Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 September 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 16 September	18 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. BD2412 T 00:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dietmar Streitler[edit]

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

Delete Not enough notability. It's got one source about one thing that happened, and nothing else. If this is a notable sentence, the article itself isn't notable enough. Le Panini (talk) 14:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This passes WP:NOLYMPICS - Simeon (talk) 20:58, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Simeon, the subject passed WP:NOLY--☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 09:22, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a straight-up pass of WP:NOLYMPICS. Ejgreen77 (talk) 10:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Olympians are notable. Also, took two minutes to expand to include appearances at two World Championships and a European Championships. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 10:53, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable wrestler. Passes WP:NOLYMPICS. Priyanjali singh (talk) 15:12, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep It's pretty clear this passes WP:NOLYMPICS and as such the article has almost zero chance of being delete. That said, I can understand where the nominator is coming from with the lack of sourcing. It's unfortunate that the notability guidelines about athletes aren't stricter about it, personally I don't think every single Olympian in history should automatically notable, but they are what they are. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He obviously meets WP:NOLYMPICS. While I do agree with Adamant1 that I've seen articles that meet WP:NOLYMPICS that seem to fail to meet WP:GNG, I don't think a 5th place Olympic finish can be ignored. I don't feel the same about someone who comes in 78th. Papaursa (talk) 12:46, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep ~~Delete~~. Per discussion below, it seems safe to presume they satisfy WP:GNG and/or WP:SPORTSBASIC. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 23:16, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have pretty high standards if you believe finishing 5th at the Olympics does not meet WP:SPORTSBASIC. I would claim it's a more significant achievement that playing in a pro soccer game or one MLB game. Papaursa (talk) 01:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Papaursa I find it difficult to compare these two, as a player in a professional soccer team participates in multiple games over many years, whereas an olympic is a few months. If you literaly meant one game, I'd definitely vote to delete them if notability was temporary and restricted to the game they participated in. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 01:48, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's also important to remember that he competed before the internet and it's quite likely that there was significant coverage of him in Austria over the years when he was a competitor at various European and world championships, as well as at the Olympics. Papaursa (talk) 02:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Papaursa That makes sense, per WP:NEXIST. Your arguments, and my further investigation of the notability guidelines, convinced me. I changed my vote. Best, Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 18:03, 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 redirect to Zee TV#International channels. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zee Bollynova[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 23:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The channel exists [1]. That's all there is to say about it. Can't justify keeping this as a standalone perma-stub. - hako9 (talk) 01:00, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 01:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 01:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 01:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would a TV channel normally warrant its own page? I guess if there is no RS for it, probably not? Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per rationale by hako9. Celestina007 (talk) 05:32, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Priyanjali singh (talk) 15:13, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Zee TV#International channels per WP:BCAST.--Ab207 (talk) 06:41, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Zee TV#International channels: per Ab207. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:49, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Zee TV#International channels I'm sure the reason why is obvious. Since it's been said already by other people. so, I'll spare everyone by not needlessly reiterating it. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:16, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Zee TV#International channels. Sunshine1191 (talk) 05:26, 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. Also salted. BD2412 T 02:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jena Kraus[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP of a subject who appears to fail WP:NSINGER. This article was merged into Blind Melon in 2006 because Kraus contributed to some of the band's songs, but I am unable to find adequate sourcing to support even a merge. I don't think a redirect to Blind Melon would make much sense either. So I propose deletion instead. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. I suppose it could be (minimally) merged or redirected to Soup, their album. Few RS, and they're all very small mentions of her duet on Soup (to be fair, the duet is praised). Caro7200 (talk) 13:06, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article has zero reliable sources which is totally unacceptable for an article on a living person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:22, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No effective sources and no available sources. scope_creep^Talk 08:21, 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 redirect to National Academy of Arts of Ukraine. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Art Research Institute of Ukrainian Academy of Arts[edit]

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

NCORP fail. A redirect to its parent organization, the National Academy of Arts of Ukraine, would make sense, however that article has problems as well as it is unsourced. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:29, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:29, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:29, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Per nom. Acebulf (talk) 02:00, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:49, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Atulya Shetty[edit]

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

Notability concerns. Doesn't meet WP:NCHESS. The references are to chess databases and local Ann Arbor news sources. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I've looked and indeed it seems to be local coverage of the "Michigan's strongest player" type. He doesn't seem to meet the GNG. As an International Master he plays chess to a very strong standard, but still he is only 1396th in the world among active players. -- P-K3 (talk) 18:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to meeting notability guidelines for chess players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:35, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being that low in the rankings and the only sources being local doesn't cut it for WP:NCHESS. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:18, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm barking uphill, but sources are decent, if very local. Meets the letter of WP:N, but probably not the spirit. Hobit (talk) 23:32, 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 06:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

