Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 September 14

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 13 September	15 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DMySon 12:47, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

S. Hanumantha Rao[edit]

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

Has been involved in notable productions, but I couldn't find that he meets WP:ENT or WP:GNG. An unref blp that has been in CAT:NN's backlog for more than 11 years. Boleyn (talk) 21:39, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:58, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:58, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: For a fellow who made musical contributions to 75 movies, there is notability. Using different browsers and searching, Unionpedia gives a lot of references. (Checked on DuckDuckGo) See https://en.unionpedia.org/S._Hanumantha_Rao Bing gives a lot of Telugu songs authored by this fellow. -- Whiteguru (talk) 12:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As a composer of multiple notable films, Rao passes WP:MUSICBIO. His works have been discussed in sources such as Sitara, Sakshi etc. --Ab207 (talk) 09:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:ENT or WP:GNG ThePediaGeek (talk) 11:40, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he has coverage in multiple reliable sources as identified in this discussion. It's not a blp as he passed in 1980, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:04, 20 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 18:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Schooled (film)[edit]

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

Non notable film, nothing found in a WP:BEFORE to help it pass WP:NFILM. Tagged for notability for 10 years. Previous PROD removed. Donaldd23 (talk) 17:07, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 17:07, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 17:07, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NFILM. It is going to be a waste of time looking for more notability after 13 years. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:44, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily Atlantic306 (talk) 00:15, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as has at least one full review in DVD Talk which is a reliable source already in the article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:15, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:15, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't look like a significant movie. A basic Google search only produced results for the ABC series of the same name, zilch for the movie itself. TheRedDomitor (talk) 14:54, 20 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 11:35, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Killers of the Flower Moon (film)[edit]

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

This film does not satisfy film notability guidelines. In particular, see the future film guidelines. These guidelines state that films that have not yet entered principal photography are not considered notable, even if the film is likely to be a high-profile release, such as a film by Martin Scorsese. This film appears to be a planned film that is not yet in principal photography, and so could be delayed further or could go into development limbo. In this case, production was already delayed once before the coronavirus pandemic.

There is a myth in Wikipedia that multiple reliable sources will result in notability. That is a myth because reliable sources are a necessary but not sufficient condition for notability. No number of reliable sources change the fact that the film is not yet in production, and that the reliable sources say that the film is not yet in production.

Articles on this film have been deleted via PROD once and draftified once. Because the draft exists, this copy cannot be draftified and should be deleted. The draft can be accepted when the film is released. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:03, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:03, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:03, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFF. If everything goes well, this film will start shooting in February 2021, which is more than five months from now. That's when this article will meet the threshold for notability. We already have a draft that's further developed than what's on this article now. El Millo (talk) 21:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a pared-down version to the source material per film notability guidelines. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 23:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Way too soon to be an article in the mainspace. Seeing that a better developed draft already exists, deletion makes the most sense. TheRedDomitor (talk) 10:04, 17 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 22:54, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Albrecht Matrix Hybrid[edit]

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

Completely non-notable, seemingly created by the person who invented it, so essentially WP:MADEUP. SmartSE (talk) 21:02, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete zero sources in artcile. Zero sources found online news sources. Only source found is the web page of the organization. Fails WP:GNG, fails WP:COI; fails WP:OR; fails WP:V; fails WP:SELFPUBLISH; do I need to keep looking?--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree, completely non-notable, seemingly created by the person who invented it. Many people have created their own systems for predicting win, loss and have a bet on this or that horse or team. All of them fail, just like this one; it fails because there are no references. --Whiteguru (talk) 12:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' Nonnotable rating system. Fails GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:13, 17 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. Article deleted by Ponyo per CSD G5. (non-admin closure) – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:39, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moya Bobel Road[edit]

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

An article about a road, 0.2 miles (0.3 km) long, with no sources and no claim to notability. The article was proposed for deletion by another editor, but the article creator declined the PROD, so the next step is AfD. Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:26, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After digging around on Google Maps and street view, I don't even think this is a road. It looks like a glorified sidewalk. Unfortunately, this does not fall cleanly into a CSD category, so for 7 days this must survive here. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Google search turns up next to no results, clear GNG and WP:GEOROAD fail. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No encyclopedic notability whatsoever. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:30, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Speedy Delete as G5, sockpuppeteer. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The vast majority of roads are notable, even if they run over 20 miles. At 0.2 miles virtually none are.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:22, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note I've deleted per WP:CSD#G5.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:34, 16 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 21:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lima Wild[edit]

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

Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence Fails WP:GNG, & WP:MUSICBIO as no criterion is met. The first x to do y claim is also a shaky one which even if true doesn’t translate to automatic notability. A WP:BEFORE search turns up empty. Celestina007 20:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 20:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 20:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 20:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication of notability. --John B123 (talk) 20:42, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Actually, the second source used in the article, translated from French, says she is the first woman in her ethnic group to break into a singing tradition that has always been reserved for men. Overall the two sources currently in the article introduce her as an example of her music community, but they are written like tourist promotions on behalf of Mayotte (an island off the coast of Africa) rather than focusing on her career. Otherwise she is only present in the usual streaming and promotional services. For music lovers, this article may introduce us to a little-known genre worth exploring, but this singer has not gained reliable media notice. ––DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:40, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doomsdayer520, thanks for the observation DD5. Celestina007 04:54, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per above ili (talk) 11:15, 21 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 20:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Erwin Lawaty[edit]

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

Pastor of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in Poland with no working reference and no obvious claim to notability. Rathfelder (talk) 19:50, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 19:50, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 19:50, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: This article should've never been made. Catfurball (talk) 19:58, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NPRIEST/NBIO. Unreferenced, pl wiki article is a bit longer and has one reference (now rotted but in IA here) - an obituary at the pages of the Polish Church in question. WP:NOTOBIT too, however. I started a deletion discussion on pl wiki (pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/biografie/2020:09:15:Erwin_Lawaty#Erwin_Lawaty). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:14, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with above, the article totally fails WP:NPRIEST. I suspect this was authored by a family member. -- Whiteguru (talk) 12:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we would need way better sourcing than this to even consider that someone might be anything approaching notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:58, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable --Devokewater (talk) 21:48, 20 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 20:11, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Castor Station, Missouri[edit]

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

I am completely bewildered as to what exactly is going on here. One of the references is a site claiming to be a directory of places in Madison County, but Castor Station isn't mentioned there. That page appears to be a small section of a longer listing by the Missouri State Historical Society, but even that larger directory doesn't mention a Castor Station. The 1959 Hidgon topo is also cited, but it's not on there. It apparently should be at the junction of the Castor River and Cape Creek, near Spring Valley Church, but it's not there. In fact, the 1910, 1959, 200, 2015, and 2017 topos do not include any marking of "Castor Station": Only two buildings and a survey boundary monument. It is on the 2011 topo, with nothing marked there, but disappears again by 2015. Google maps takes me to a house in the middle of the woods. Appears on the [https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/ht-bin/tv_browse.pl?id=8b9980b1f629b679480c50ec9b9f65d9 1959 large-scale topo], but with no indication of anything there. I can find nothing meaningful on Google search or Google books. I don't know what it is, but the fact that this doesn't show up on pre-GNIS small-scale topos (just one that covers 2/3's of the Ozarks) and the fact that whatever this is, it isn't mentioned in most of the normal/claimed sources, indicates that "Castor Station" probably isn't notable. Surprisingly, this isn't on a railroad, or the name might make more sense. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A Castor station near Fredericktown had its liquor license suspended in 1964, but that's all I found on newspapers.com. Reywas92^Talk 20:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Reywas: - Do you think it could be a gas station, then? The claimed location of Castor Station is only about eight miles from, which makes sense, and would be how "station" shows up in the name and why it had a liquor license. Would also explain why there's apparently never been anything more than two buildings there, and why I can find basically nothing at all about this "place". Hog Farm _Bacon 20:32, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete I get hits for "Castor" not nothing in books for Castor Station. I did pull up the historical society place name page for the county, and it mentions a "Castor Church" but nothing that could be identified with this supposed place. Mangoe (talk) 21:56, 14 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 21:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of visual artists from Regina, Saskatchewan[edit]

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

Already have List of people from Regina, Saskatchewan with these people, therefore WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 19:33, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I count only five names that are common to both lists.........PK T(alk) 19:46, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean? I already merged them all. I also don't think a redirect is warranted in this case since this title is not a common search title (there are no redirects for the dozens of occupations of notable Regina persons). Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 19:50, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I mean that I counted before you finished doing so. Vote changed.........PK T(alk) 20:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:54, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:54, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the List of visual artists is now redundant........PK T(alk) 20:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Shellwood: Now? It was redundant the moment it was created. Pointless having a list for one specific thing when a general list exists. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 20:15, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fishhead2100: You pinged the wrong person. Shellwood (talk) 20:38, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Shellwood: So I did. Oh well. Statement doesn't change. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 20:42, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Now that the contents have been moved over to the general list of people from Regina, a redirect isn't necessary. Not like there was a lot of information that needs to be kept. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 20:15, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm surprised this has flown under the radar as long as it has — but indeed, if we already have a list of people from a specific city, then we don't need separate sublists of people in a particular occupation from that same city standing alone as independent articles. Including the artists in the general list is fine, and has been done — but they don't need their own separate list. Bearcat (talk) 23:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to where it has been merged. While an unlikely search term, the history needs to be kept for attribution purposes. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:10, 21 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 21:02, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rachael Carr[edit]

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

I’m quite sure that the Daily Star is a tabloid rather than a reliable source. The most I saw was the same “I’m Britney’s boobs, Kylie’s bum” (whatever order) story reprinted in a few sites such as the Evening Standard and Digital Spy. Ultimately, this person isn’t notable herself. Trillfendi (talk) 19:26, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Britney's Boobs aside, this page has been here since 2009, and there have been earlier wrestling references. In the end, there is no notability shown as given in WP:NSPORT -- Whiteguru (talk) 12:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable entertainer. She has done a lot of entertainment jobs, and performed as a model and in commercials, and been involved in low level prfessional wrestling, but nothing that adds up to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:07, 18 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) 18:21, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Volos Derby[edit]

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

I can't seem to find any sources to back up the claims of the article; seems to fail WP:NRIVALRY. A Greek speaker might have more luck but, given how far down the Greek football pyramid these clubs are, I suspect sources are going to be hard to find if any even exist at all. Spiderone 19:20, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:20, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:20, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:20, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 19:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see much in the way towards notability, nothing on the scale of the rivalry like Olympiakos vs Panathinaikos in Greece. Govvy (talk) 16:08, 16 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) 18:21, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Altay–Karşıyaka rivalry[edit]

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

The teams have played each other a few times and are from the same city but I'm not seeing WP:NRIVALRY here. Spiderone 19:12, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:12, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:12, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:12, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:16, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 19:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments I was looking for sources for this possible rivalry, however didn't see anything in my search, just kept getting the other rivalry of Göztepe–Karşıyaka rivalry. Govvy (talk) 14:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence this is a notable rivalry rather than just two teams from the same city. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:26, 16 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 21:03, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Landy Francis Eng[edit]

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

No effective referencing. Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV scope_creep^Talk 18:57, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:57, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:57, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:57, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage, no evidence of notability. Even if the question of notability was borderline I would argue WP:TNT due to the obvious COI/paid issue, the promotional tone, the resume-like content, etc., without any major contributions from editors other than the COI SPA. Paisarepa 20:51, 14 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) 18:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mahakam derby[edit]

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

Fails WP:NRIVALRY; I'm struggling to see any evidence that this is a notable rivalry as they don't seem to have played that many matches against each other for starters. Spiderone 18:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 19:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I just see a list of football matches between two teams and no additional information (citations) to justify the notability of the article. Govvy (talk) 13:44, 16 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. ‑Scottywong | [spout] || 04:14, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Naveed Anwar[edit]

