of these points directly support some of the criteria outlined at NFILM. As a whole, I believe, this is sufficient evidence to presume existence of an abundance of contemporary sources in the offline archives. The almost GNG-meeting SIGCOV presented above is more than sufficient to maintain a well-sourced start-class article for now.

Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 20:16, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as reliable sources identified above establish that this was a significant film in Nepalese cinema so it should be included in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 00:30, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG and NFILM as per Usedtobecool's extensive analysis above. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:44, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Pop[edit]

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

Dubious WP:notability (music) and promotional tone. Use of first name suggests COI too Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable indeed, and very promotional. He does not even have a page on nlwiki. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 13:24, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was article has been speedy deleted per G7. (non-admin closure) – The Grid (talk) 19:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of the most successful association football clubs by country–CONCACAF[edit]

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

Although being the creator of this article, I am dubious if this article should be on Wikipedia, I'm not also sure if it qualifies for WP:NOS or not. If this article qualifies for WP:NOS and shouldn't be deleted, then I can continue on with the other articles (i.e. The CAF, AFC,UEFA,OFC and CONMEBOL versions). Josedimaria237 (talk) 09:34, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - LISTCRUFT/OR/SYNTH. Giant Snowman 10:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This was duplicated by a second nom which I closed, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the most successful association football clubs by country–CONCACAF (2nd nomination). Pinging Lugnuts who also commented there. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GiantSnowman Spiderone 15:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yeah, fails WP:FANCRUFT. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close. Duplicate nomination; closing this one so the other can remain open (non-admin closure) –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of the most successful association football clubs by country–CONCACAF[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Although being the creator of this article, I am dubious if it qualifies for WP:NOS. I don't know if it should be deleted or be improved, but if it shouldn't be deleted, then I would like to continue on with the remaining articles (the AFC, CAF, CONMEBOL, OFC and UEFA versions). Josedimaria237 (talk) 10:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:05, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 September 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You can probably tag it for speedy deletion, being the main author, with the other edits being bots cleaning up things. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:39, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 11:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Artificial General Intelligence Research Institute[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NORG. I found [18] (passing mention). Tagged for notability for over 10 years. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 06:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 06:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 10:08, 1 September 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, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussions: 2007-01 Bruce Klein ✗ DELETE

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:17, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of nicknames in association football[edit]

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

For the exact same reasons as:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of association football players by nickname Spiderone 10:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 10:13, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - every club has a nickname, lots of players do, stadiums, fan groups etc. etc. - no need for a central depository of that information. Giant Snowman 10:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There's no rationale as to why these few have been singled out and all the hundreds and thousands of others aren't included as well. Spiderone 11:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and GiantSnowman. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 13:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Too fancruft-y if you ask me. And it is impossible to list every nickname somebody has. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP There are blue links to articles so its a valid list article. Iron Curtain (football) Quality Street Gang (Celtic F.C.) Fergie's Fledglings Golden generation Busby Babes Crazy Gang (football) and other nicknames have their own articles. A list article that aids in navigation and groups liked things, is a valid one. Dream Focus 18:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Nicknamed groups of association football players Dream Focus 14:54, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Far too broad a scope to be a useful article. In theory this could be expanded to nicknames for every club, ground, player and coach. Number 5 7 12:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep fulfills WP:NLIST criteria. WP:NOTPAPER Lightburst (talk) 14:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide evidence that this has been discussed by reliable sources Spiderone 14:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE, as well as the fact that at the time of this edit there isn't a single citation. Seems suspiciously like WP:OR. Inter&anthro (talk) 22:40, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:30, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 11:42, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James Lamont (writer)[edit]