THENEXTART[edit]

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

Unsourced, cannot find any indication of notability. AviationFreak💬 23:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. AviationFreak💬 23:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AviationFreak💬 23:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, atleast per WP:GNG no significant coverage. Also did not have any significant publication for which it may be considered notable. --☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 18:18, 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. Fenix down (talk) 15:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Makris[edit]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Zindor (talk) 23:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet notability requirements. Just seems like an index, which one of the sources actually is. Le Panini (talk) 14:11, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, lots of sources available, see this Google News search to get an idea. (Note: I have left some advice for Le Panini concerning AfDs at their user talk page). Fram (talk) 14:22, 17 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 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:00, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 06:59, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 06:59, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 07:00, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly meets WP:NFOOTBALL, nominator has clearly not done a BEFORE search. Giant Snowman 10:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There looks like there are sources to improve the article, this should be done, otherwise this is still a WP:GNG issue. Govvy (talk) 13:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Since he played in a professional league and therefore passes the notability guidelines for athletes. That said, I don't blame the nominator for the nomination. As the sourcing is pretty mediocre. Even what comes up in Google search. It's not just about results per WP:AADD. I don't think messaging the nominator on their talk page and telling to take a break from AfDs was warranted either. Hopefully Le Panini will ignore it and continue participating. If that means doing more nominations or just voting. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:26, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article about former professional footballer who played in more than 60 matches in the Greek top division, and played in the UEFA Cup (first round and group stage). Passes WP:NFOOTBALL and there are many Greek-language sources available to improve the article if someone has the time to translate them. Jogurney (talk) 15:12, 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 delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dushyant[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable poet. Article was created by an SPA that also created the now-deleted article for his wife. —valereee (talk) 20:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:14, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:14, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can the nominator please say what the reason for deleting this is? What is wrong with the sources in the article and what other sources, not in the article, ought to be considered? Thanks Mccapra (talk) 11:18, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mccapra, well, that's weird! How did I do that? Thanks! —valereee (talk) 20:12, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

please see my contribution below:) Coolabahapple (talk) 02:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment, looking at the references - 1: LC entry, 2: youtube , 3: amazon sales site , 4: penguin publishing site , 5: BBC India article specifically states not best or bestseller, includes a recommendation of One Night of July (July Ki Ek Raat), 6: publisher site, 7: own website, interview of Dushyant, 8: advert, meet the author, 9: dushyant bio/publicity page, 10: excerpt from translated book, 11: see no. 7, 12: one of 100+ spearkers at a literary festival, 13: took part in a poetry festival, 14: took part in a poetry festival (one of over 70), 15: news article(?) discussing up and coming Dushyant ("Success comes with the combination of profession and passion, know how to get recognition in Bollywood"), 16: youtube, 17: founded a film festival, 18: IMDB listing, 19: IMDB listing, 20: IMDB listing, 21: Amazon listing, 22: publishing site listing, 23: Amazon listing, 24: Amazon listing; all of these reflect the "bread and butter" of people in the literary field, none of these contribute to the wikinotableness of Dushant, so it is a delete from me as not meeting WP:CREATIVE. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:13, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I’ve attempted to search for RIS in Hindi but did not find anything. Mccapra (talk) 06:56, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:52, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moriah Mills[edit]

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

Contested prod, but meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:27, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep meets WP:GNG between multiple notable professional roles and awares. Dr. Vetter (talk) 01:30, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:27, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep per wp:gng and wp:entertainer ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 18:23, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing is too low level and routine to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:00, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep per wp:gng and wp:entertainer. Shameran81 (talk) 23:15, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is negligible coverage of her in genuine independent reliable sources. The coverage that exists is in promotional porn trade publications and "big breast" fetish publications. Neither group of publications have a reputation for accuracy required for establishing notabilty. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:00, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources covering this person are too low in quality to support WP:BASIC, WP:NACTOR or WP:MUSICBIO notability. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the only coverage is in unreliable sources, meaning she fails GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:00, 25 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. WP:HEY Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh Dil Kisko Doon[edit]