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

The article topic does not WP:NPOL. Apparently, articles about unelected politicians like Naveed Anwar, Darrin Lamoureux and Naomi Hunter should be deleted regardless of the status of the party of which they are leaders.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. No policy/guideline based grounds cited for deletion. No effort to comply with WP:BEFORE wet the GNG. Saying you don't believe a subject should be notable is an argument carrying no weight. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 19:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This fellow is currently the unelected leader of the Saskatchewan Liberal Party. He does not appear to meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG based on the sources available. As you will see, the deletion was recommended by another editor at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naomi Hunter.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ delete, I was able to find a bit of coverage that goes beyond the usual ROUTINE election and party news [1], as well as some local coverage of the business he runs with his family [2]. If there's likely to be offline coverage then we may be in NPOSSIBLE territory, but based solely on internet sources I think we fall short of GNG. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:25, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Striking weak from my vote; when I was searching for sources I was willing to give a bit of a benefit of the doubt, but given that keep !votes other than the procedural objection above have shown up and haven't been able to furnish any additional coverage, I'm more inclined to believe that what little I was able to find is really all there is. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:42, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. I searched Google, JSTOR and various newspaper databases for sources but only found WP:ROUTINE. Notability is not inherited and he hasn't received enough coverage to be notable. The Star Phoenix article mentioned above is speculation about Anwar affecting a riding's election result but I think that shows notability for the riding result, not Anwar. Also, the PAHerald article sourced above might give notability to the company Anwar founded, but not necessarily to him. I would change my !vote if I found a profile about him or if he was elected to public office. Z1720 (talk) 01:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720, I do not agree with you on this. kindly check google news once again. - Hatchens (talk) 03:53, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In responding to the above request, I did a second look on Google News. One source I found [3] has a short bio on Anwar but the rest of the article discusses Sask. Liberal Party strategies and policies for the upcoming election. Some articles discuss his acclamation to the leadership: [4] [5] while others describe his candidacy for MLA in the 2016 election [6] [7]. Recently, there have been news articles about him stepping down as leader of the Sask. Liberal Party: [8] [9]. The problem I have with these sources is I don't think they show why a leader of a minor party in Saskatchewan (with no seats in their legislature for 15+ years) should have their own article, per WP:NPOL. He wasn't elected, his party has no representation, and he is not being profiled by media or academic sources. I am actually thinking of proposing a redirect to the Saskatchewan Liberal Party#Dissent and decline section to give information about his time as leader. If there's a source that would help show WP:N, please post it and I'll evaluate it. Z1720 (talk) 21:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and expand. As an incumbent leader of Saskatchewan Liberal Party, he passes WP:NPOL. Enough credible media citations are available in the Google News. -Hatchens (talk) 03:55, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NPOL doesn't establish the notability of state-level party leaders (or for that matter, any level). Per WP:POLOUTCOMES, Leaders of major sub-national (state, province, prefecture, etc.) level are usually deleted unless notability can be demonstrated for other reasons. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We long ago deprecated the idea that every leader of a political party was automatically handed an "inherent" notability freebie just for existing, without regard to his sourceability or lack thereof. The standard is now that leaders of political parties who are not also actual MLAs need to clear WP:GNG on their sourcing, which is a significantly higher bar than just being able to verify that they exist — rather, the requirement is to demonstrate the significance of his leadership, not just the fact of it, and this article isn't doing what's needed. Bearcat (talk) 23:50, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - leader of a significant political party in Saskatchewan. Sowny (talk) 00:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That "significant" political party has not had a seat in the Saskatchewan legislature since 2003. It received 3.59% of the vote in the last election and received no seats. Also Anwar has resigned so he is no longer the leader (holding the office for only two years). If the current leader of the Green Party of Saskatchewan is not notable, why would Anwar be? Anwar does not meet WP:NPOL. Do you have any evidence to support a claim he has met WP:GNG?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:21, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike the Greens, the Liberals were once the ruling party of Saskatchewan and were more recently part of a governing coalition. That makes them a legacy party, IMHO, unlike the Greens who have never won a seat, and therefore Liberal Party leaders are notable, while SK Green leaders are not. Sowny (talk) 03:01, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One party has been in decline since the 1990s and the other is in an uptick across the country. The Sask Liberals have received a smaller and smaller share of the vote in every election since the 90s. They were wiped out in 2003 and have not held a seat since (17 years). Anwar was the leader for two years (none of them during an election, and none of them where he held any elected office, nor when his party had any representation in the legislature). Naomi Hunter is the current leader who will be taking the party into an election in the coming months. If she is not notable, I don't see how Anwar is. What about those WP:RS showing Anwar has received significant coverage to warrant general notability?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 03:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the difference is he is or was the leader of a legacy party and she is not. A better comparison would be with former BC Conservative leader Dan Brooks who has an article. If he merits an article so do Lamoureux and Anwar. Sowny (talk) 05:29, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure Brooks does warrant an article. He also seems to fail NPOL and GNG. It is notable that neither of the last two Conservative leaders (including the current one) have articles. Also the BC Conservatives aren't really a legacy party. They are no relation to the historic Conservatives in BC who actually governed the province, having merged a long time ago into what is not the BC Liberal Party. Regardless, as I have been told, there is no assumed notability for unelected provincial positions per WP:NPOL. Those arguing WP:GNG have to establish significant coverage in WP:RS. Anwar doesn't have such coverage.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)

Per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, the fact that Dan Brooks has an article (which you may notice has also been flagged for notability questions since 2014) does not mean every leader of every political party gets to have one too — it means Dan Brooks' article should also be put up for deletion (and just guess what's now happened). Leading a "legacy" party is not a notability freebie that works differently than leading an "emerging" party does — either way, the person still has to clear WP:GNG on the back of enough reliable sourcing to write a substantive article about the significance of their leadership, and does not get an automatic inclusion freebie just because it's possible to nominally verify that they exist(ed) as a leader of a political party with no representation in the legislature during their leadership. Bearcat (talk) 15:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conversely, as to Darryl's point, otherstuffdoesntexist - the fact that Hunter's bio was deleted doesn't in and of itself justify deleting another article. The point remains that the Liberal Party of Saskatchewan, unlike the Greens, is s legacy party that was in government relatively recently (as a minority coalition partner) and had previously been in government as a majority. As for GNG - they pass it because they are the leader of a legacy party, therefore they are notable. Sowny (talk) 17:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

What are you talking about? How were they RECENTLY part of a coalition government when they haven't had a seat in the legislature for 17 years? Your idea of what constitutes "recently" seems to be quite different from mine.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This tangent is moot, GNG doesn't include any provisions for the automatic notability of party leaders, regardless of size or "legacy" status, nor does any other notability guideline. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GNG is a measure of an article's sourcing, not of how important the topic's notability claim does or doesn't sound to you. There is nothing in GNG that states that leaders of "legacy" political parties are treated differently than leaders of "emerging" political parties when it comes to notability — either way, the question of whether they qualify to have a standalone biographical article, separately from having their name mentioned in the party's article, lives or dies on the quality and depth of their sourcing, not on the question of whether the party is a "legacy" one or an "emerging" one. Bearcat (talk) 16:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." and that: ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.". The article meets that standard of notability and in addition, the sources cites are both reliable and independent so as far as I can see, all three elements of the test have been passed. Sowny (talk) 21:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GNG is not just automatically met by every article that happens to have sources in it — it is not simply a matter of counting the footnotes and keeping anything that happens to surpass two, but also tests sources for their depth, their geographic range and the context of what they're covering the person for. That is, a political party leader does not instantly pass GNG just because you can show a blip of "person wins leadership" on the day of the convention and another blip of "leader resigns" on the day of his resignation — to get a political party leader over GNG, you have to show ongoing coverage of his work in the leadership, substantively establishing the significance of his leadership (which is not the same thing as the mere fact of it per se) and spanning the years in between the leadership conventions. Bearcat (talk) 23:26, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but the sources in the article establish notability beyond the threshold established by the policy, as written, and that is what is required. I cannot see evidence of the added strictures you are imposing in the actual policy, as it is written. Sowny (talk) 00:01, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I've often pointed out in AFD discussions, if the existence of two sources were enough all by itself to hand people a GNG-based exemption from having to be notable for any specific reason that would pass any of Wikipedia's subject-specific inclusion criteria, then we would have to keep an article about my mother's neighbour who once got into the papers for finding a pig in her front yard — which is exactly why notability doesn't work that way, and does work exactly the way I said it does: it tests the footnotes for factors like their depth, their geographic range and the context in which they're covering the person, not just for whether n>2 or not, and not all possible sources are equal contributors toward the actual notability test. We require coverage which establishes the significance of his leadership, not just the technical fact of it per se. Bearcat (talk) 00:24, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does your mother have an article on CBC News profiling her? This article goes beyond establishing the "technical fact" of his political candidacy and explicitly discusses the significance of his candidacy, as per the standard you've laid out, as does the Leader-Post article. [10] Sowny (talk) 06:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, "may have contributed to the defeat of another party's candidate because he got almost exactly the same number of votes that the other guy lost by" is not an article-clinching claim of significance in and of itself — it is not a reason why his role was "important" enough that he would pass the ten year test on that basis alone. And secondly, people are not handed an automatic notability pass just because the letters "cbc" happen to be present in the web URL of some of their news coverage — there's still a big difference between coverage from the national news division of the CBC, which counts for a lot more, and coverage from the CBC's local news bureaux in the individual cities, which count for a lot less. (Coverage on The National counts for a hell of a lot more than coverage on Saskatoon Morning does, frex — so one footnote having the letters "cbc" in it doesn't instantly clinch a magic notability pass all by itself if the same footnote also has the letters "saskatoon" in it.)
The article claims absolutely nothing that counts as notability-clinching evidence that his leadership was more significant than his lack of a seat in the legislature would suggest, and to pass GNG in lieu of having to pass NPOL he still needs a lot more than just a small handful of press hits in Saskatchewan's local media. Bearcat (talk) 13:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Anwar received coverage in the aftermath of the 2016 election, including speculation that his candidacy was a deliberate (and successful) spoiler to bring down then-NDP leader Cam Broten. When he assumed the leadership of the Sask. Liberals, the Herald published an op-ed about it and the party's fortunes. It's not much, but the former is a relatively big deal, and the latter suggests he was still well-known enough to merit reaction a couple years later (AFAICT, previous leaders didn't get that sort of attention). So I lean towards keep, though the article could stand to be improved by focusing more on his 2016 candidacy (which is actually his biggest impact) instead of his leadership (which is not really significant). — Kawnhr (talk) 18:46, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete As per Nominator and Rosguill comment. WP:ROUTINE. DMySon 12:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article does not meet GNG, BASIC and NPOL. Sources do not show SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Since this is a BLP notability and sourcing guidelines should be strictly followed. // Timothy :: talk 02:27, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local/regional party executive fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. KidAd talk 17:35, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He isn't a party exec, he's a party leader (in American terms, the equivalent of a gubernatorial candidate). Sowny (talk) 18:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He was the leader of a third party. He has resigned.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am no expert on Canadian politics, but it appears that the Saskatchewan Liberal Party is the political equivalent of something like the Libertarian Party of Oregon or Green Party of California. The leader (or former leader, in this case) of a secondary or tertiary political party's regional/providence-level affiliate doesn't seem like it would pass WP:NPOL. KidAd talk 19:27, 24 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 21:03, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pika parser[edit]

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

This article appears to fail WP:NOR. The article is more or less entirely based on a recent arXiv preprint that has not been peer-reviewed, and there exist no reliable sources on the article's main subject, which is itself first proposed in the aforementioned arXiv preprint. Looking at the edit history of this article's primary author, it seems likely that they are also the author of the arXiv preprint, who has no prior history of work on programming language research. 2601:19B:701:6980:715C:5417:4D8F:2B7D (talk) 17:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP nominator. Above text is copied from article talk page. I have no opinion of my own at this time. --Finngall ^talk 18:27, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The quality of the references is not enough Charmk (talk) 04:10, 17 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 18:47, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Henry Stickmin Collection[edit]

(Find video game sources: "The Henry Stickmin Collection" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

(Find video game sources: "Henry Stickmin" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

This article lacks good sources. The sources in the article are a link to the game's Steam page, several Newgrounds posts, a link to PU's website, and YouTube videos. The only reliable source in this article is a Metacritic link, and I couldn't find any articles about the game from actual news sources other than an article from Screen Rant. This game is not notable enough to have its own WP article. Billy Beagle tried to submit a page of the same name as a draft, but it was denied 3 times because the game isn't notable. Chrisnait (talk | contribs) 18:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, as I originally denied the draft for being. Fails WP:GNG with no press coverage._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:39, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable video game failing WP:GNG with no reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. Declined and rejected at Draft:The Henry Stickmin Collection and my argument there still stands. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 19:54, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After scrolling through every result, the only third party coverage I can find is this. One article from a reliable third party source is not extensive coverage. Dark knight 2149 03:52, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think it's a shame this will get deleted. This was one of the more popular releases of 2020, with many popular Twitch and YouTube personalities playing it, but popularity doesn't mean notable. Why don't news companies cover this game? Captain Galaxy 20:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I suggest we find sources for the article. In the meantime the article should be reworded to reference the series as a whole rather than just the remaster. If the game is notable, it's been notable for much longer than just its 2020 explosion on Twitch and Youtube. It's been popular numerous times especially during the release of Fleeing the Complex. Development section for example should dig into its newgrounds history rather than just the day Puffballs decided to remake it. 2604:2000:1107:8A76:C018:1DDA:3566:8363 (talk) 03:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- We've looked for sources and found none. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Same, I tried to make this article last make month, but couldn't because there were zero reliable sources available, not even on Metacritic. CaptainGalaxy 10:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - We can probably just write a draft using Newgrounds/Twitter posts from the InnerSloth team. PuffballsUnited, ForteBass, Aemuu, etc. and then wait until we can find a reliable source to verify enough of it. I do feel like this is notable enough to warrant a page, and if we want to make a page about the InnerSloth dev team we should also have a page about Henry Stickmin. 2604:2000:1107:8A76:C018:1DDA:3566:8363 (talk) 15:14, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's been over a month since release. If sources haven't covered it by now, there's little chance they will later. This isn't some hidden gem or cult game, it's just another indie game (series) that did alright. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 16:19, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Same could be said about among us, but it has a page. We could say it's just a fad that'll die off soon. There are plenty of games that youtubers and streamers play en masse then they forget about it in a couple of months. Happy Wars is virtually dead and still has a page. 2604:2000:1107:8A76:6C1C:71EA:2DE6:80FD (talk) 17:01, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, whether or not a game was popular and then dies off, it still WAS popular and trending, making it history. It's kinda like deleting an article about Grover Cleveland because nobody cares anymore. Le Panini (talk) 13:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm going to try to find sources to this before it gets deleted. Arsonxists (talk) 15:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        We should focus on some Henry-Stickmin related subjects, like Innersloth, which may just be a good candidate for an article. Arsonxists (talk) 00:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        There is a Henry Stickmin wiki. Might be a good source. Billy_Beagle
        The wiki is not a good source. News articles are good sources. Chrisnait (talk | contribs) 16:10, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources found. I'm going to try to create a page about Innersloth tonight, because maybe that will be notable enough to warrant a page on Wikipedia. Draft:Innersloth Arsonxists (talk) 00:00, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the article is notable,but it needs sources.--YerelDahi (talk) 19:03, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draft namespace. Presently, sources do not indicate it qualifies for an encyclopedic article and likely fails WP:NVG. It could be improved by providing secondary sources which make it notable for its own encyclopedia article. Eye snore 16:04, 20 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. Article deleted by Deepfriedokra per CSD G5. (non-admin closure) – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Empire Grade[edit]

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

This road does not appear to meet WP:GNG or any of the the criteria at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Streets#Notability guidelines. I found one good source through a search on Newspapers.com,^[1] but all other sources I found only contain passing mentions of the road. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:47, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:47, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:47, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:47, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Empire Grade, Where Last Bear Killed in County Was Shot in 1885, Is Scene of Modern Farms". Santa Cruz Sentinel. May 27, 1951. p. 8 – via Newspapers.com.