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

Probably self-authored, non-notable. See more detail in Imaginetigers' comment on the talk page. Wiki Macaroons^Cinnamon? 09:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Wiki Macaroons^Cinnamon? 09:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. This article is a complicated one. Firstly, the article is clearly self-authored, but has been edited down to be an unbiased stub. The main crux is that the subject doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY for authors. Criteria 1, 2, and 4 are not met; Criterion 3 is muddled. Subject is credited for four episodes of BAFTA-winning sketch show The Armstrong and Miller Show, but twenty-two writers are credited for season two (the BAFTA-winning one) of that show. Lamont does not even appear as one of the main writers: https://www.comedy.co.uk/tv/the_armstrong_and_miller_show. You have to go looking for him. Given the nature of sketch productions, and that Lamont's contributions have not merited any significant attention elsewhere, I argue that the subject fails regarding Notability. Originally, the article would have been nominated specifically for W:NPOV, but has been cleaned up to remove references to the things he studied at school and found interesting (unsourced). The issue, as I see is, rests exclusively on Notability concerns, which I feel it fails. Imaginestigers (talk) 09:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Railway Series. Tone 09:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Skarloey Railway[edit]

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

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 English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. At best, this can be redirected to Sodor (fictional island), but I doubt that article will last long either. Interested editors may be better off integrating this content with https://ttte.fandom.com/wiki/Skarloey_Railway sooner rather than later. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:20, 1 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} 09:20, 1 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} 09:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 17:13, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with The Railway Series: This is just one route among the few on the Island of Sodor. As such, it properly needs merging. -- Whiteguru (talk) 12:46, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. A bit here from the railroad it's based off of, insignificant coverage here, but not much else. Redirect to Sodor (fictional island), where it's mentioned and briefly described. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I note that the article expanded six-fold from the time it was nominated until now and is effectively a different article altogether. Mackensen (talk) 15:46, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paul C. Gartzke[edit]

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

Fails WP:JUDGE and and WP:USCJN. Note- Wisconsin Court of Appeals isn't a state wide position. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - does anyone from Wisconsin know if he had administrative powers as a Presiding Judge? Bearian (talk) 14:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A presiding judge manages one of the four appellate districts in the state [19]. The chief judge manages the states' entire appellate system. Royal broil 04:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Salvio

08:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete judge at sub-state level. He topped out one notch too low - head of one of four appellate courts in the state of Wisconsin. I could see a case for chief judge of the appellate court [20]. Royal broil 04:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 August 24.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep none of the rationale here is sufficient for deletion. The notability guidance referenced in earlier comments are not the minimum standard for an article to be retained (otherwise half of Wikipedia would be deleted)—they're standards to confer automatic notability. Failure to meet those automatic notability standards would not make an article automatically "not notable". There's a vast space of ambiguity between automatic notability and insignificance, which is why this process exists. Furthermore, from the deletion considerations for notability: "The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth." Simply put, the burden of proof in deletion discussion is on those seeking to delete the article. The only review that seems to have been done here was a quick determination that the judge is not elected by a state-wide vote. Additionally, the "state-wide" guidance is being badly misapplied here—at least in Wisconsin, all published Appeals Court rulings have statewide effect and create statewide precedent, even though the judges are elected in four geographical regions for administrative purposes. Only a fraction of their decisions are ever reviewed by the state supreme court. The Appeals court is effectively the court of final review for more than 90% of cases in the state. There's a vast difference between circuit judges, which are more like county officers, and appeals judges, whose decisions can alter state law. I'll make an effort to dig up more of Gartzke's important cases, but as a general rule every judge of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals is at least as notable as any Wisconsin state senator. --Asdasdasdff (talk) 04:53, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The position on an intermediate appellate state court is itself insufficient to confer notability, and I can see no other basis for notability. Asdasdasdff argues that the court makes law for the entire state; that's a fine argument for the notability of the court; but not an argument for each of the individual members of the court (none of which can make any law except as part of a majority of the notable court). Being on a notable court does not itself confer notability. Notability stands or falls on the subject of the article, not the institutions with which the individual is associated. WP:NOTINHERITED. TJRC (talk) 17:12, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to clarify the facts of how this court works -- their rulings do not require a majority of the court, but a majority of a three-judge panel -- Which gives every individual judge far more influence over the state laws than any 1 of the 99 state assemblymembers whose notability is all presumed due to their membership in the state legislature. And again, reading the deletion guidance, even if an article does not clearly meet the "inherent notability" standard that does not mean it must be deleted. There is a burden of proof on the deletion advocates to do thorough research of the individual subject, search related news articles and other sources to determine that the subject of the article is actually redundant or not significant. Furthermore, the "intermediate level judge" guidance says clearly that such an office is "strong evidence of notability" -- I've seen no effort on the part of any deletion voters to look into any of these deleted judges to determine whether or not they are actually individually noteworthy -- which the deletion guidance clearly states is required work. --Asdasdasdff (talk) 19:57, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think you can safely assume that other editors commenting here understand how courts work. Your selective quotation from WP:USCJN omits some important parts: "holding such a position is strong evidence of notability that can be established by other indicia of notability". No other indicia of notability have been cited here, nor do any appear to exist from my own searches. If you have some, please bring it forward.