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

An article about a Bollywood film. The reference is to a listings site. The WP:EL is to IMDb, which is not WP:RS. WP:BEFORE searches for "Yeh Dil Kisko Doon" and "Ye Dil Kisko Doon" (the title on the poster) turned up more listings sites, but nothing even as thorough as the IMDb 4-line plot summary. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 19:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:30, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:30, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 19:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to concerns around WP:NFILM and WP:GNG Spiderone 14:18, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Improved the article with WP:RS available online. - The9Man ^(Talk) 08:43, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relisting for discussion on the new sources found.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 21:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per The9Man, now it may be considered passing wp:nfilm ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 18:22, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nom. The new sources are passing mentions in articles about actors, singers and composers. Notability is not WP:INHERITED. We need WP:RS sources about the film itself, not about something else. Narky Blert (talk) 19:49, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There may not be individual significant coverage about this film in online, as is the case with the most of Indian films in the 50's, 60's and 70's. But the information mentioned in the article can be verified from the reliable sources mentioned. This is a film done by a major actor from the 1960s. It's harsh to expect to have significant and individual online references. There is no particular need to be so stringent on the old classics and just delete it. As an encyclopedia, our aim should be to add and improve the information rather than just remove it altogether. - The9Man ^(Talk) 06:53, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alberto Crescenti[edit]

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

no evidence of particular notability DGG ( talk ) 09:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I believe in any case, it should be expanded. He is a well-known public pesonality, has been awarded an Outsanding Citizen award (among others), has several published articles in journals:

111. Terrorist Attack to the AMIA (Jewish Mutual Society of Argentina) Headquarters Building. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine, 10(S2), S16-S16. doi:10.1017/S1049023X00500296
Helicopter Emergency Medical Services in Buenos Aires: An Operational Overview, Air Medical Journal, Volume 37, Issue 6, 2018, Pages 367-370, ISSN 1067-991X, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amj.2018.07.029.

He also received an Honoris Causae degree. ["Camilla de rescate para situaciones de inundación" (PDF). {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)]. He is a reference in its field, being invited to international events on the area such as IPRED conference in Israel: "Incidents Terror Managing in Experience Sharing" (PDF). Flipwared (talk) 12:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per user Flipwared. Widely known emergency-specialist doctor here in Argentina, and elsewhere, particularly for his role in the aftermath of the 1994 AMIA bombing.----Darius (talk) 14:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:22, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 21:17, 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 no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Pope[edit]

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

G11 declined by another editor because it was not really exclusively promotional. Not a field where I know enough to judge notability, so I'm sending it here to afd for a community decision. DGG ( talk ) 23:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep? Having a hard time deciding where I come down here; possibly delete is better. I don't think it looks terribly promotional. Keep rationale: reasonable (though not great) sourcing in the article, repeatedly called the right-hand man of J Balvin, one of the biggest stars in reggaeton. BUT the available sources are surprisingly thin for someone who is repeatedly called the right-hand man of one of the biggest stars in reggaeton. It seems like the article covers sources I identified using google, and I would expect that coverage of DJ Pope should be available online if anywhere (J Balvin hasn't been around very long). J Balvin has been releasing a ton of music lately, and you'd think if DJ Pope were important that he'd be mentioned in more news articles. Maybe reggaeton DJs aren't terribly important because every song uses the same underlying beat! :D Anyways, my 2 cents. Calliopejen1 (talk) 08:38, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Calliopejen1: and others reading this discussion... the problem is that being the "right-hand man" and DJ of a world-famous reggaeton star is a bit like being the drummer or backing singer for a world-famous rock star... nobody really talks about you except in passing and usually only when they are talking about that famous star, so it's a bit of a WP:INHERITED fame. However, I will say that the sources are mostly reliable: El Tiempo and El Espectador are two of the three most important newspapers in the country, Shock is long-established and Colombia's biggest music magazine (previously published in print form, but now entirely online), and W Radio is a recognised and popular national radio station. With this in mind, I'm inclined to keep the article, but it is a weak keep, and I have no strong opinion about it. Richard3120 (talk) 17:38, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Richard3120: You certainly make a good point, but it is worth noting that many/most of the sources (including at least one each from El Tiempo, El Espectador, Shock, and W Radio) are primarily about Pope, and don't merely discuss him in relation to J Balvin. I do know the article has some issues, though, and as the editor who moved it to mainspace and has done a good deal of work on it, I'll refrain from taking a formal stance on deletion. Noahfgodard (talk) 17:58, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Noahfgodard: indeed they are specifically about him, hence my leaning to keeping the article, although I can say that DJ Pope is far from a household name even in Colombia. But as someone who has lived in the country for over a decade, I just wanted to state that I know the sources themselves to be reliable ones, because they may not be familiar to English-speaking editors – the editors can then decide for themselves whether their content is good enough to establish notability. Richard3120 (talk) 20:42, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard3120: Right, I just wanted to make sure that was pointed out. Thanks very much for sharing your expertise. Noahfgodard (talk) 20:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 17:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 17:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 17:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The DJ is not exactly getting strong endorsements here, but I find "weak keep" to be a valid vote per the comments above. It is true that the DJ is usually only mentioned in relation to his boss, and anything exclusively about him tends to be very short. But as Richard3120 found, this has taken place in reliable publications, and the DJ really has gotten some specific coverage for his record company and charity efforts, as seen in the final four or five footnotes currently in the article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:24, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 21:17, 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 keep. JGHowes ^talk 23:15, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Theodoros Modis[edit]