~~I found two more sources that contain information related to the road as well. I have added them to the article. Acalitri1600 (talk) 19:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC)~~ Striking sock – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 15:51, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The two sources you've added (1 and 2 for reference) only contain passing mentions of the road. Wikipedia requires significant coverage in independent sources to establish notability. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found by Acalitri1600. The source about Empire Grade goes very in-depth about the road and far beyond a passing mention. Additionally, Sunset magazine has a whole section in 1959 entitled "Along the Empire Grade" which is more than a passing mention.Oakshade (talk) 01:01, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—doesn't meet WP:GNG. One article is not really "significant coverage". Imzadi 1979 → 06:39, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~There were two articles about the road that go in a lot of depth about the road, so this article does not need to be deleted. Acalitri1600 (talk) 06:45, 16 September 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]
Looks like deleting per WP:G5 Acalitri1600 is a sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Alexcalitri4 --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:50, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As is Calibri2100. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:53, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This confirmation is sad. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:58, 16 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. Tone 21:03, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Varginha UFO incident[edit]

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

Fails WP:EVENTCRITERIA. No enduring historical significance. Largely obscure, except for WP:FRINGE sources like Roger Leir, Kevin Randle, ufo magazines, Brazilian tabloids, etc. A single WP:SENSATIONAL story published in the Wall Street Journal 25 years ago is not sufficient criteria for a stand alone article. I would say it might deserve mention at List of reported UFO sightings however the event isn't a sighting of a UFO, it's a confusing mishmash of secondhand claims of people saying they saw aliens, and a supposed conspiracy/coverup. LuckyLouie (talk) 17:25, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. By coincidence over the past week I've been watching video reports, clips from media reports on this case and it is treated as a very famous case in the Spanish-speaking world. The Portuguese article is long and has a lot of references. I only speak English, however, so I can't vet the content. In my view at this time it would be better to just add an Expert needed template message {{expert needed}} at the top of the article and a corresponding section on the talk page describing what the deficiency is that needs improving before taking the drastic step of deletion. 5Q5|^✉ 12:21, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In Brazil, the case is known as the "ET de Varginha", the case is a constant subject of stories on TV and on channels about ufulogy. The case is one of the most recognized in the world. So, I vote to keep this page on wikipedia. Raonyphillips (talk) 17:08, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. I was astonished to find out this article had been AfD'ed. This incident could probably be the most notorious UFO/alien-related event outside of the U.S and by far the most relevant in Brazil. Easy for me to say it as a Brazilian, of course, but the article kinda demonstrates that. It does have problems, of course, but that's what tags are for. Also, half the sources come from some of Brazil's largest news organizations (Globo, ISTOÉ), they're not just some "tabloids". The PT version has additional good sources, and a Google search would return even more of them, but I honestly won't even bother adding them unless more people start supporting the deletion, which seems unlikely. Victor Lopes ^Fala!•C 21:53, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a well-reported event in new age magazines as it is an encounter outside the scope of Area 51 and the US military. Hence, it has strong notability for this reason alone. -- Whiteguru (talk) 12:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — The coverage in reliable sources is overwhelming. Celestina007 (talk) 05:51, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was impressed by the comments above that the page is "well-reported" and "[t]he coverage in reliable sources is overwhelming." I am going to assume good faith here, and further assume that those comments might actually be true. Those comments do not, however, apply to this article in its current state. Of the 15 in-line citations, I found: two are likely reliable sources (citations 2 and 3); seven either can not be evaluated by me, have no content, or link to pages having nothing to do with the topic (citations 1, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15); six, or 40% of the total, are unquestionably unreliable, being written and sometimes published by established pro-fringe, pseudoscience pushers (citations 4, 7, 9. 11, 13, 14). I do not understand Portuguese, and am thus unable to attempt rectification, but as it currently stands the elements of WP:FRINGE and WP:FRIND, to name only two, are what I consider to be overwhelming. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is complete bollocks, but it is notable bollocks, precisely the sort of bollocks that should be covered by Wikipedia. References 1,5,6, and 8 are from large Brazilian media companies, they are reliable sources (they do have a problem with rightwing bias, but that's not at stake here). Reference 11 is just an article from an established newspaper saying that a statue of the ET has been adorned with a mask to campaign against corona, I don't see what could be possibly wrong with that. References 13 and 14 are from an UFO maganize, but they are merely noting that a documentary has been produced about the affair, I think that's fair game. Reference 12 is about this same documentary, and 15 about some Syfy tv show. This leaves us with references 4,7,9 as fringe sources, and 10 as inaccessible. All in all, it's a clear Keep. Tercer (talk) 16:34, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will take your word for it that citations 1, 5, 6 and 8 are reliable. That makes a total of six reliable sources out of fifteen. As for citations 4, 7, 9, 11, 13, per WP:FRIND (and actually the entire WP:FRINGE guideline) they are inappropriate and unreliable because they are written by confirmed, no-doubt-about-it, pro-fringe POV-pushers (i.e., Kevin Randle, Roger Leir, Bret Lueder, "Redação Vigília", Mel Polidori), and citation 14 is an out-and-out UFO woo website. When the dead/content-free links are included (citations 12 and 15)...well, all in all, it's a clear Delete. I get it that some bollocks are notable - for example the Paul is dead insanity - and I am certainly willing to believe that this "event" should/could/might be worthy of inclusion on en-Wiki, but until this article is populated by more independent, reliable sources, it simply does not rise to encyclopedic status. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm coming around to see that apparently this is a big deal in Brazil. The Brazilian coverage is mostly of the tongue-in-cheek variety. That's too bad, because we can't build a neutral article on sources that don't bother with serious analysis or critique and just repeat claims taken at face value. Google Translate may be useful to weed out such sensational credulous sources from the article. Also the direct citations to fringe ufology books must go. One example of the moderately less sensational Brazilian coverage is [11]. Note that it explicitly concludes that the claims are debunked and this is all a myth. Not sure why our article lead doesn't reflect this. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per Victor Lopes and Tercer. Notable myths are still notable, Wikipedia has a role here that will not be well-served by deletion. Feoffer (talk) 17:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I'm from Brazil and can vouch for everything Victor Lopes has said. The "incident" is still culturally and historically significant within Brazil and Brazilian culture, and the historical coverage has always been at the level of mainstream media, not just "tabloids". The article would exist to report the repercussions of the event, whatever it was, and is as notable to Brazilian culture just as something like Roswell UFO incident or Rendlesham Forest incident, and arguably among the most famous such "incidents" in Brazil (together with Operação Prato, which also rightfully gets its own article). However, it is true that the current article has issues with citations, but this does not warrant its deletion. — LucasVB | Talk 21:22, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The case was heavily covered by Brazilian media and is constantly revisited. The article needs to be rewriten with better sources, but deletion is unnecessary. 2804:431:C7C0:66B:4C9:3F20:192D:F07D (talk) 06:48, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The military was deployed. This was an incident. It happened. A young Military Intelligence Officer died. It doesn't matter if it was a gas cloud or an alien, a man died and that should be enough not to dismiss it. Here is the Brazilian equivalent of a FOIA by Congress on details of the autopsy of Military Intelligence Officer Marco Eli Chereze. Link: https://www.camara.leg.br/proposicoesWeb/prop_mostrarintegra;jsessionid=0BFCE4A431F5E8B37BE625A1441B3FA9.proposicoesWebExterno2?codteor=1656251&filename=RIC+3515/2018 (Yes it's in Portuguese, use google translator) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruda Luna (talk • contribs) 08:40, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The military was not deployed. jps (talk) 14:10, 21 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 21:03, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Valley Park Community Library[edit]

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

Non-notable library in a medium-sized community of about 7,000 people. The two sources in the article are to the library's site itself, and to a local consortium the library is a member of. The coverage I can find is largely limited to database entries such as [12], routine announcements that such-and-such group is meeting in the library, and simple listings in directories of libraries in the St. Louis region. There's no WP:NLIBRARY to provide guidance, but it fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:47, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:47, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:47, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. An ordinary small-town library. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:56, 14 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) 15:32, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

India–Pakistan Football Rivalry[edit]

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

Not an established football rivalry. India does not have any rivalry with Pakistan on football pitch, political rivalry does not mean the country has rivalry on all aspects of life. Again the article is created almost without sources. Drat8sub (talk) 16:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Drat8sub (talk) 16:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The user previously tried to create the article through Afc but was declined. Now they've created without Afc directly into the main space. Drat8sub (talk) 16:46, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:31, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:31, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:31, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "India and Pakistan are arch-rivals,though their rivalry in Football is not as big as their rivalry in Field Hockey and Cricket" says it all. Not a significant rivalry -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 19:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with the above rationale. --Ngrewal1 (talk) 21:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - rivalries are not inherited from other sports Spiderone 21:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've seen a fair bit about their rivalry in Cricket, but in football this seems a long way off base. I don't see the subject here notable. Govvy (talk) 13:41, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Their is no evidence that this notable enough to have it's own article. HawkAussie (talk) 06:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fail GNG and not notable. ThePediaGeek (talk) 11:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, in the absence of sources to demonstrate it as such. Mar4d (talk) 06:40, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These are just the list of matches they played against each other. No references to establish that there is any particular rivalry between these two teams in the football. - The9Man ^(Talk) 07:17, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, evidence for this rivalry's notability hasn't been given.VR _talk 13:52, 21 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 20:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Friend (LDS magazine)[edit]

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

Couldn’t find much in-depth coverage. Dubiously notable on its own. Dronebogus (talk) 16:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. It is no less notable than any of the other periodicals in the Latter Day Saint Movement. Epachamo (talk) 16:54, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Epachamo: between the article's state and your statement, we could assume that none of those LDS periodicals meet Wikipedia's notability. Please say how it meets notability rather than make such a general statement or consider naming some of those publications so we can see what you mean by comparing the scope of coverage, etc. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:33, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:33, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:33, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Leaning delete~~ Article doesn't demonstrate significant independent coverage of the subject. I tried to see it possibly meeting the criteria for media "significant publications in ethnic and other non-trivial niche markets", but a children's magazine specific to one church is more obscure than niche, IMO. Happy to change vote if someone can show non-Utah/LDS-based coverage or significant indepdent coverage in LDS world. I could see merging it with its similarly named predecessor, The Children's Friend, as an alternative to deletion. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DiamondRemley39: In the state it is in, I would be fine with merging the two. Obscurity is NOT a valid reason for deletion (See WP:OBTOP). This is a magazine that has a circulation of probably around 1 million every single month. Just because a source is Utah or LDS-based, does not mean it is not a valid source. The Salt Lake Tribune is definitely a totally valid source and is independent of the LDS Church. Others sources independent from the LDS Church could also be found. Rather than overzealous deletion (WP:OZD), this article could easily be improved. Give me a couple days, and I can find a couple and add to it. Epachamo (talk) 02:21, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You misread and misconstrue. Please reread and reread again. I said I would change my vote if significant independent LDS coverage was found. It's being a magazine for children of one religious denomination is simply how it isn't meeting the criteria I provided; I never said the article should be deleted for that reason. The article as it is today should be deleted for its lack of notability, including its sig coverage. You quote the policy on obscure topics, so remember: "The key thing to look for is high-quality reliable sources." So far, I haven't been able to add anything high-quality, though. Maybe you will find something in a few days, but for now, with two deletes and one keep (which you might want to edit to align to policy), its notability is obscured at best. What we're seeing for a relatively modern publication is little sig coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. Not one of the articles cited focuses entirely on The Friend. The feminism article gives it several sentences. The interactive games article has a few paragraphs about it but also gives significant weight to other players; while that could still count towards notability, it is weak and it is only one. Where are you getting your figure of perhaps one million readers per month? Even if that signified, and I don't know that circ does, I only saw here: [1] that the combined circ of several titles for children and adults was 1.3 million per month 9 years back. The best coverage I've found is tertiary: an entry in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism. It's mentioned in directories like Writer's Market or some such, and while those can verify info so we can remove pesky CN tags, that's all. I mentioned coverage outside of Utah to show coverage beyond the geographic area of publication that already isn't cutting the mustard, but maybe there are more newspapers there that have covered it, and then by all means, add away. I mentioned non-LDS publications being beneficial because the sources have to be independent--perhaps the LDS church is like the Catholic church in that it has many nearly completely independently functioning organizations that write about similar topics, but as the magazine's homepage is at churchofjesuschrist.org/friend, coverage from the parent organization, sister publications, or other LDS bodies would lack an amount of independence. Look for significant coverage in academic journals that cover religion or children's publications, etc. Good luck! I'm an inclusionist and always like to see weak cases improved so that nomination concerns are addressed and so Wikipedia isn't a directory of everything being published. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 03:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the two articles for these magazines were so weak regarding notability and there was no reason to have two articles, so I went ahead and copied the content from the older title's article into the new and redirected in hopes that that would make the case for demonstrating notability easier. Maybe it will. It looks better and is more complete. Not changing my vote at present because I still don't see it passing notability. There is currently nothing about The Children's Friend from its founding through its renaming nearly 70 years later, and what there is in the past 48 years for The Friend shows that it existed and little else. More independent sources needed if it is indeed notable. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 12:03, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the help adding to and editing the article. This deletion nomination reminds me of the WP:CFBWEST conversation. Look at that article and the sources used to justify its existence. I would argue that the growing list of sources in the Friend article are more independent and stronger than anything in that article, and the same reasoning for keeping that article would apply here. At this point sources come from The Salt Lake Tribune, Utah Historic Quarterly, Dialogue, Daily Herald, KSL, and KUTV. Also, the policy WP:NOTTEMPORARY, which establishes that notability is not temporary. If an article would have been notable in 1902, the fact that there wasn't much to say for 48 years does not change the fact that it was notable at one time. Epachamo (talk) 02:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Epachamo, I looked at the Walter J. West sources. Between that and your earlier comment about The Friend being just as notable as other LDS publications, it would behoove you to read WP:WAX. If you're going to compare it with other publications, and you shouldn't, consider Highlights or... what do kids read these days? No one said notability was temporary. What makes you think it was notable in 1902? The article's text doesn't back that up. I am usually a champion of old-time subjects, but this "growing list of sources" includes:

Stories about various LDS magazines, of which The Friend is but one, consolidating and publishing in more languages in the near future, is not significant coverage of this one magazine. Furthermore, it's coverage that spawned from a news release vs. coverage of something that has happened, though it is still secondary coverage.
Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought verifies the year the magazine changed names and that's it. We can find that elsewhere. That's not significant coverage, but more of a namecheck.
Omann's article in Utah Historical Quarterly is reliable, secondary, and independent, but it's about Louie B. Felt and May Anderson; they are already subjects of articles. The paragraph that most covers The Children's Friend says "The magazine was successful, financially and otherwise, and continues today as the Friend with nearly 200,000 subscribers in many different countries far from its Utah birthplace."
The Benson article is by and far the best source, as it mentions The Children's Friend more than just in passing, but it is just one piece of independent, reliable, significant secondary coverage. Benson's sources may have more; I can't comment on that because I haven't studied the scope of her article and how independent her sources are.

Also consider that much of the Origin section is already covered in the article on Primary and the founders of The Children's Friend; it has borderline WP:UNDUE weight on other parties. So focus on The Children's Friend rather than its founders or origins. Good luck! --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 16:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DiamondRemley39:. My point with the WP:CFBWEST is that the reasoning for determining notability with that particular article are similar to this one. It was not a "..because we have Pokemon articles we can have anything" type argument. I disagree with the analysis of your sources. Particularly the Utah Historical Quarterly, which has much more than trivial, giving background information over several paragraphs for the need for a magazine. Benson's article is good, and cites a couple other books, that I am waiting for from Amazon. The best approach to this article is to improve vice delete. At the very least, it should be merged, but still, not deleted. Epachamo (talk) 20:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Look at that article and the sources used to justify its existence" is what I did. Referencing the West precedence here is a leap, so if you want to continue to discuss that, you may comment on my talk page or ping me on yours; there is no reason to clutter up this AfD with such a digression. I never said the Utah Historical Quarterly article was trivial. I will point out where my words are mischaracterized. Again, focus on this article, not all the other LDS magazine articles or other AfDs. I see someone else has added relevant information to the article. It is improving. That's good. It sounds like you need more time to develop an article that will pass AfD, which is fine of course. But what do you mean "improve vice delete"-- improve versus delete"? and what do you mean by "should be merged"? Merge suggestions need targets. What could it be merged to? Primary? --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 22:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I just added some sources on this publication being about to shift to an international, 48 language at least bi-monthly, publication. I believe there is also a substantial article in The Encyclopedia of Latter-day Saint History which could be used to add some substantial sourcing and information to this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:10, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The encyclopedia would have information (and there is another encyclopedia linked in the article in the external links), but encyclopedias are tertiary, not secondary, coverage. The three articles you provided about new languages are about the consolidation/new international focus of various LDS magazines; The Friend is mentioned as one of these but is not written about in particular except for a quote from a press release. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:58, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have added material gleaned from the Encyclopedia of Latter-day Saint History article on The Friend. One should not assume too much from a name. In many ways This Encyclopedia is built directly on the primary sources, and it cities its sources quite a bit, so I am less than convinced that it is truly a tertiary source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:58, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's typical of encyclopedias. See WP:TERTIARY. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 22:52, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable tertiary sources are fully acceptable as per your link and WP:N, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:02, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NMEDIA. KidAd talk 06:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the additions from recent editors, the page passes notability guidelines. Its cultural significance is large enough that Peggy Fletcher Stack criticized a specific article in The Salt Lake Tribune. Full-paragraph mentions in Dialogue, Utah Historical Quarterly, and local newspapers can fulfill notability guidelines if we accept that as "substantial". There already exists a dearth of critical material for popular children's media, so I think those paragraphs are sufficient. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:59, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Recent additions of sources show that WP:NEXIST (I refer here to some seemingly good sources are cited in the cited material but not directly in the article), so I have stricken my above vote and change to Keep. Good work, everyone. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 23:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, given the improvements that have been made in direct response to issues raised earlier on in this discussion. Also, given this announcement that indicates that, as of next year, the Friend will be one of three magazines, standardized to be specifically for children worldwide. Presently, the Friend contains content for children, but the Liahona contains language-specific children's content in many languages currently, which will no longer be the case in 2021. Therefore, the article is relevant now, but will be moreso as of January of next year when it replaces the children's content typically found in the current Liahona for most foreign languages. There are other arguments I might have been tempted to make on this proposal before now, but given what has already been discussed above, these are the more relevant points I feel to make in offering my vote to keep the article as it is. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 03:49, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Good diversity of supporting information. Fullrabb (talk) 22:41, 19 September 2020 (UTC)FullRabb[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Singles 2nd Ward[edit]

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

Non-notable film Dronebogus (talk) 16:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 16:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 16:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is notable enough. Epachamo (talk) 17:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment Simply stating it is notable does not prove notability. Do you have any reliable secondary sources on it? Dronebogus (talk) 00:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one review from a university newspaper is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is a lack of coverage in reliable sources, for example there are no external reviews listed at IMDb and no critics reviews at Rotten Tomatoes, does not pass WP:GNG imv, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:59, 20 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 by nominator. (non-admin closure) Jalen Folf (talk) 03:56, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bhaukaal[edit]

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

The article is about a recently released TV series available only on a new streaming video platform. There is coverage in secondary sources but the text reads like an advertorial and not independent film criticism. Salimfadhley (talk) 16:02, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Salimfadhley (talk) 16:02, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 16:50, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

withdraw - when I nominated for deletion the page in question was a hijacked redirect page. An editor has recently reverted. I've referred the matter to a relevant wikiproject for specialist review. --Salimfadhley (talk) 18:31, 14 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Graceland, Missouri[edit]

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

State historic society mentions a short-lived post office, but doesn't call it a community, although this article does call it a community based on that source. Too late of a foundation for the 1886 topo, but it's not on the 1939 topo. 1991 topo is a no-go, too. It suddenly appears on the 2011 topo, which is once things get copied from GNIS. By the 2017 topo, it's gone again. Google Maps doesn't take me to an exact spot, but gives me a zoomed out view of several miles worth of farmland and woods. All of the Google books hits seem to be for the Missouri campuses of Graceland University or various unrelated cemeteries in other parts of the state. While the SHS source doesn't explicitly state this was only a fourth-class post office eliminated by rural free delivery, the combined evidence of other sources strongly suggests this was not a community in the sense that it would pass WP:GEOLAND. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:42, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:42, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:42, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nothing shows this to have been more than the name of a post office location. BD2412 T 01:39, 22 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 21:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SNP Schneider-Neureither & Partner SE[edit]

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

Abandoned advert of a nn business. Tags ignored Staszek Lem (talk) 15:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:44, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:44, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The sourcing in the article isn't great (all but one cite the business itself and PR releases) and searching for better sources doesn't seem to be doing much better. EverybodyEdits (talk) 16:05, 14 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) 20:46, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Baba Deen Mohammad Shaikh[edit]

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

Non-notable person. All of the sources are non-neutral WP:SPS and fail WP:RS. This is most likely a misinformation spread by Islamic missionaries since this subject has failed to received significant coverage outside the particular WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim that he converted thousands of people to Islam. GenuineArt (talk) 14:58, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:05, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:05, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence from independent sources. Staszek Lem (talk) 15:47, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One of the sources couldn't say it better: "Such are Deen Muhammad Sheikh’s powers of persuasion that he led 108,000 people to the light of Islam since 1989." His powers of persuasion are so good he was able to fool all of these "sources". In the 30-31 years since 1989, there have been ~11k days. Apparently he was able to convert 10 people, in one day only each??? These claims are bogus, the article has to go. Unknown-Tree (talk) 16:06, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and indeed it may also fail WP:NHOAX. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 06:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete extraordinary claims require extraordinary sourcing. Coverting over 100,000 is not supported without good sourcing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:37, 16 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 21:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3rd Gymnasium of Agia Paraskevi[edit]

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

This article is about a non-notable middle school in a suburb of Athens, similar to hundreds of others. The original version was pretty much a list of the names of the teachers, created by a SPA. It survived a AfD nomination because of an apparent confusion with gymnasium which is a name used for some professional higher education institutions providing in some countries. There is nothing of this kind in Greece, where the gymnasio is the generic 3-year middle school for pupils aged 12-15. Place Clichy (talk) 14:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

del no evidence of notability of this middle school. 15:43, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Delete, or Redirect to Agia Paraskevi Non notable middle school with the subject's school district's web site as the source. An admittedly quick Google search only turned up a face book page, though if someone could search in the native language it might help. FWIW, this is a legacy article from 2009 when there was greater emphasis on WP:BeBold than WP:Verifiability. So mostly unsourced for 11 years. Back when, I thought "Gymnasium" meant "high school", as in German, though it now says "middle school". --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: The "old" Greek Γυμνάσιο (Gymnasio) had 6 grades, and is usually translated as "high school" or "secondary school"; "modern" Greek Γυμνάσιο has 3 grades, and is translated as "middle school" (while "high school" is called Λύκειο [Lyceio] in Greek). ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 18:43, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense, especially "Λύκειο" for high school. Verily, Greek is Greek to me --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:49, 15 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Delete Not even the slightest hint of notability; no sources in Greek, besides the facebook school page, and a blog by the "Parents Union" of the school, both inactive for years. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 18:30, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:: The article is certainly of low quality, but I thought all secondary schools are notable on Wikipedia. Before trying to expand/improve it I would like an answer as to whether the notability policy for secondary schools has changed, so that my work will not go to waste.Saintfevrier (talk) 08:52, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Common misconception. My understanding is they now must meet WP:CORP --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:00, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, public-funded schools that do not meet notability, as I understand it, and I've been away from AfD a long time, get redirected to the school system or the community. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:02, 21 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. Article deleted by RickinBaltimore per CSD G1. (non-admin closure) – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 16:59, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Police Siren Japan[edit]

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

I don't see which CSD criteria strictly applies here. However the content is nonsensical, and the topic itself is not encyclopedic (so no sense in moving to draft). Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 14:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:G1. I'll tag it now. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I contested the speedy, it may or may not be notable. Disagree with nominator - I think it could be draftified for now. Lightburst (talk) 15:42, 14 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 21:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Willowville, Missouri[edit]

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

Likely GNIS error. State historical society calls it a "small trading point" (read small store). It was founded in 1905, so no need to check the 1886 topo. 1939 topo only shows three buildings. Essentially the same on the 1991 topo. Google maps shows a couple farms with some outbuildings. WP:GEOLAND requires it to be a Populated, legally recognized places to get automatic notability, but the GNIS census code of U6 is for places without legal recognition. This book looks WP:SPS by the author, so it's not likely WP:RS. Namedrop here, but it's another SPS family history. Just a database entry there. It's a little sad this has to go, since I'm from a rural area, and know plenty of small towns kinda like this one, but it fails GEOLAND by not being legally recognized as a community and failing WP:GNG. Hog Farm _Bacon 14:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 14:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 14:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

merge any verifiable info into the county article, list of populated places, per WP:NGEO. Staszek Lem (talk) 15:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- We just know the coordinates and that it was named for a grove of willow trees. That's it. GNIS is not a reliable source for if something's a "populated place" or not. It's been demonstrated to be wrong many times. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a community and nothing else to indicate notability. Glendoremus (talk) 03:29, 19 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 20:02, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Braun Pasternack[edit]