Do not confuse "strong evidence of notability" with inherent notability. Any suggestion that WP:USCJN introduces a rebuttable presumption of notability is not well-founded. TJRC (talk) 17:14, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Not trying to suggest you don't know how courts work, apologize if that was implied, but the point of my statement was to make the specific judicial system in Wisconsin clearly understood for whichever admin makes the decision on this AFD -- that these judges alter state law with 2 out of 3 judges in a panel, and that this court does not require (and I'm not sure it even has a mechanism for) a majority of 9/16 judges who serve on the full appeals court.

I don't confuse "strong evidence of notability" with inherent notability. I discussed my rationale extensively. But the more important point in AFD is to not assume "inherent notability" is the only standard for notability -- in fact it is the highest standard for notability. But setting that aside, the principal point here is that (unlike some other state appellate courts) the Wisconsin appeals court is a state-wide court, which alone is sufficient to satisfy WP:JUDGE. Being a member of this court is more notable than being a member of a state legislature (of which all members are considered inherently notable regardless of any other indicia). They are notable because of the power they hold/held as a result of that membership. In both cases the individual member can directly alter the laws of the state, but in this court it only takes 2 judges. There's a massive bias in media and public attention toward the importance of legislators and an irresponsible neglect for the role judges play in setting our laws and rights and therefore the structure of the economy and the society we live in. As I said before, more than 90% of the rulings of these judges are never reviewed and 2 judges concurring can have massive effects throughout the state. The individuals are hugely consequential in the system of government and the lack of reliable information about these officeholders has been a disservice to the public. We have to begin to correct the irresponsible neglect of the court system and the judges who make up the system. --Asdasdasdff (talk) 17:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the WP:GNG and none of the keep arguments are compelling. Especially the ones made by Asdasdasdff. Who cut and pasted the exact same crap about how voters where just lazy, didn't look into it, and don't understand how courts work into 6 other AfDs about judges. Yet the user never provided any sources in any of them that would help them pass WP:GNG. I guess they were to busy attacking people to find any. Lazy indeed. So.....Delete it is. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:46, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if this is the worst argument to delete I ever saw at AFD, a;though at a certain age, it’s hard to recall. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 00:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully not, because last time I checked citing something not passing WP:GNG is usually pretty standard fair in AfDs. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:44, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No case made for deletion. By policy/guideline, simply holding the position is strong evidence of notability. No evidence to the contrary has been proffered. Strong evidence weighted against none must result in a keep outcome. Moreover, despite the blathering of editors who want to delete this article, there is further evidence of notability. The subject served on the court for eighteen years. One would have to be remarkably innocent of knowledge of the US judicial system to believe that a judge could sit this long at this level without making decisions receiving press coverage and writing opinions that are reviewed, discussed, critiqued, etc. No doubt there are a small percentage of judges on this court who have insignificant tenures -- my home state was once notorious for promoting judges approaching imminent retirement to appellate level, whereupon they promptly took "senior" status, thereby boosting their retirement pay without more than token service on the court they were appointed to. This is not such a case. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 00:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has been adequately expanded by Asdasdasdff to justify inclusion. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:16, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Otto Erb[edit]

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

No evidence that he meets WP:BIO. I couldn't find any Google News results about him, and general Google hits are restricted to databases or primary sources.