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. Article does meet WP:1E. I looked for a suitable redirect target for the event, but couldn't find one. Content is unsourced so a merge is inappropriate, if the information was sourced, it could be merged into Theodore Modis or Yorgo Modis, but sourcing would be essential because these are BLPs. // Timothy :: talk 21:14, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 21:14, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 21:14, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 21:14, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added five references and a link to another language page. Will that do it? Coachaxis (talk) 14:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Coachaxis: Two of your references (and an external youtube link) have been removed [2], because there were not reliable sources. The main question is the following: besides blogs and e-mails [3] (!), are there any reliable sources to support the claim that "His assassination signaled the beginning of armed conflicts in Monastiri referred to as the Macedonian Struggle" ? Douglas Dakin in his classic The Greek struggle in Macedonia doesn't mention him at all. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 08:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All three references support this claim. The last two are in Greek but the first is in English. You can get some idea in several paragraphs at the end of the kindle sample of Fortune Favors the Bold by Theodore Modis in Amazon.com describing his initiating armed involvement in 1903. The official beginning of the Macedonian Struggle is 1904. Therefore I made the above statement. I have slightly modified it now. Coachaxis (talk)
@Coachaxis: Theodore Modis' book: i) Is not a third-party, independent source. ii) It's not a secondary academic source, a historian's account, but fiction, based as it seems on some evidence or eyewitnesses' testimonies known to the author, written by a famaily member who holds "a Ph.D. in High Energy Physics". So, there is no in-depth coverage of the subject by relable sources (so far). ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 14:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Your contributions to WP are related almost exclusively to several members of the Modis family. Do you have any relationship with them, because this looks like conflict of interest ? ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 14:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not at all related to the Modis family but I was fascinated by Modis’s book Fortune Favors the Bold. So when I came across the page of Theodoros Modis in the Bulgarian Wikipedia I thought that he deserved an entry in the English Wikipedia. It is true that the author of Fortune Favors the Bold is a physicist but I trust his sources, which include two bona-fide historians: his uncle Georgios Modis who has published dozens of books on the Macedonian Struggle, and Stamatis Raptis who published historical books on the subject as early as 1909, all in Greek. Both historians treat the assassination of Theodoros Modis as one of the important violent acts at the beginning of the Macedonian Struggle, which influenced the tone of my original text. Of course, Modis was not as important as Pavlos Melas, but they were both killed within a month from each other and their wives commiserated (there is a letter from Modis’s wife to Melas’s wife in the Greek edition of Fortune Favors the Bold that I just read.) If you find that my modified text still overstates things, you can edit it; or delete the page altogether if you think that it brings no real value. Coachaxis (talk)
Thank you for the answer Coachaxis. It's not a matter of bringing "real value", but whether this "value" is based -in accordance with WP's policy- on third-party, independent (from the subject) reliable secondary sources or not -like a book or an essay by an academic historian, or by a well-known, reliable researcher etc. Georgios Modis was both related to Theodoros, and "a participant in the Macedonian Struggle", so his writtings are primary sources actually, perhaps valuable to historians, but not scholarly accounts. And Raptis' ~~pamphlet~~ <book> on the Macedonian Struggle is not a trully historical essay, but a very early "journalistic" approach, propagandistic, with no sources or references cited, more of a narration for the "wider" Greek public, than a proper historical account. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 12:15, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarifications Chalk19. I understand and appreciate the high standards of WP’s requirements for documentation, but how often are they held to the letter? I’ve seen too many entries with much lesser documentation that the page we are discussing. In my opinion, if someone has fought in the Macedonian Struggle and has extensively documented it in publications, he can be considered a reliable reference when he talks about those who died during that conflict, even if it concerns a relative of his. As for the reference by Raptis that I give, I wouldn’t call it a “pamphlet” because it is a formidable volume of 943 pages full of names, events, authentic photographs, and other documents; you can download it here: https://anemi.lib.uoc.gr/metadata/2/f/8/metadata-475-0000014.tkl. Granted he wrote in the language and the style of the time, i.e. archaic Greek and patriotic expressions. I’ll go along with “early journalism”, but calling it propaganda is taking sides. No historian is absolutely impartial, and some are less so than others. Finally, I also know that WP’s primary concern is objectivity and non-biased reporting, and for the sparse objective information given on this short page, I consider the quoted references as entirely adequate. Let your conscious be your guide when you decide on the fate of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coachaxis (talk • contribs) 11:26, 21 September 2020 {UTC) (UTC)
You're right, it's not a pamphlet like I thought in the first place. It is still a "story", with supposedly accurate dialogues among the participants etc. Anyway, I am not going to decide on any article's fate ! ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 17:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Prof. Dakin in his abovementioned book he is once referring to Raptis' book, and notes about the very misleading account given by [him] while dealing with a subject in chapt. I. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 21:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dakin can not be referring to Theodoros Modis because Raptis treats him in Chapters B and Γ.
Dakin, as I have allready said in my very first comment (08:14, 19 September 2020), doesn't mention Th. Modis at all; it has to do with Raptis, his book as a reliable source, not Modis. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 07:14, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for all your inputs Chalk19. Unfortunately, new demands on my time do not permit me to continue this discussion. Keep up the good work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coachaxis (talk • contribs) 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Weak keep As a conclusion of my above comments, and the addition of sources to the article. Although some of these sources are not what we may call suitable bibliography, some hints of notability emerge. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 10:14, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:54, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ermengarde of Nevers[edit]