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

No assertion of notability in the article. Seems to fail WP:NACADEMIC. Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:06, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:06, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Noted academic medievalist - ex department head - with well recognised and serious publications - a leading figure in her field. (Msrasnw (talk) 15:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC))[reply]
"department head" does sound, but you need evidence that she is a "leading specialist". The text so far is a collection of blurbs from various reviews each professor can collect. Staszek Lem (talk) 15:57, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question. What is our position on edited volumes for NPROF/NAUTHOR purposes? She co-edited two notable books—Vox Intexta and Gender and Difference in the Middle Ages (plenty of reviews of both on Scholar)—and wrote one notable monograph (reviews in article atm). AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Generally they don't count for much. Certainly not anywhere near as much as authored books. Two authored books with multiple reviews would be enough for WP:AUTHOR for me. For someone to be notable through their work as an editor of edited volumes, I'd want to see a lot more than that, but it's hard to set numerical thresholds. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Decent GS citations for a low-cited field passes WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep. There's only one authored book here, most of the other "decent GS citations" are for her edited volumes, and the obituary appears to be the paid kind in a small local newspaper, but I think there's enough other in-depth and independent sourcing to save this from WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:44, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The overall consensus seems to be the subject is notable and in the tradition of Wikipedia in times like this. when there is some doubt, move to a solid keep. scope_creep^Talk 11:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She was evidently involved in her field to a good extent, and the article as written has some good sourcing. Raymond033 (talk) 21:01, 18 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 14:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OAK Entertainments[edit]

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

It appears draftification is no longer necessary for the article in question since the article has been recreated with same material. The article includes The Economic Times source (a company profile, not an independent new source), showing company's profile like Crunchbase. A before search returns with similar search results. It fails to pass WP:GNG and WP:COMPANY. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 13:02, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 13:02, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

del no indication of notability whatsoever. Staszek Lem (talk) 15:59, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks notabiliyy. Fails WP:GNG.--Ngrewal1 (talk) 21:27, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 19:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unfortunately as there is a lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources at this stage. It may be notable in the future when it has released more films, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:51, 20 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 Bezeq. ‑Scottywong | [chatter] || 04:15, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

B Communications[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. scope_creep^Talk 12:33, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the article Bezeq. Based on a google search, B Communications appears to be a shell company of some sort that mainly was created as a way to manage controlling shares in Bezeq. It's also facing being removed from the NASDAQ. It seems to be notable, but only in relation to Bezeq.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:32, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the article Bezeq, per article claim whose sole asset is a controlling interest in Israeli telecommunications provider Bezeq. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LISTED and WP:CORPDEPTH. It's actually double listed. B Communications owns Bezeq since 2009. Prior to that it owned other Israeli communication businesses. gidonb (talk) 03:28, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It has three references and all of them fail WP:CORPDEPTH. scope_creep^Talk 08:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. Topics are not judged by their current references but by their potential sources. The article by Wrobel looks fine. There are lots of good articles in Hebrew. It's a thoroughly covered company. gidonb (talk) 09:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. If is not sourced properly, then it will get deleted. Its an established article since 2011, so no excuses for not having a perfect set of sources. scope_creep^Talk 10:36, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant and dodging a reference. I will refer you to WP:NEXIST: Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. It's not a coincidence that 100% of the respondents so far reject the proposal to delete the article. gidonb (talk) 13:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if it was 2010 folk could get away with it, but not now. It is entirely unacceptable to have an article that doesn't have references. It also against the Wikipedia Terms of Use. Rolling the old trope of WP:NEXIST, particularly for an article that been on the go for an almost a decade, is also unacceptable. We are not reviewing it. scope_creep^Talk 17:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to hear that you disagree with our guidelines! You continue to dodge a proper reference. Is it possible that because of contempt for guidelines, you refused to do a proper WP:BEFORE and even failed to read the sources you referred to yourself? Per WP:Editing policy Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. No interest either? This approach to the conventions that regulate our collaborative efforts is "refreshing" in a negative sense. gidonb (talk) 03:06, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't cut it dude. You are the only editor I've know with such jaundiced view of how Wikimedia works. The article is almost 10 years old. If there was references they would be present. scope_creep^Talk 06:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Most editors at Wikipedia care about our guidelines and policies. Care that a proper WP:BEFORE is done before AfDs. Would be surprised if a nominator had not examined the references in the article close enough to pass judgement on these. Keeping our policies and guidelines builds and preserves amity, the opposite of jaundice and my goal for this community! gidonb (talk) 13:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bring up the WP:BEFORE thing, particularly since I do 100's of these Afd's every year. If you have references, throw them up so they can be examined. Some that passes WP:SIRS and WP:NCORP and asserts WP:V on the article. scope_creep^Talk 15:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Since 2010 B Communications has just been a holding company whose sole purpose is to own a 30% interest in Bezeq (Bezeq is an independent company, not a subsidiary). From its EDGAR filings, you can see it was spun off from Internet Gold in 2007 and had only 4 to 5 employees. If it has notability-related sources, they would be in Israel. From what I can see, its only notability would come from getting peripherally involved in Case 4000 as this Times of Israel article explains and the sale to a private equity firm as explained in this article maclean (talk) 03:05, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge with Bezeq as suggested above appears to make the most sense. I am unable to locate any references (in any language) theat meets the criteria for establishing notabilty. On its own, topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:15, 24 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. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 12:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indigenous peoples of Oceania[edit]

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

No sourced other than a census. The whole thing is WP:OR. Also the usage of the term Indigenous is very debatable in this case as the Maori did not originate from New Zealand. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapita_culture IronyMaam (talk) 12:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh god how do I fix that mess above. IronyMaam (talk) 12:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IronyMaam, I fixed it. You might want to install WP:TWINKLE, it makes navigating this easier.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 12:20, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mate. Will do. IronyMaam (talk) 00:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Deletion is not cleanup, and sources do treat Indigenous peoples of Oceania as a group, for example [13][14][15]. (As for indigenous being debatable, it applies to the label in general, i.e. if you go 100,000 back almost every human group moved since).--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 12:20, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:33, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:33, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep., the sources are great, does need cleanup however, New3400 (talk) 13:27, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean the sources are great. There are no sources other than census data on population. IronyMaam (talk) 00:30, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Eostrix.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eostrix. I also found doi:10.1080/13504630.2012.673868. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:46, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DRAFTIFY The above observations that the current state of the article is not up to snuff are correct, but it's not WP:TNT material either. I believe it has been demonstrated that this does not meet WP:DELREASON#6 (which is what I think the nominator was going for). I am perfectly willing to change this to a "keep" if the article is improved sufficiently during the course of the AfD. TompaDompa (talk) 22:12, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources identified by Eostrix and AleatoryPonderings. WP:ARTN says that the current state of an article does not affect the notability of the subject. If good sources exist, as they do here, then the topic is notable, and shouldn't be deleted or TNTd. People who are concerned about the state of the article can use the sources provided to improve it. — Toughpigs (talk) 22:16, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The possible state of the article in the future should not be a factor. If you think it can be better then fix it IronyMaam (talk) 00:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article are not deleted because of being in bad shape unless their content is unsalvagable or copyright violations.★Trekker (talk) 21:13, 16 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 14:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mauricio Merino Jr.[edit]

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

The article fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG; he’s only had one notable role as Simon Freedman in Neighbours. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 12:25, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:27, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:27, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

del minor nn actor. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a truly non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:53, 18 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 14:05, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zainab Usman[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACADEMIC, WP:NAUTHOR, WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Her h-index is 4. Almost all of the references are examples of her writing in various publications. The only in-depth coverage is ref#2 which is primarily a piece written by Usman but has an introduction to her as author by Nasir Ahmad el-Rufai.

Note that the article was written by a suspected WP:UPE who has subsequently been blocked for sockpuppetry. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

del absolutely no independent indication of notability.Staszek Lem (talk) 16:03, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Her Google Scholar citation counts are not as bad as I was expecting: h-index=4, in this case, means four publications with double-digit citations. But it's still not good enough for WP:PROF#C1, I found no reviews of her book, and there is no other claim of notability in the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 20:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing any evidence of notabilty under WP:NPROF or WP:AUTHOR. Maybe WP:TOOSOON. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:43, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Fails WP:ANYBIO. Celestina007 (talk) 04:23, 21 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 a G1 - Patent nonsense RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Siren Ambulance Japan[edit]

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

No CSD seems to apply (A9 - composer is possibly known, performer is ambulances... A1/A3 not met, maybe close to G1, but it isn't gibberish). In any event, Japanese ambulance sirens are not an encyclopedic topic (WP:NOTLYRICS would apply to the initial version). Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 11:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: What a hoot, not a notable topic at all. WP:SPAM applies. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:58, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not notable KylieTastic (talk) 12:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, this thing looks like a 6 year old made it. no sources, nothing. New3400 (talk) 13:29, 14 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. Tone 14:05, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mordenkainen[edit]

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

Suggest deleting per notability. This is textbook WP:CRUFT. Virtually every reference in this article is drawn from forum posts, which are hardly appropriate sources, and they simply discuss trivia. The other sources are not better. At least one source (Cham) does not reference Mordenkainen in a significant sense and only establishes common knowledge (that the character was an invention of Gygax's). I cannot find substantial references to Mordenkainen per se in Google Scholar. I am a D&D fan and am aware that Mordenkainen is a well-known name within the game, but absent better references, I propose deleting. Geethree (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Daranios (talk) 10:46, 14 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 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:03, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there are a few WP:RS that detail the character and his creation, failing that merge to Greyhawk per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 13:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems to me the nomination criticises both that there are too many details and that the article is too general ("common knowledge"), wouldn't that be a contradiction? The sources be ENWorld and Boing Boing are both interviews, so even if the former's presentation in a forum may limit it for establishing notability, it directly gives the opinion of the creator, so it should be appropriate in that regard. If the source by Mizer gives only common knowledge (I don't think it does), why is that in a scholarly secondary source? That source has a few sentences more, about Mordenkainen exploring El Raja Key, which I think might be to detailed - but it is treated in a secondary source. Mordenkainen appears at least in a footnote in this thesis. The character is treated in Designers & Dragons, and in the online magazine Game Rant, both now in the article. It appears extensively at internet publisher BOLS. And again in detail in the book Wizards: The Myths, Legends, and Lore. Spells named after him appear in many sources about games. That together should satisfy notability. If all of that should not be considered enough, the topic should at the very least be merged, not deleted. Daranios (talk) 14:54, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:30, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for reasons cited by User:BOZ and User:Daranios. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:30, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sources are referenced for information about the character, significant coverage given about them in various places. They are talked/written about enough to be notable. Dream Focus 16:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:42, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:43, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:43, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to List of Greyhawk characters. Most of the article is WP:INUNIVERSE and Wikia material, this is better off on the D&D Wiki. There is an obvious target for the name, although it also seems like complete listcruft._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, very selectively, to List of Greyhawk characters. Does not meet notability criteria. Not a single in-depth sourcing on the character. Lots of mentions, and almost 75% of the current sourcing is primary.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are talking about the current status of the article, but sources not yet in the article count for notability. At the very least the BOLS article and Wizards: The Myths, Legends, and Lore are in-depth. Daranios (talk) 06:16, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First, Bols is not a reliable source, they are a shill for the gaming industry. I can't judge the other book, as I only see a portion of what's there. Hopefully it's a portion, if not, then it's little more than an extended blurb. The rest are simply mentions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:48, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - The character seems perfectly summarized by Greyhawk#Significant player characters of the home campaign (character list is fine too). The sourcing is too weak for a full article. GameRank is listicle garbage. No site that puts 20+ lists in a single 24 hour period belongs in an article on this site. "Wizards: The Myths, Legends, and Lore" says all of nothing on the character. Other sources seem similarly sparse on real commentary. The core takeaway is that "the character is important," but not much is actually going into discussing it. The character should definitely be discussed, but it should be discussed as part of the larger topic at this time. TTN (talk) 22:32, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have removed the in-universe stuff, what is left is Keep for reasons cited by User:BOZ and User:Daranios Guinness323 (talk) 16:21, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's still almost entirely sourced to an interview of Gygax, WP:PRIMARY source, does not count towards notability. The actual, critical reception of the character is extremely small and would never pass muster if such an article was submitted to AfC._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:30, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews count towards notability, just can't always use the primary source as a reference for information in the article. Dream Focus 23:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. is what it says in the guidelines. The vast majority of the article is based on such sources, with only one non-primary source that is not a listicle, that is used for only a sentence. If we removed primary sources and trivial mentions, we'd have... nearly nothing._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews can be primary and/or secondary sources. Its all about context. If something is so notable that instead of just writing about it, they interview the writer of it about it, that still counts as secondary source and its notable. Dream Focus 05:39, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And again, this is about the current state of the article, which is not the relevant point with regard to notability. Daranios (talk) 10:30, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The current state of the article is of marginal relevance on the issue of notability. See WP:GNG and WP:Before. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:16, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, too much sourced to a primary source. But it meets notability requirements without those sources. So while there may be editing issues, there isn't a deletion issue. keep. And, btw, I personally really like the article we have. Hobit (talk) 05:38, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It has been expanded nicely since the AfD started. I haven't analyzed the sources and there may be some OR/SYNTH stretching here but... the 'origins' section reads well enough I think this can be kept. And this source is rather convincing the topic is notable (just look at the section title, lol). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:44, 21 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 cities and towns in Kerala; the content already existed in better state. (non-admin closure) Reywas92^Talk 14:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kerala cities by population[edit]