WP:NSPORTS was changed yesterday to include medalists at the wheelchair curling world championships[21], but this addition was only based on a local consensus of the curling project, and not checked at the general nsports discussion page. It seems that it can't be automatically assumed that medalists are notable for that reason alone (many are already notable as e.g. medalists at the Paralympics). Fram (talk) 07:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 07:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 07:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 07:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 08:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The change to WP:NSPORTS has been reverted, so the subject needs to pass WP:GNG. My searches do not turn up any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. If such coverage is presented, I remain open to reconsidering. Cbl62 (talk) 12:49, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nominator "general Google hits are restricted to databases or primary sources" --> Several secondary sources can be found via Google: one example here SportsOlympic (talk) 12:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- You want to keep a curling medal winner based on a source which doesn't mention curling at all? Fram (talk) 13:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes. If a person meets GNG, the article should be kept. Nice to see the room for improvement. SportsOlympic (talk) 14:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Are we sure that's the same person? power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it was the same person, we're talking about a short profile of a candidate for city council of a Wohlen, Aargau, a city of 16,477 persons. Such coverage is plainly insufficient under WP:NPOL. Cbl62 (talk) 00:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. It probably (though not abxolutely certain) is the same person, but this is a very local news story about a political candidate for a town council, and as such is not indicating any notability. Fram (talk) 06:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For sure it's the same person. here a short story about him and wheelchair curling. Also see in the article it's the same date of birth and he is in a wheelchair. SportsOlympic (talk) 08:12, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say he meets WP:NPOL, nobody says that. We should discuss he meets WP:GNG. The sum of everything. Being a local politician with many secondary sources coverage, being a wheelchair curler winning a main medal. And local news is enough for meeting WP:GNG. SportsOlympic (talk) 08:17, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, local news is normally not considered towards notability. E.g. for companies, we have WP:LOCALCOVERAGE. For politicians, only "major" local politicians are supposed to be notable, a councillor in a small village is not in that category. Oh, and where are the "many secondary sources" you claim? So far, you have provided one about his political career, and none about his curling career. Fram (talk) 08:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please show this guideline for "local news is normally not considered towards notability"? A discussion at WP:NSPORT I recently started states the opposite. Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 36#Is everybody reaching GNG notable?. Please read before stating something: I provided above two.SportsOlympic (talk) 08:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For politicians? No. He hasn't received any attention, local or not, for his sports career. And above, you provided one secondary source, the other, the "short story about him", is not an independent source but a publication from the "inhabitants council" from his village where he is voted their representative in the finance council, and contains a very brief bio of him; while this verifies information, it doesn't count towards notability at all. Fram (talk) 09:26, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again please show this guideline for "local news is normally not considered towards notability"? Also I would like to see were in GNG guideline is stated that a secondary source should have information, in this case, about curling. SportsOlympic (talk) 09:47, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have no "notability" sources about his curling so far, all we have are sources (or to be more precise, a source) about his political career. The coverage for his political career, as has been said, doesn't meet the requirements of WP:NPOL for local politicians. Where a specific guideline is more strict than the rather loose GNG, the requirements of that specific guideline take precedence (or, if you prefer, subjects are supposed to meet both the GNG and the specific guideline). Otherwise, it wouldn't make sense to have guidelines which are more strict than the GNG at all of course. If he would meet the GNG for efforts unrelated to his political career, then of course "but he doesn't meet NPOL" is not a good argument. But in this case, as the source is about the politician, not about the curler, "he doesn't meet NPOL" is a perfectly valid argument, and it is up to the people wanting to keep this to provide sources that show that he does meet NPOL, or sources about something else (like his curling) which may give him notability. Fram (talk) 10:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete short profiles on candidates for city council in cities under 20,000 people never add to any sort of notability at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:52, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdraw by nominator, WP:SNOW keep. (non-admin closure) ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 02:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Normski[edit]