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

The article is sourced only to a 20th-century genealogical publication. Being part of a long genealogy of notable people does not make one notable. She seems to have held no position of power or government, and notability is not inherited from either her father or her son. Wikipedia is not a genealogical database. This article dates back to 2004, a time when Wikipedia had virtually no inclusion criteria, and was essentially a free-for all wild west of mass article creation. With this article having existed for 16 years, you find it in a lot of Wikipedia mirrors, and she shows up on multiple genealogical sites like Family Search and Ancestry, although in the user created databases and not in the primary records places, at least not on my initial search. Ancestry and Family Search rarely produce records that would actually show notability. Just because we know someones name, who they married, and who their child was does not make them notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia. John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No effective referencing. There is no real sources, if there were refs they would be there. The Gbook stuff is the same, marriage, passing mentions. scope_creep^Talk 08:28, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTINHERITED, no indication of independent notability. Agricolae (talk) 14:23, 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. Tone 06:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Laurie Pawlitza[edit]

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

previously successfully PROD'd and recreated. The subject does not pass WP:GNG. Graywalls (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. There are some hits in trade publications (e.g., [4], [5]) and she seems like a recognized authority in adoption law (see [6]), but I don't think I see enough coverage for WP:BASIC. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 22:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment I mean. . . I would assume most lawyers are "recognized authority" in at least something within their practice expertise, but that's different from notable. When they're running "problem solver" type shows on TV, journalist call up professionals in the relevant field all the time, and many gladly oblige without compensation for publicity. Graywalls (talk) 12:45, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If it was only trade journals. However, there is a lot of passing mentions, in the context of her profession. There is no real coverage that would satisfy WP:SIRS, WP:SIGCOV. For examples she is mentioned in many papers as Laurie Pawlitza, a lawyer for three of the lesbian couple, said Laurie Pawlitza, family lawyer, Laurie Pawlitza, partner at Torkin Manes LLP in Toronto and on and on. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 09:22, 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. JGHowes ^talk 23:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flory, Missouri[edit]

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

The State Historical Society describes Flory as Flory, a small trading-point in the extreme western side of Dade County, was named by C.E. Elliff, owner of the store, for Jo Flory who was a republican candidate for Governor of Missouri in 1900. The use of "the store" seems to imply this was just a store. The GNIS entry is sourced to that exact statement, and claims it's on the Jerico Springs topos, but it's not. Neither Google maps nor the national geographic map database know where Flory is. The coverage I'm turning up is almost entirely in the string "Miss Josephine Flory, Missouri University." I'm not seeing any way this meets WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG here. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep valid stub about a rural trading point. If not kept, merge with township in which Flory is located.72.49.7.25 (talk) 03:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could find no results for this supposed community in newspapers.com. Not a valid stub: trading posts are not notable unless there's substantive coverage on them. Hardly necessary to say in the township article "people have bought and sold goods in various places throughout history in this jurisdiction!" Reywas92^Talk 03:56, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:56, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Fitz[edit]