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

Rename as List of cities in Kerala by population for sake of consistency. Shyamsunder (talk) 10:59, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shyamsunder (talk) 10:59, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. This is a rename request, not a request to delete (and doesn't even make sense as a category). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 11:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 11:46, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry now fixed. Removed category. Shyamsunder (talk) 11:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename as per Deacon Vorbis --Whiteguru (talk) 12:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per above.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:11, 14 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 14:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Surf na crvenom talasu[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOOKS. No significant coverage in either English or Serbian publications. The article was created by a single-purpose account. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:11, 6 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, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2007-09 ✗ CSD A7

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 11:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

del. No sources, abandoned. No "soft deletion", since no shred of notability present. May be undeleted into editor's user space, per someones request who wants to rescue it. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In fairness, there is some coverage (Novosti, Short mention on RTS, Presumably featured in Adanja Polak's TV show), but not enough to surpass the "significant" mark. No such user (talk) 08:42, 15 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 20:02, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Malaika Shenoy[edit]

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

I ~~couldnt~~ could find only two verifiable credits to her name: Peepli Live, and Kal: Yesterday and Tomorrow; and the latter is already at AfD. Some user generated websites list "Offshore" (2006), but that cant be verified in reliable sources. That makes the subject fail notability guidelines for actresses. Update: The subject hasn't won any notable awards either. /update. I forgot to add the awards point, as this was nominated from mobile, and I thought I had added it. I also fixed an extraordinarily meaning changing typo. —usernamekiran (talk) 15:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As there is no signicficant coverage of the subject in reliable sources, the subject also fails general notability guidelines as well. —usernamekiran (talk) 10:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —usernamekiran (talk) 10:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —usernamekiran (talk) 10:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this is too soon, way too soon for this actress, only one film. WP:TOOSOON applies. --Whiteguru (talk) 12:02, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Tolly 4 bolly 12:46, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
del absolutely nn. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:15, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 19:12, 19 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 closure. Malformed AfD. Please use WP:TWINKLE to correctly nominate this article for deletion and include all required information. Sandstein 18:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 09:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:43, 16 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. Discounting the sockpuppetry. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aaryan Zaveri[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON, doesn't meet WP:NTENNIS. Junior player, good (not exceptional) at that level, but hasn't made his mark at the senior level at all yet. Basically, the same reasons that lead to deletion in the 2016 AfD for this article. Fram (talk) 09:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 09:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 09:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not meeting WP:NTENNIS or WP:GNG. Probable case of WP:TOOSOON - The9Man ^(Talk) 10:47, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NTENNIS, yes a clear case of WP:TOOSOON. An update, all the reported socks are now blocked and their fake keep votes are striken out. AngusMEOW (chatter • paw trail) 14:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Aaryan is a notable sports person and justifies Wikipedia notable guidelines. He is a Gold medalist in All India Tennis Association (AITA) and International Tennis Federation (ITF). He also participated in the Australian Open Play-offs in 2019 where he was the only Indian in his category.INDIAN DUGS (talk) 06:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More socking -- RoySmith (talk) 20:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 08:40, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nowhere near the notability standards of tennis players, an ITF Junior ranking in the 300s is way too low for this to be a TOOSOON case either. Iffy★Chat -- 08:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Player has won numerous International Tournaments and ranked number 1 junior player in his country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atorey126 (talk • contribs) 13:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NTENNIS and GNGVViking_TalkEdits 13:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NTENNIS and Passes WP:TOOSOON. -Hatchens (talk) 03:31, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More reliable information and references have been added to prove notability of the player.
Keep After addition of more achievements and references it is clearly visible that the player is notable and one of the highest ranked players in his country.
Keep Aaryan is a notable player of the country and has enough achievements to justify.

Struck three socks, per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Atorey126 -- RoySmith (talk) 19:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT - as many others have said, this is way too soon to even contemplate having an article Spiderone 17:29, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT- Irrespective of the notability of this article, it has been created and edited multiple times by the Socks of a user banned for abusing multiple accounts. It has no right to remain on Wiki. Sunshine1191 (talk) 16:24, 20 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 14:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Synchro Nine Factor[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:BAND. I couldn't find much on the band besides social media and streaming sites; AllMusic guideline cited on the article does not feature any reviews or biography. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 09:30, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 09:32, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:39, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Super underground band, I couldn't find anything reliable about them. Also, the article was created by a SPA back in 2008 whose account name matches the record label of the band (Doogah Music). GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 11:16, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
del no evidence of notability.Staszek Lem (talk) 16:19, 14 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. Consensus to delete, again. Looking forward to the fully automated luxury communism though. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:55, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Bastani[edit]

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

Most of the sources in this article are primary, unreliable, self-published, affiliated, or some mix of the above. Those which are not, and those I can find via the 120 unique Google hits, are either namechecks or in the context of Novara Media - the GQ listicle doesn't count of course, because listicle. I do not think this person is independently notable. It has already been deleted twice at AfD for this exact reason. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:26, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:26, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:26, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I have gone through the references given below, and come to the same conclusions as the previous AfD, that we need more material about Aaron Bastani, and not from Bastani (which most of this is). As per nom, delete. --Whiteguru (talk) 12:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

dead link
primary
personal,
Twitter, WP:UGC applies
subscription required, no go
mention, has a PhD
primary
no mention, palgrave mcmillan want you to buy this ebook
first secondary reference, reasonable
primary
primary
primary, London Review of Books
primary
interview, primary
video not available
duplicate
primary
secondary
duplicate again, same duplicate
book review, mention
book review, registration required
GQ - mention
podcast, primary
twitter, telling someone to f*** off
mention
mention
primary, quote
youtube video, primary
primary, video
primary, article
primary
twitter
GQ, review

Comment. There is an obvious redirect to Novara Media as an ATD. I haven't had a chance to look through the sources yet, but for a page that gets 3,400+ views per month we should consider the redirect if only as a service to our readers. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:30, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AleatoryPonderings, I'm OK with that, but experience indicates that a redirect is likely to be challenged in the absence of unambiguous consensus on independent notability (this is, after all, the third creation). Guy (help! - typo?) 14:25, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. ~~After a look at the sources, I think Bastani is notable; I would take a redirect as a next-best option.~~ AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:03, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NAUTHOR #3. The significant or well-known work or collective body of work here is Novara Media and Fully Automated Luxury Communism. Novara is notable: doi:10.1007/978-3-030-00822-2_8, [16], [17]. And FALC is notable: [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:03, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AleatoryPonderings, and we have an article on that, and all coverage is in the context of that, which is why we deleted this twice before. As far as I can tell, it remains the case. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:31, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@JzG: We don't have an article on Fully Automated Luxury Communism. We have a redirect to Post-scarcity economy: Fully automated luxury communism. And AFAIK there's nothing to preclude having articles both on books/journalistic works and the author thereof, if both are notable. As a side note I might write an article on FALC (the book, not the concept) if I have time, but it appears that Bastani is notable based on Novara and FALC, per my thoughts above. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:46, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AleatoryPonderings, but when there are no significant biographical sources, we can't have a biography, per WP:BLP Guy (help! - typo?) 17:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, and per the above there's not good sourcing for a BLP. I guess weak delete then, as I probably will get around to writing Fully Automated Luxury Communism at some point and in that case the redirect target would be unclear. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:09, 14 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. Fenix down (talk) 06:46, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Teodor Wålemark[edit]

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

Has never played in a professional football league, and the coverage is not independent in-depth. Geschichte (talk) 08:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has played in the Allsvenskan, which is a WP:FPL, as confirmed by Soccerway. Has ongoing career and is young; needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 11:25, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the article can be improved, although only one professional game played, the player is still playing at a pretty high level in Sweden. Govvy (talk) 12:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - we don't tend to delete players if they meet NFOOTY and are still young and have an active career Spiderone 17:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes NFOOTY. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per WP:GNG AND NFOOTY.BabbaQ (talk) 21:47, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:30, 19 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) 10:11, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sajin K. Surendran[edit]

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

Non-notable director, lacking in-depth coverage. WP:TOOSOON appears to apply. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 08:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 08:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:DIRECTOR and WP:GNG with no released films and lack of significant coverage. - The9Man ^(Talk) 10:54, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 16:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. -Hatchens (talk) 18:31, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 19:12, 19 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 under reason #1, nomination withdrawn and no other outstanding arguments for deletion are present. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:46, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Segall[edit]

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

~~Does not pass WP:BIO- coverage is passing mentions or not independent. 1292simon (talk) 07:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)~~ Withdrawn by nominator 1292simon (talk) 08:23, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support for non-deletion[edit]

Notability: Ken Segall is well known in the advertising field, has served as worldwide creative director for iconic global companies (Apple, Dell, IBM, NeXT, IBM), is responsible for key moments in Apple marketing history ("Think different" and the "i" strategy behind Apple product naming, and is a New York Times bestselling author. Google Ken Segall and you will find hundreds of interviews (internet and TV) and his books are reviewed. His early mentor in advertising Steve Hayden has a Wikipedia page with fewer accomplishments.

Passing reference: I removed the single reference to a living person, Patty Pravo, as Segall's musical partnership with her is 40 years in the past and I can find no corroborating articles.

New citations: I have added multiple citations, including Walter Isaacson's biography of Steve Jobs, which confirm Segall's important contributions to the rebirth of Apple.

Honestly, I'm not exactly sure what was found to be lacking in the article, so I hope I have revised sufficiently. If not, I would greatly appreciate any and all opinions!Mrylander (talk) 17:31, 16 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) 06:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2013 FC Istiklol season[edit]

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

Contested PROD "deprod as played in their country's top league". This fails WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG in my opinion as the league is not listed in WP:FPL.

Please also note that the AfD for the previous season recently closed unanimously in favour of deletion. Spiderone 07:31, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tajikistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:31, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:32, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:32, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:32, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 07:39, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As the person who prodded this, I agree that the article does fail on WP:GNG as it might be tough to find independent sources that can have this article pass the notability criteria. HawkAussie (talk) 08:05, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG/NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 11:24, 14 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 11:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Characters and organizations in Year Zero[edit]

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

WP:Fancruft; the Year Zero game itself is notable, but the minutiae about it are not. Same arguments apply as a previous AFD for a page regarding elements of the ARG. fuzzy510 (talk) 07:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fan trivia, no evidence of WP:GNG Spiderone 07:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:37, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unnecessary article split. The topic itself does not establish independent notability. It can be summarized in the main article. TTN (talk) 22:35, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious fancruft. Ajf773 (talk) 10:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge summary to Year Zero (video game) then delete. A list of main characters could be copied to the article about the game before this is deleted (as it should as it is mostly fancruft). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:42, 21 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) 10:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers in Year Zero[edit]

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

WP:Fancruft; the Year Zero game itself is notable, but the minutiae about it are not. Same arguments apply as a previous AFD for a page regarding elements of the ARG. fuzzy510 (talk) 07:12, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a fan trivia website nor a game manual Spiderone 07:35, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:35, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:35, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I honestly cannot even comprehend what exactly the article is trying to describe, but it's definitely non-notable minutia not backed by reliable source. TTN (talk) 16:06, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious fancruft. Ajf773 (talk) 10:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Extreme fancruft that fails GNG/NFICTION. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:40, 21 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) 10:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drugs and devices in Year Zero[edit]

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

WP:Fancruft; the Year Zero game itself is notable, but the minutiae about it are not. Same arguments apply as a previous AFD for a page regarding elements of the ARG. fuzzy510 (talk) 07:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Spiderone 07:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Overly expansive plot details that do not establish notability for the topic. TTN (talk) 16:07, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious fancruft. Ajf773 (talk) 10:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Extreme fancruft that fails GNG/NFICTION. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:40, 21 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. Article deleted by Ponyo per CSD G5. (non-admin closure) – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:54, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle Man Road[edit]

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

Barely found anything on it (apart from that it exists), clearly not enough to establish notability. Bingobro (Chat) 06:39, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bingobro (Chat) 06:39, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Short article with zero sources and no claim to notability for this road. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A 0.5 mile road? Zero notability. -- œ^™ 07:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Short article with zero sources --Whiteguru (talk) 12:25, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Tiny access road in the woods in Pescadero Creek County Park. Not notable. Hog Farm _Bacon 14:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This probably could have been handled by PROD. I've PRODed a similar article by the same author, Jamison Creek Road. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Gazamp (talk) 20:38, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:30, 16 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 14:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Khatija Iqbal[edit]

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

Non-notable actor fails WP:NACTOR. Most of the sources provided are unreliable and are passing mentions with no in-depth coverage. The subject in question has not done any notable work. fails WP:GNG and in my opinion does not warrant a standalone article on Wikipedia. Created by a confirmed sockpuppet am sure we are going to have a few socks trying to save this article. - FitIndia ^{Talk Admin on Commons} 06:19, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. - FitIndia ^{Talk Admin on Commons} 06:19, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete I had added the notability tag to the article in October 2018. I have no idea it was removed. Like the nomination says, subject hasn't done any notable work. Subject hasn't won any award either. Making them fail notability criteria for actors. The subject also fails general notability criteria as there is no significant coverage. Just another run of the mill actress, no need for an article in encyclopaedia. —usernamekiran (talk) 15:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Katie/Khatija played a major role in web-series - Ragini MMS: Returns and Size Matters (2019). She is also in major role in upcoming ALT Balaji web series- Cartel and Amazon Prime's Inside Edge 3.