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

Not very notable rapper Rathfelder (talk) 07:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 07:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:00, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep terrible nomination rationale, individual meets WP:N. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 07:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plenty of references already and the nomination gives the impression that the nominator hasn't read the article - he's far more notable as a TV presenter than as a rapper. The nominator also most certainly didn't follow WP:BEFORE. In any case, I've beefed up the referencing even more, it's an easy keep. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 07:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - major figure in Black British culture. Article needs more work. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:13, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The coverage from the BBC and the Evening Standard is reliable. — Toughpigs (talk) 13:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to withdraw now there are decent references. Rathfelder (talk) 16:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:N has non-trivial coverage in RS, Here, here. The person is much more notable for photography than music. Lightburst (talk) 04:15, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:23, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marcel Miska[edit]

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

Non-notable Actor that fails to satisfies WP:NACTOR and WP:RS. Also some refs appears an attempt at WP:REFSPAM, i have removed some just thought i should bring it here. Possible WP:PROMO. Lapablo (talk) 06:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 06:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 06:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 06:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete non notable author/actor, paid for against our TOU. No coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 16:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete preferable by speedy as violation of tou; undeclared paid editor--and this would be nonnotable in any case. DGG ( talk ) 18:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:35, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:23, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Claremont Colleges Rugby Football Club[edit]

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

I'm not very familiar with sports notability, but the two athletics teams for the Claremont Colleges, Pomona-Pitzer Sagehens and Claremont-Mudd-Scripps Stags and Athenas (both Division 3), were barely considered notable themselves, so I had concerns when I came across this page, and my inquiry at the sports WikiProject leads me to believe an AfD discussion is needed. There is a bunch of coverage from The Student Life, the Claremont Colleges' newspaper, and the team seems fairly successful, but WP:RSSM states a topic which can be sourced almost exclusively to student media, with little or no evidence of wider coverage in mass market general interest media, is not likely to be viewed as passing WP:GNG on the basis of student media coverage alone. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As nom, I'll refrain from !voting initially since I feel WP:UNQUALIFIED. If found non-notable, the page should probably be redirected to Claremont Colleges#Athletics. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 06:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No reliable sources, as nom said, student publications do not pass GNG. The page also seems a bit of a mess, external links in the body and a whole section called "Pending" — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 08:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vinitha[edit]

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

Couldn't find any sources. TamilMirchi (talk) 05:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 05:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 05:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unsourced BLP since 2010 - the cited soure is a dead link. >>BEANS X2^t 08:34, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we should clearly not have unsourced articles on living people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:23, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 22:33, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 11:42, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maggie d'Abo[edit]

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

Non-notable model/actress and unpublished author.

With respect to her modeling, she doesn't seem to have much of a career there, and I can't find anything about it. None of the references that might discuss modelling are WP:RS.

As an actress, "her film career consisted primarily of small supporting roles", failing WP:NACTOR. Her chief claim to fame as an actress is that, in her tiny part as the shuttle flight attendant in the 1968 film 2001: A Space Odyssey, she had the first line of dialog; but that was her only scene, which is only interesting because it doesn't occur until nearly a half-hour into the movie. She's probably best known for being the mother of notable actress Olivia d'Abo and ~~aunt~~ first cousin by marriage of notable actress Maryam d'Abo, but being related to a notable person does not make one notable.

There is an unreferenced statement in the article that she had planned to publish an autobiography, but apparently that didn't happen, either, so there's no reason to think she might be notable as an author. TJRC (talk) 21:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Correction; after reading the article on her ex-husband Mike d'Abo, which has more detail, and checking against Maryam d'Abo, I see that Maryam is actually Maggie's ex-husband's cousin; not Maggie's niece as had been stated (now corrected) in the article. The WP:NOTINHERITED principle stands, however. TJRC (talk) 21:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:52, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:52, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete when your closest to a notable role was uncredited I think that is a pretty good sign you are not a notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:08, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 05:00, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unnil Tholaindhein[edit]