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

non-notable behind the scene filming personnel. "Miscellaneous Crew" fails WP:ANYBIO WP:GNG Graywalls (talk) 20:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 20:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 20:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 20:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable person involved in filmmaking.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice against recreation if somebody can source it properly. To be fair, he actually does have a strong notability claim as a Genie Award nominee for Best Overall Sound — but as written, until I fixed it just now the article was misrepresenting that as a win that he doesn't actually have (the winner that year in his category was Eastern Promises, not Shake Hands with the Devil), which also leaves the accuracy of the rest of the article in question if we can't find sources to actually support any of that content. But I can't, as I get just eight hits on his name in ProQuest, of which four are not verifiably about this Eric Fitz as they contain no content linking the person they're mentioning to music or film at all; three are just the Genie nominations list and thus add up to one useful source rather than three; one is verifiably him, but just briefly soundbites "Toronto film technician Eric Fitz" in the context of shopping for bargains at Creeds' closing-out sale rather than actually doing anything noteworthy; and zero of them verify anything about The Party's Over, Urban Scorch, Fifth Column, Dieppe, Blue Murder or the Gemini Award claims. And even the Alone and Gone book named in the article text as the "source" for his membership in The Party's Over is a self-published book from a print on demand house, not a notability-clinching (or even particularly reliable) source in and of itself. So, yes, delete, but it's not a notability problem — the notability is there in theory, because nominations for major film and television awards are a solid notability claim for film crew in principle, but the article's content has a serious verifiability problem not helped by the fact that it's spent nearly a decade containing the verifiably false claim that he won a Genie Award instead of just being nominated for it. I am, of course, also willing to reconsider this if somebody can fix the verifiability issues by finding better sources than I've been able to. Bearcat (talk) 18:50, 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. And salt. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:29, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Synergy Pharmaceuticals[edit]

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

Another run of the mill pharmacy company, which has already been deleted at AfD once. Though a lot of copyvio and puffery has been cleaned up, I still think this is unsalvageable as an encyclopedia article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt per nom. Time for this article to be … ahem … voided. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt: a heavily promotional page: the article as it stands has absolutely nothing which would pass WP:CORPDEPTH and I can't find anything online to rectify this. The fact that it has been recreated so soon after being deleted suggests a likelihood of it happening again. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 20:22, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt: per nom - sources fail to show company is notable. Editing history smells of UPE from the creator's editing history. Ravensfire (talk) 20:37, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: I nominated it for speedy as promotional, which was converted into this AFD, I think this should be Deleted and Salted. thanks QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 16:31, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It should be deleted because it looks too promotional. Wikipedia is against "soapbox". Rdp060707 (talk) 01:34, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt, per nom - piling on, there isn't any CORPDEPTH sourcing that would allow us to write a proper article, I'm not seeing how it passes NCORP. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:50, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - perennially recreated, always spam/promotional. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 19:19, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt - I think this article is definitely promotional. Looking at the deletion log for this page, I can tell that this is a recreate. User3749 (talk) 11:51, 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. Fenix down (talk) 19:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2019–20 Huddersfield Town Women FC season[edit]

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

Playing in a semi-pro/amateur league means that this fails WP:NSEASONS. I can't see anything to suggest this passes WP:GNG either. Spiderone 20:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:34, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:34, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 20:37, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG/NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 21:21, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 5 7 08:39, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:08, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:09, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Satra Ko Shaadi Hai[edit]

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

Unreleased film, tagged since 2014 as non notable. No evidence that it will ever be released. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability; can always create this again if it ever does get released Spiderone 16:32, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an unreleased film without enough significant coverage in reliable sources at this pre-release stage, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:15, 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. WP:CSD A9 also applies. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:34, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About Us: The Ultimate Love Story[edit]

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

I can't find any evidence that this album has met any of the criteria listed at WP:NALBUMS. It appears to be self-released, and beyond the archived review cited in the article (which doesn't look like a reliable source), has not received any media coverage that I could find. I would suggest redirecting to Bilal (British singer) as an AfD, but I'm not optimistic that his page will survive its own AfD discussion. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:40, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable EP by a non-notable singer Spiderone 20:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NALBUM. A self-released EP given away for free doesn't inspire confidence that this is notable. The two sources simply replicate the same obvious press release. As the nominator states, the article for the artist himself seems likely to be deleted at AfD, so a redirect would be pointless. Richard3120 (talk) 14:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator suggested would happen, the artist's article has now been deleted as non-notable. There is therefore no possible redirect target for this article, and it may now qualify for speedy deletion. Richard3120 (talk) 19:53, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:31, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Disney Channel crossovers[edit]