https://www.zee5.com/zeekannada/jamai-raja-2-0-khatija-iqbal-joins-as-dd-patels-right-hand-sanjay-swaraj-to-play-rival/
https://kathmandutribune.com/5-things-you-didnt-know-about-katie-iqbal/
https://www.orissapost.com/ragini-mms-returns-actress-katie-iqbals-teasing-pictures-make-fans-go-crazy/
--Saumyalakhani (talk) 18:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not seeing how WP:NACTOR let alone WP:GNG is met. At most, one significant work as lead, the rest have been bit parts to minor roles. The sourcing is atrocious - several click-bait articles still in there. A glamour gallery as a source? That's just awful. Interviews don't help demonstrate notability, and the zee5 source is anything but secondary when it's there to promote their show. Other sources have passing mentions at best. Just not enough. Ravensfire (talk) 21:59, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero evidence of notability; one borderline notable role is not enough to meet NACTOR ever Spiderone 17:24, 18 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Camille A. Nelson[edit]

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

Subject has been the dean of three law schools (please see WP:PROF criteria #6 -- holding the position of dean is specifically listed as not meeting the criteria). Otherwise no significant coverage. Does not meet WP:GNG, does not met WP:PROF. Paisarepa (talk) 04:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Paisarepa (talk) 04:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Paisarepa (talk) 04:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Paisarepa (talk) 04:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Paisarepa (talk) 04:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:57, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Being dean could be notable, but not through WP:PROF#C6, only through in-depth independent coverage of her sufficient to pass WP:GNG. Being an expert in intersectional feminism and the law could be notable through WP:PROF#C1, but only if her scholarship has made an impact through high citations or multiple book reviews, and I don't see it in this case (citation counts not high enough and a co-edited anthology is not going to be enough for WP:AUTHOR). Being a pioneer for diversity in the Canadian court system could be notable, but again, only through sufficient independent coverage to pass WP:GNG. Searching for her name finds a lot of not-very-in-depth not-very-independent pages from places she has been affiliated with, congratulating her on her moves to new administrative positions or congratulating themselves on hiring her. I don't think that counts for much. But I did find two in-depth articles on her in Diverse Issues in Higher Education (clearly independent and reliable): [25] [26]. Two articles in the same source is not enough for WP:GNG, and other sources like this one at Afro.com that are mostly based on one of the Diverse stories don't add much more. But if another story of similar quality could be found, from another of her career steps rather than being just another copy of the same material, and also not just churnalism copying of university press releases, I'd likely change to a weak keep. (If this is kept, it would be good to add that the book she co-edited is with her sister Charmaine Nelson, who I believe is notable, but I can only find non-reliable sources for them being sisters.) —David Eppstein (talk) 05:37, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though entirely based on David Eppstein's very careful and thoughtful analysis. Our notability criteria are guidelines, not hard rules, so if someone (or some topic) just falls below several criteria then this should give pause for thought. Perhaps taking a broad view the topic is notable overall. However, I would take a much stricter line on whether the information is verifiable. Is the encyclopedia improved by having this article? I think it is. Thincat (talk) 08:27, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found these:

[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
12 Sexuality without Borders: Exploring the Paradoxical Connection between Dancehall and Colonial Law in Jamaica
[32]

I don't know how to evaluate these. The last url above I think swings it for a keep for me. One of her paper is referenced dozens of times in this article [33] I think it is probably a Keep for me. scope_creep^Talk 10:50, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The last link is a press release from Columbia University listing people associated with the school who were named to a top-100 list published by media company 'On Being A Black Lawyer'; landing on these types of lists and press releases is not indicative of notability. The second, third, fourth, and sixth in the list are academic works published by the subject. Academic works are indicative of notability if they demonstrate the subject has made a significant impact in their field but I don't see an indication that is the case for those works. The first and third are announcements with very little depth, what I would characterize as non-significant, routine coverage. The National Law Review article doesn't indicate notability -- dozens of references doesn't mean a lot when they are all in the same paper. Paisarepa (talk) 17:16, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Thincat. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to make some small improvements to this article with citations and more detail, but those edits would not publish for some reason. The error message said there was a conflict that needed to be resolved, but I could not figure out where the conflict was. SJTatsu (talk) 19:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The edit history shows that you added a reference [34]. Were there additional edits? Paisarepa 20:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes the conflict message merely means that you double-clicked the publish button and that the second "publish" conflicted with the first. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:BEFORE indicates that this article subject meets the WP:GNG for coverage of her achievement of several historic firsts. BD2412 T 22:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mind providing evidence? Specifically, that her achieving these historic firsts received significant coverage in independent reliable sources? Paisarepa 23:30, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The citations are already in the article. BD2412 T 00:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of the citations in the article provide significant coverage in independent reliable sources of the subject's achievement of several historic firsts. If you disagree, please point out which reference does so. Paisarepa 00:27, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your response, I request that you do a reference analysis to indicate which sources, specifically, you think are either unreliable, or fail to provide significant coverage. BD2412 T 00:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've done that analysis. Not a single one of them provides significant coverage of her historic firsts. I'm sorry that you took it personally that I nominated your article for deletion, but you don't need to follow me here just to be tendentious. I welcome your input but please make it constructive and useful. Paisarepa 00:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict] I'm not Paisarepa, but here's my analysis of the sources in the current version:

1. University of Hawaii announcement. Not independent.

2 and 3. Different versions of a single brief Boston Globe story announcing her hire. At five sentences long, the last two of which say nothing of interest about Nelson, I question whether this is sufficiently in-depth to count for anything.

4. Contributor biography for a piece she wrote. Not independent.

5 and 8. Business Journal press-release churnalism. Not reliable.

6. Deadlink announcement by former employer. Not independent.

7. News story about Hawaii announcement. Independent, and more in-depth than the Globe piece, but still local.

9. Local interest story about a student excursion, not primarily about Nelson.

10. Employer announcement. Not independent.

11. One of the two Diverse pieces. Independent, reliable, non-local, and in-depth.

—David Eppstein (talk) 00:59, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated. I agree with respect to the Diverse piece. The Boston Globe is obviously, reliable and independent, so the question is significance. The "Historic firsts" article is succinct, but I would find it to be enough to contribute to notability (although not establishing it independently). Regarding the Business Journal piece (I have consolidated this into a single reference), I am not convinced that this is churnalism; there does seem to be some effort on the part of the author to do real journalism here, as they note that Nelson at one point and the university at another gave "no explanation" for some things, and that the closure of a center associated with the law school "came as a surprise" to the family that funded it. I doubt that these are things that the institution would put in a self-promotional document. The article on the Cuba trip, while not primarily about Nelson, provides two fairly notable facts (the novelty of a person in her position traveling to Cuba, and her facilitation of the student visit), which I would contend contributes to notability. I would hang my hat on the sum of the sources other than the employer announcements. BD2412 T 01:52, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She is notable. Those are two significant firsts. Her media mentions may be lean, but they do exist. There are many wiki articles about law deans with fewer media mentions and less notability so I don't know why deleting hers is a priority. Considering the well-established challenges for women and POC to get media mentions in the first place, hers are significant.SJTatsu (talk) 03:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First Black woman to clerk at the highest court of Canada....commonsense indicates this a notable person.--Goldsztajn (talk) 05:32, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A new interview with the subject [35] appeared yesterday in Hawaii Business Magazine, which looks like it might be a weakly reliable (if very local) source. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia's insistence on applying much more restrictive criteria to knowledge workers than to professional wrestlers is a prime example of institutional stupidity. Here, that stupidity is compounded by refusal to recognize that professional schools like Yale Drama, Harvard Divinity, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Stanford Law, etc, etc, etc should be regarded as "major academic institutions" on Wikipedia, just as they are regarded in the rational world. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 05:07, 22 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 14:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Life[edit]

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

This local television channel fails to meet the WP:GNG. Raymie (t • c) 04:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 04:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 04:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 04:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Other dioceses are getting coverage on Google News, etc, but not this diocese. TV Channel does not meet WP:GNG --Whiteguru (talk) 12:32, 14 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. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 09:32, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Out of Control (Kelly book)[edit]

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

Does not pass notability standards for books. Balle010 (talk) 03:42, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Already present in the article were references from Organization & Environment and a book from University of Chicago Press; I also added citations for Publisher's Weekly and Technology Review. This is an obviously well-reviewed and discussed book. — Toughpigs (talk) 04:12, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 11:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:NBOOK, in addition to reviews listed in the article there are plenty more ie. Emergence - here (sub required), Kirkus - here, and checking with ebsco lists plenty more: here, here, here, here, here, here a bestseller, here. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:06, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:BK with non-trivial coverage in two or more reliable and independent sources. Modussiccandi (talk) 17:41, 17 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. As correctly noted by AP, there is no prior PROD, treating this as an expired one. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brownfield remediation and economic development[edit]

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

Essay on brownfields and their relation to economic development, sourced only to a deadlink that was at one point a report by the Port of Portland. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:33, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:33, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:33, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion:? While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Further note to closer: I think Cewbot got this one wrong. The diff linked above is not a prod. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:12, 22 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. Per WP:HEY. Thanks to Petebutt (non-admin closure) Celestina007 03:51, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AfriJet[edit]

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

Non notable business service airline with no in-depth significant coverage in any reliable source. Save for this which doesn’t discuss the business service airline in itself. Celestina007 03:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 03:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 03:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 03:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 03:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Found a few sources- CAPA gives some coverage to the airline [36], ch-aviation [37] and IATA [38] have a profile like page on the airline, Air-Journal has some coverage too [39], Gabonactu states that the airline has some certification [40], so does the Gabonese aviation regulator [41] and L'Union [42], ch-aviation also has some coverage on investments/aircraft deliveries [43][44][45][46] Bingobro (Chat) 07:02, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bingobro, all of which are mere announcements and possess no in-depth significant coverage whatsoever. Celestina007 07:06, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007: Part of the reason why my thoughts were "comment" not "keep", I just thought of leaving a couple of sources around for the discussion. Thanks! Bingobro (Chat) 07:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bingobro, oh, sorry if I seemed rude. I just felt like you dropping those sources did not necessarily do anything to establish notability so I didn’t see the reason for you to have done so seeing as all of them were like announcements. Once again, pardon my tone. Celestina007 07:15, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Celestina007, Hey, no offence was taken. Consider those sources as passing mentions which wont help establish notability (which I left around for ease of access). Thanks! Bingobro (Chat) 07:19, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I have edited it so that if the concensus is keep it will be in a fit state. Just needs at least one solid reference.--Petebutt (talk) 06:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Petebutt edits. -Hatchens (talk) 17:41, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's extremely difficult to find sources for any Gabon aviation topics - I can't find any great sources for Franceville airport even. The links Bingobro gives plus coverage such as [47] from a Gabonese newspaper (which is arguably still "press-release"-like) is good enough. The independent sourcing leaves no doubt that the airline exists as a commercial airline. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:09, 16 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. Weak or not, there is consensus that the article should be kept. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 09:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aviam Soifer[edit]