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

Couldn't find any sources for this stub article. TamilMirchi (talk) 03:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 03:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 03:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced articles should not last 7 days, let alone 7 years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:22, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 13:50, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of landlocked U.S. states[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is WP:TRIVIA plain and simple. It is WP:OR that can quickly be deduced from looking at a map. The one "source" cited is laughable. It clearly indicates a WP:GNG fail. It is mentioned once that Nebraska is triply landlocked. Just because a Senate press release mentions this, does not mean that the article is notable. I-82-I | TALK 03:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. I-82-I | TALK 03:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:LISTN. The distinction is significant for countries, which have to export their goods to take advantage of maritime shipping, but for American states, not so much. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Yes, this is WP:TRIVIA. A really unimportant topic which can be sorted by looking at a map, as the nom suggests. -- Whiteguru (talk) 12:49, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I wouldn't call an indisputably verifiable fact OR, but it is not encyclopedic. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:12, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Cunard's fine work on the last AfD in 2018, which I hereby incorporate by reference. I believe the reason this article has existed for over 11 years is because it is useful to our readers and appropriate content.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:09, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being multiply landlocked is a meaningless triviality. We don't need articles to put in lists anything that can be ascertained by a map. Sources pointing out that particular states are landlocked doesn't need a list to collate that. Reywas92^Talk 18:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure trivia. The distinction of US states being "landlocked" serves little to no purpose, as compared to actual countries. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 23:11, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivia. Unsourced and probably WP:OR. In addition, the list is incorrect as states like Michigan have been served by ocean-going ships via the St. Lawrence Seaway. Cxbrx (talk) 11:31, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I agree with Milowent. Cunard's sources prove this is clearly notable. [22] Dream Focus 00:24, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Is WP:TRIVIA, fails WP:LISTN. The comparable article about countries contains information not easily understood by looking at a map, and is is a significance because of the issue of trade. This on the other hand meets WP:NOTEVERYTHING // Timothy :: talk 03:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivia, as noted by others. Land-locked nations is a notable topic for historical, trade, etc...reasons. Articles like this are evidence of the English Wikipedia being too Ameri-centric. Zaathras (talk) 23:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Mathilde of Saxony (born 1936)[edit]

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

Not really a princess, born after noble titles abolished in Germany, article is mostly routine genealogy. PatGallacher (talk) 02:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no evidence of individual notability. Oddly enough, the article doesn't even mention her profession and her only real title: it seems she was a medical doctor. —Kusma (t·c) 10:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, no indication of notability. Smeat75 (talk) 14:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the section of her father's article that mentions her: Friedrich Christian, Margrave of Meissen#Marriage and children. TJMSmith (talk) 19:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the only coverage is in genealogical publications but Wikipedia is not a genealogy database. 103.200.134.151 (talk) 17:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think the strong and well-argued delete consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line of succession to the former Saxon thrones demonstrates that defunct titles are not a claim to notability in themselves. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article lack substantiality on its own; nothing more than a genealogical record that hasn't even been written properly. TheRedDomitor (talk) 16:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to her father or husband. I see nothing notable about her. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:40, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even more deposed monarchy cruft.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:31, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rajavardan[edit]

· Stats)

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

Unknown actor who is a star's son and has played the lead role in one film. Remember notability is not inherited. TamilMirchi (talk) 00:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 00:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 00:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete or Weak Delete: Another case of an article failing WP:GNG. Pahiy (talk) 00:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 15:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NACTOR. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 20:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:NACTOR, as well as WP:GNG. —usernamekiran (talk) 23:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 here is for keep. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Szczęśliwego Nowego Jorku[edit]