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

Just like the now-deleted article on crossovers from Nickelodeon from last month, this article is yet another example of WP:FANCRUFT dominating Wikipedia as this article also has had multiple issues dating back 10 years. Pahiy (talk) 19:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Delete: Fancruft. Not encyclopedic. // Timothy :: talk 05:40, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This would be better material for a Disney-related Wiki.TH1980 (talk) 22:46, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Spiderone 15:47, 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 06:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ismail Hussain (singer)[edit]

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

The subject seems to fail wp:musicbio, wp:gng. A try to save the article via wp:before did not make it otherwise. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 19:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 19:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 19:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: No notability concerns, it appears to be notable. It contains good sources as well. Empire AS ^Talk! 08:35, 18 September 2020 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Empire AS (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]

Keep: It should be kept, and since the article has been enlarged, and has reliable and fine sources, it should be kept, Thank you. Tahaaleem (talk) 08:58, 18 September 2020 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Tahaaleem (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]
Delete lacks significant coverage in reliable sources and most of the current sources are not even reliable. Too soon and fails WP:MUSICBIO. GSS ^💬 08:59, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; No notability concerns (appearing in major UK newspapers), All claims are verifiable by independent sources (releasing 1st album at age of 12 from Apple Music Store) and doesn't contain original research (LwdBell (talk) 10:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)) — Note to closing admin: LwdBell (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. and made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

FYI this piece by the The Yorkshire Post is an interview which can't be used for notability and I have no idea if asianexpress.co.uk is even a reliable source per WP:RS. GSS ^💬 10:51, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've been accused of Canvassing by GSS. I've only placed 3 messages on the talk pages of 3 editors who contributed to the article after creation and also requested input from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Islam as this article falls under Wikiproject Islam. Nothing else was done to get accused of Canvassing(LwdBell (talk) 12:39, 18 September 2020 (UTC))[reply]

In addition the links to independent, reliable, 3rd party sources including newspapers have been vandalized by GSS on the original page. (LwdBell (talk) 12:51, 18 September 2020 (UTC))[reply]

You asked three users to save this page from deletion and posted a message on the WikiProject Islam for the same and that is canvassing. GSS ^💬 12:53, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really canvassing. See WP:APPNOTE, which says that you can notify the users about the discussion who are major contributors to the article. The editors on which you have shown canvassing concerns, had already edited the article and informing such users is appropriate. So, how is it canvassing? Can you explain? Thank you. Empire AS ^Talk! 05:24, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is defiantly a case of canvancing. The creator didn't asked you to review the page but to litterly vote on the AfD as per this comment "Hello, An article you recently edited (Ismail_Hussain_(singer)) has been nominated for deletion. Please support to keep it alive" and your vote came just half an after they commented on your talk page. GSS ^💬 05:56, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I admit the creator didn't ask me to review it be because they knew that I had already contributed. What I replied then was "AfD depends on community comments. Therefore, to obtain the keep comments, we'd have to improve it further. I'm trying to improve it and you should also with reliable sources." Therefore, I improved the article further by adding refs from music.apple.com and voted keep here (just half an after). In this all situation, I don't see that the creator is trying to canvass. Now it's your turn. Empire AS ^Talk! 10:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete small time, young singer who has attracted just very local and niche attention.--Mvqr (talk) 13:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet inclusion requirements wp:musicbio, wp:gng, or WP:ANYBIO. Despite assertions from those canvassed, does not have sufficient, in depth coverage cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking." As has already been stated, the sources are inadequate. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:59, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~And let us not forget the WP:AUTOBIO angle on this. Wikipedia is not a venue for self-promotion --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)~~ striking my own weirdness --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — subject of article lacks sufficient coverage in reliable sources hence article isn’t mainspace worthy at the moment. The sheer lack of character and bad faith edits is indicative of a vested interest/ strong conflict of interest. Celestina007 (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet WP:NMUSICIAN or WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:46, 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 06:30, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Sairam[edit]