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

Subject is an academic who does not meet WP:GNG or WP:PROF. Was dean of a law school which does not indicate notability per PROF, and never held highest level post. Paisarepa (talk) 03:12, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Paisarepa (talk) 03:12, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Paisarepa (talk) 03:12, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Paisarepa (talk) 03:12, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Paisarepa (talk) 03:12, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. At both William S. Richardson School of Law and Boston College Law School, Dean is the highest level post. In any case, it is trivially easy to confirm that the subject is well-published relative to his field. BD2412 T 03:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa is the institution. The subject was the dean of the William S. Richardson School of Law, which is a school within the university. This is how nearly every major university in the USA is set up and the difference between president of the university and dean of a school within that university is precisely the distinction WP:PROF clarifies in criteria #6. Paisarepa (talk) 03:42, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Law schools are a separate category of institution, as ABA accreditation rules require them to have substantial administrative independence from the universities with which they are affiliated. However, even if this institution were bound by the referenced explanation, it also provides for notability where the deanship is of a high-ranking institution. You should rather easily be able to confirm that Boston College Law School routinely ranks in the top 15-20% of law schools in the country, and is one of the most historic. This would be a notable deanship, even without the subject's unusual breadth of publications (which you have not addressed). BD2412 T 03:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:PROF #6. A deanship does not somehow become notable based on the ranking of the school or how 'historic' it is. If you believe the subject meets criteria #1 based on their publishing and that this is "trivially easy to confirm" then I invite you to confirm it. Paisarepa (talk) 04:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The provision you reference states "exceptions are possible on a case-by-case basis (e.g., being a Provost of a major university may sometimes qualify)". It can not reasonably be doubted that the ranking and notability of a major law school is insubstantial to this exception. As for their publications, it sounds like you are suggesting WP:BEFORE should have been done here. BD2412 T 04:16, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEFORE was done. There is no need to get pointy, my nominating for deletion an article that you created is not a personal attack. My research indicated that the subject is fairly well-published and cited, but not significantly more so than typical academic within the field. I am simply asking to see what you say is 'trivially easy to confirm'; that's the purpose of this forum. Paisarepa (talk) 04:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not this ... again. Deans of law are not automatically notable, any more than deans of other disciplines are. There is no special exception for law. There never has been a special exception for law. You will have to argue on other grounds. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:33, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't in the 1800s here. We are not talking about "Deans of law" but about Deans of law schools. Yes, there was a time historically when a law dean was just a department head, like any other academic unit might have, but those days are long gone. By dint of the power of the ABA to confer accreditation, law school deans are required to have substantially greater autonomy and authority than academic deans generally (the other exception would be for medical school deans); furthermore, law schools are required to have their own independent physical facilities, law libraries, and various other services maintained independently of the university, all of which must fall under the authority of the Dean. Deans of larger law schools occupy a position of importance and authority at least equal to the president of a smaller college. A standard that is ignorant of this reality is just silly. BD2412 T 04:50, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bluster and tacking the word "school" at the end of the name of your thing-within-a-university to make it look impressive still fails to address the underlying falsity of your arguments. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having taught both undergraduate classes in a university department with a dean within the university's academic structure, and at a law school, I have experienced the difference personally. I'm not sure what you are considering "false" here. Is it your position that the ABA does not, in fact, require universities to vest law school deans with a level of autonomy beyond what is typically required of university departments with deans? Are you contending that law schools in the United States are not, in fact, required to have separate facilities and libraries under the authority of that Dean? BD2412 T 05:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is my position that WP:PROF#C6 says "Lesser administrative posts (provost, dean, department chair, etc.) are generally not sufficient", that it makes no exception for law, and that your or my personal experiences or opinions as university instructors can have no effect on that plain and unambiguous wording. If someone is to be notable as a dean of law, it must be through some other notability criterion. It is also my position that you have previously and repeatedly tried to change the guideline to make law special, failed to achieve consensus to do so, and that there is some dishonesty involved in pretending that the change you wanted was made when in fact it was rejected [48] [49]. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:43, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised that you would bring up an eleven-year-old discussion for this point, though it is nice to see that you have remained consistent in declining to consider the evidence provided. You are, of course, always free to change your !vote below. BD2412 T 15:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments throughout this discussion have been a series of straw men -- first, that law school deans are more autonomous than other deans when the real issue is if they are notable per Wikipedia guidelines, second, arguing that BEFORE wasn't done when the real issue is the existence of the information you claim is trivially easy to confirm (which is a straw man on top of a straw man, as 'well published' alone does not prove notability -- well-cited is what would need to be shown), and now the implication that an old discussion is useless when the real issue is that you are right now, in this discussion, pretending that the failed change was actually made. You're providing an awful lot of bluster but I would prefer you provide evidence of notability based on (actual) Wikipedia guidelines. Paisarepa 19:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer that you comment on content, not on the contributor. That said, please re-review the article in light of the improvements that have been made since this nomination was initiated, per WP:HEY. In particular (but by no means exclusively), the following referenced articles contain substantial coverage of the subject:

Apgar, Sally (March 16, 2003). "Pay doubles for new UH dean: Aviam Soifer, chosen as head of the UH law school, will earn about $250,000"
Zachary R. Dowdy, "Professor named dean of BC law", The Boston Globe (May 2, 1993), p. 36.
Richard Chacón, "Law school dean at BC to resign; Departure of Soifer is unexpected", The Boston Globe (November 26, 1997), p. B7.

There are also numerous articles reporting, in some depth, specific aspects of his work on cases, causes, and theories. BD2412 T 21:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out fallacy-based arguments in the present discussion is focusing on content. From the headlines it appears obvious those articles are routine coverage of the kind you see any time the dean of a notable school resigns or is appointed which does not improve the subject's notability. Regardless, I'll put some effort into digging up copies of them and will take a look at the rest of the changes to the article. Paisarepa 22:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:NOTROUTINE: "bear in mind that WP:ROUTINE is a subsection of the guideline Wikipedia:Notability (events) and therefore only applies to establishing notability about events. The primary guideline discussing notability of people is Wikipedia:Notability (people)". If this were an article on, e.g., Appointment of Aviam Soifer as dean of Boston College Law School, then WP:ROUTINE would apply. BD2412 T 22:57, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another straw man, once again to avoid acknowledging the fact that holding the position of dean is insufficient to fulfill the notability guidelines. The specific guideline WP:ROUTINE was never invoked or implied, nor would any reasonable, competent editor have assumed it was. Routine coverage is the opposite of significant coverage, and per WP:PROF, "Subjects of biographical articles on Wikipedia are required to be notable; that is significant, interesting, or unusual enough to be worthy of notice, as evidenced by being the subject of significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources." Being a dean does not fulfill the notability criteria, so routine coverage of the subject's gaining or leaving a deanship could not possibly be evidence of notability. We both know you are familiar with this criteria so please stop with the fallacies and off-topic diversions. Paisarepa 00:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will explain this very carefully. The articles that discuss his selection to various deanships also discuss his scholarly and other activities, in sufficient depth to constitute significant coverage. I was under the impression that you were going to look at these sources. However, the Zachary R. Dowdy piece in particular describes the subject's origins, teaching history, and involvement in notable cases completely distinct from his deanships. Other sources cited in the article specifically discuss the subject's involvement in these matters unrelated to his deanship. BD2412 T 00:29, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course these announcements have additional information. You're in academia and I'm sure have read hundreds of these -- have you read a single one that didn't have additional information about the subject? I certainly never have. If the subject is notable for 'scholarly and other activities' then those other activities would have been the subject of significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources. The fact that they are not, but rather are employed as filler material in routine announcements, does not help prove notability. Paisarepa 00:48, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat: Other sources cited in the article specifically discuss the subject's involvement in these matters unrelated to his deanship. Other sources, meaning, not the sources that discuss their hiring for deanships and the like. For example, "Researcher finds articles on nuclear bomb secrets", Calgary Herald, (May 23, 1979), p. D-16; "Scientist discovers more H-bomb how-to manuals", The Miami News, (May 23, 1979), p. 2-A; both discussing Soifer's involvement in the Progressive case. Glenn Collins, "Understanding paternalism", Fort Worth Star-Telegram (October 22, 1981), p. 3C, via the New York Times News Service, discussing particular research project of Soifer's. BD2412 T 01:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per BD2412 and WP:NPROF. Dean of two law schools, author of notable book (I found three reviews), journal articles widely cited per Scholar [50]. (Note: not unusual that he published only one book—legal scholars often publish largely or exclusively in journals.) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the Supreme Court of Hawaii issued a proclamation in his honor: [51]. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:39, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say he even meets WP:BASIC given the sources BD2412 has recently added. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. If the only case for notability were his dean position (clearly and obviously not enough for WP:PROF#C6 to anyone who actually pays attention to the wording of the guideline rather than trying to pretend that it says something different from what it actually says) or one book with three reviews, I would say delete. But I don't think law is typically a high-citation field, so six publications with over 100 citations in Google Scholar [52] looks like enough for WP:PROF#C1 to me, even though it doesn't even put him into the top 100 scholars of constitutional law listed by Google Scholar [53]. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Delete. Fails WP:NACADEMIC.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Esprit15d:, I have just added sources showing that the subject received national (and international, if you count Canada) coverage for his role in the United States v. Progressive, Inc. case. BD2412 T 15:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Universities are organized into schools/colleges, and the dean of the law school doesn't meet WP:NPROF C6 any more than the dean of the school of literature science and arts does. However, the deanship certainly doesn't hurt notability; meanwhile the good number of papers with 100+ citations looks to me like C1, and I think that election to the American Law Institute might be C3. Combined with support from WP:NAUTHOR for a reviewed book, this looks like a solid keep case to me. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:32, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Election to the American Law Institute certainly helps, but a bunch of people are elected every month [54], so it is not highly selective. Number of citations is fine for WP:NPROF#C1. Deanship in a not particularly notable university makes the subject far from WP:NPROF#C6. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 21:10, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia's insistence on applying much more restrictive criteria to knowledge workers than to professional wrestlers is a prime example of institutional stupidity. Here, that stupidity is compounded by refusal to recognize that professional schools like Yale Drama, Harvard Divinity, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Stanford Law, etc, etc, etc should be regarded as "major academic institutions" on Wikipedia, just as they are regarded in the rational world. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 01:24, 21 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) 03:17, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Berlau[edit]

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

Economist at a few think tanks and newspaper columnist who fails WP:NPROF, WP:NAUTHOR, and WP:BASIC. I found a review of one of his books in the WSJ ([55]) and a few interviews, but not much else. I doubt that winning the Sandy Hume Memorial Award for Excellence in Political Journalism is sufficient for WP:ANYBIO or NAUTHOR purposes. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As fails to meet WP:NPROF or WP:NAUTHOR Pi (Talk to me!) 03:29, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was unable to find any reviews of the either book for WP:NAUTHOR. No sign of other notability for WP:NPROF. The Sandy Hume award is an early career award, and unlikely to contribute significantly to notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:47, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to being a notable economist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:23, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Columnist with single-digit citations and an upcoming book. It's not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:45, 20 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. czar 06:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Garden Grove, California mayoral election[edit]

Category:Garden Grove, California elections

Category:Mayoral elections in Garden Grove, California

Un-notable elections. Categories unneeded if articles deleted. SecretName101 (talk) 02:03, 14 September 2020 (UTC) revised 20:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SecretName101 (talk) 02:03, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete along with 2018 Garden Grove, California mayoral election, 2016 Garden Grove, California mayoral election, and Category:Mayoral elections in Garden Grove, California. Minor local elections with no evidence of notability. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding deletion nomination to include these and other Garden Grove election articles and categories. (note, for future reference, nomination initially only initially nominated 2020 Garden Grove, California mayoral election for deletion) SecretName101 (talk) 20:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all mayoral elections for a place of this size and lacking regional notability do not merit articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:24, 16 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) 03:16, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Campagna[edit]

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:AUTOBIO of a filmmaker, making even weaker notability claims and citing even weaker sourcing than his brother (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Campagna (2nd nomination)). This isn't even trying the "notability because of minor film festival awards" thing -- the strongest notability claim actually on offer here is that his work exists, which is not an automatic inclusion freebie in and of itself. And other than the same wire service article that's serving as his brother's only evidence of substantive media coverage (and one other dead link that was just a reprint of that same wire service article, and thus not a second data point), this is otherwise referenced entirely to his own self-published primary source content about himself rather than reliably sourced evidence that he would pass WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 01:57, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:57, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:57, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pure promotional article. No notability proven. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:35, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough, fails WP:GNG. EverybodyEdits (talk) 19:53, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Nika2020 (talk) 22:26, 16 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 14:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Campagna[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:AUTOBIO of a filmmaker, not making any strong claim to passage of WP:CREATIVE or citing any particularly strong reliable sources to secure notability per WP:GNG. The most visible attempt at a notability claim here is that one of his films won a minor "Best Short Film" award at a science fiction convention -- but "notable because award" for a filmmaker requires important awards on the order of the Oscars or the BAFTAs or the Canadian Screen Awards that get media coverage, not just any small fry film award that can be "referenced" solely to its own self-published content about itself because real media journalism about the award ceremony is non-existent. And other than that, this is firmly in "notable because his work exists" territory, which still requires real sources. But the referencing here is almost entirely to directly affiliated primary sources -- the only real media references shown at all are a dead link that never actually provided the proper citation details in order for us to retrieve it and verify what it did or didn't say; one short blurb in a magazine which namechecks his existence without being about him to any non-trivial degree; and one wire service article which isn't enough all by itself if it's the only substantive source on offer. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced much, much better than this.
Note that Wikipedia's notability and sourcing standards have been tightened up considerably in the past decade, precisely because the standards of the early 2010s left us too vulnerable to spammy self-promotion — so the fact that the first discussion closed as a "keep" is not a permanent injunction against reconsidering it now. Consensus can change, after all. Bearcat (talk) 01:46, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:46, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:46, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for our rules against autobiographies to have any teeth we must delete whenever we find them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:53, 18 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. ‑Scottywong | [chat] || 04:21, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Best Life Music[edit]

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

Non notable band. Lacks coveraage in independent reliable sources. Lists many awards but none are major awards. (Don't confuse Afrimma with another similarly named.) duffbeerforme (talk) 01:12, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:46, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:46, 14 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) 00:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2014-08 ✗ A7, 2014-08 ✗ deleted, 2014-08 ✗ deleted, 2014-08 ✗ A7, 2014-08 ✗ A7

Delete and salt fails NBAND, no indication of sourcing to establish notability. Has thrice before been deleted. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:39, 23 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 14:08, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rock N Growl Records[edit]

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

Promotional spam. Non notable business. Sourced to pr. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:43, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:47, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:47, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:47, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Promotional spam, no reliable sources are available. Also, the majority of the article creator's Wikipedia activity revolves around this article so it's possible there is some COI involved. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:21, 18 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. ‑Scottywong | [express] || 04:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Freeskier Magazine[edit]

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

No significant coverage per WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 00:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence on significant coverage in the article or in searches. 23:34, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

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

[1] "Empire Grade, Where Last Bear Killed in County Was Shot in 1885, Is Scene of Modern Farms". Santa Cruz Sentinel. May 27, 1951. p. 8 – via Newspapers.com.

[1]