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

This non notable film has no independent reviews found in a WP:BEFORE search. Only things found were film database sites. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IMDb is a non-reliable source per our own guidelines, all articles should be built on reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Johnpacklambert: Please consider the sources I discuss below. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Polish version of this article is not much better (it is longer but doesn't cite many sources), and I understand that most people here don't read Polish, but at least ask at WT:POLAND before. It is a major Polish film by a major Polish director (Janusz Zaorski), neither may be a household name, but they are both above-average, and obviously it will have a bunch of reviews and such in Polish - unfortunately most of it is not digitized or in hard-to-search Polish newspapers archives and like. It is mentioned in some English sources like [23] (since the director is notable, and that source notes it is one of his major movies). Some still-online reviews: [24], [25], [26], [27]. Google Books gives plentyof hits: I cannot access more than a snippet but I think it has a review in the 1997 edition of Polish magazine about movies [28], and another review from 1997 seems to be here: [29]. There is also other coverage, [30] (about the movie being restored by Polish state television), or mentions in lists like [31] (which is a Polish gov't sponsored site about a Polish culture). It seems to have its own section/review in this book [32] but sadly that magazine has digital archives from 1998 onward only right now ([33]); anyway this may not be just a review as the title suggests the article discusses a (negative) reception of the movie by US Polonia. Another book seems to have a two-page long discussion of the movie: [34]. Google Scholar also shows many hits, for example I see several paragraphs discussing this movie in [35] and a bunch of shorter mentions in several other academic works, overall the movie has been clearly subject to media and academic discourse about how people in Poland see Polish emigrants in the USA. I could throw more sources, but really, what needs flying here is a WP:TROUT. PS. The article here discusses several reviews of the movie by known Polish movie criticis and notes it was a big box office hit in Poland of that time. PPS. There is one more in-depth academic article about the movie and the book it is based on but it seems not to be available online: [36]. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - given the director and the actors, all of whom are notable and quite well known (though maybe not in US), this is clearly notable as well. Volunteer Marek 04:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since the updates of the article it has proved itself both relevant, notable and well sourced. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 17:13, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep after improvements. Also, more sources exist. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:15, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Staszek Lem: As I nominated this for a DYK, I wouldn't mind seeing those "more sources"? Maybe I can use them to expand the article? TIA. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here}
Keep as per WP:HEY, the included reliable sources show a clear pass of WP:GNG and WP:NFILM imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We shouldn't be biased against foreign films just because checking notability and verifiability are more difficult in a foreign language. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:12, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Taka Ana Pai[edit]

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

This non notable film has no independent reviews found in a WP:BEFORE search. Only things found were film database site, youtube videos, and blogs. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sole cited source supports only that Baby Zaman was in the cast. There are passing mentions in other news articles about actors,[37][38] but no significant coverage. Searching books and scholarly articles by: Mushtaq Gazdar, Anuradha Ghosh, Enamul Haque, Anupam Hayat, Lotte Hoek, John W. Hood, Syed Manzoorul Islam, Alamgir Kabir, John A. Lent, Zakir Hossain Raju, Abdul Hai Shikdar, and Sara Zaker, three list Taka Ana Pai among the forty or so Bengali films made in East Pakistan in 1970. They do not agree on who directed it, or say anything else about it. If determined to find an alternative to deletion, it could be redirected to List of Dhallywood films of 1970, but there was also a 1956 Indian film by the same name (or perhaps hyphenated as Taka-Ana-Pai), so redirection could cause more confusion than it's worth. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:41, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:49, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yalgaar (1992 film)[edit]

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

Film has no independent reviews found in a WP:BEFORE search. All current citations are passing mentions, database sites, or articles on the director. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:05, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:05, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:05, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; as it also fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Pahiy (talk) 00:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I too could only find mentions. Not a notable Bollywood-type film. Lightburst (talk) 01:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Nika2020 (talk) 12:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of programmes broadcast by Boing (Italian TV channel)[edit]

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

Just a programming list that has been unsourced for years, and is very likely inaccurate to some degree. The channel appears to have little to no original programming, with most of it being acquired from Cartoon Network. Perhaps, if people think it should exist in some form, I suggest merging some of it into the main page, but this article standing the way it is?! No way! Foxnpichu (talk) 10:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This channel is not unique to Italy as there are other Boing networks in other parts of the world. Almost all programming is acquired (non-original) and to top it off there are zero sources. Per WP:NOTIINFO there is no need to merge anything. Ajf773 (talk) 01:11, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. A programming list of syndicated shows that would doubtfully be keep up to date. Fails WP:NTELEVISION. Meets WP:NOTTVGUIDE // Timothy :: talk 04:12, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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