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

The subject seemed to have several passing mention but no significant coverage per wp:sigcov. Neither satisfy WP:MUSICBIO nor WP:NACADEMIC. WP:BEFORE did not fetch anything otherwise. The article is written mostly on sources unknown! ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 19:00, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 19:00, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 19:00, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 19:00, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please note that this should be the second nomination. The article was previously deleted at AfD. See, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siaram Dave. --Gazal world (talk) 20:37, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This deserve speedy deletion. Lack of notability. Previously deleted article. --Gazal world (talk) 20:40, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The previous article was deleted because it was created without the proper information. In fact, the person is Notable and I added more references and can help you with all citations required. A couple of his Articles and Poems are included in books by the state government. Also, he shared a stage with Kirtidan Dan Gadhvi and Kinjal Dave to perform for Trump at Ahmedabad.Wikilanemak (talk) 07:51, 18 September 2020 (UTC) ^[1][reply]
Delete Most text in article is not referenced. Other references have either passing mentions or news about his book releases. He is a known face but still lack WP:SIGCOV.-Nizil (talk) 06:45, 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. Sandstein 16:30, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Handley, Vernon County, Missouri[edit]

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

State Historical Society calls it a shipping point on the MKT railroad built for the convience of a single person, J. W. Handley. Old topos show a single building that was on the railroad, which disappears once the railroad does. This was never an actual community, and fails WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:36, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:36, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:36, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete Old topos show the characteristic sign of a passing siding/station, now long gone. Obviously not a town. Mangoe (talk) 18:48, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could not find any results for this place in newspapers.com Reywas92^Talk 18:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with township in which Handley was located.72.49.7.25 (talk) 03:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I see no need to merge. It's a WP:MILL railroad siding. We aren't a directory of everything that has ever existed. Hog Farm _Bacon 14:22, 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 speedy keep. The consensus of experienced editors is that further discussion here is not appropriate. (non-admin closure) Andrew🐉(talk) 11:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Martin[edit]

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

Seems to be a leading English language New Testament scholar but can't find a whole lot of WP:SIGCOV for him in secondary sources, nor does it seem like it can be expanded beyond a stub Prisencolin (talk) 18:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Subject clearly passes WP: PROF #5 as holding a named chair (at Yale, no less). St Anselm (talk) 19:03, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per StAnselm; borderline speedy per WP:CSK #3. I have a bit of trouble believing that WP:BEFORE was done, since a seconds-long search led me to [7], which confirms that he was the Woolsey Professor of Religious Studies and [8], which confirms that he is an elected fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, looks to meet WP:NPROF fairly easily per above. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. Nomination does not even appear to consider whether he passes WP:PROF, which he obviously does. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:49, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PROF doesn't supersede WP:GNG though. If this subject is in fact notable, the article should surely be expanded beyond a stub.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:13, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Prisencolin: Technically maybe but in spirit you are completely incorrect here. You could equally well say that WP:GNG doesn't supersede WP:PROF. Neither one supersedes the other in the same sense that Canadian law doesn't supersede US law or vice versa — both are applicable in their own areas. GNG and PROF both have equal footing as notability guidelines that apply to different articles. One of the very first things that WP:PROF says is "This guideline is independent from the other subject-specific notability guidelines ... and is explicitly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline". And being a stub is not even close to being a valid reason for deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:56, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Terry, Missouri[edit]

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

State Historical Society calls it "Terry Post Office." The old topos either have nothing there, or have an isolated school named "Kings Prairie School" at the site. Newer topos call it a post office. Clearly a WP:GEOLAND fail. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete Pretty clearly a 4th class PO mislabelled as a town. Mangoe (talk) 20:03, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per User: Mangoe.Knox490 (talk) 21:12, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or merge with township in which Terry was located.72.49.7.25 (talk) 03:52, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of a town. Fails WP:GEOLAND. KidAd talk 04:19, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vedant Birla[edit]

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

Biography of a businessman who does not meet WP:GNG. He's the chairman of Birla Precision and the son of the renowned businessman Yashovardhan Birla. However, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED and there needs to be significant coverage in multiple WP:RS. A WP:BEFORE search does not reveal much. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 18:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 18:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 18:07, 17 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 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. No coverage and what references they're are, are self-published or fail WP:SPIP. scope_creep^Talk 20:16, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero evidence of notability; not inherited from family that he comes from Spiderone 08:11, 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. Fenix down (talk) 16:34, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2012–13 Stockport County F.C. season[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS Spiderone 16:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 17:00, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG/NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:16, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Govvy (talk) 21:11, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 5 7 08:38, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:08, 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. 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. Fenix down (talk) 16:34, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Derby Rioclarense[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NRIVALRY; the one reference is a dead link and the Portuguese language version doesn't have anything better. I can't find any significant coverage of this supposed rivalry on a Google search. Spiderone 16:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 16:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 19:16, 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. Fenix down (talk) 16:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2010–11 Darlington F.C. season[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS Spiderone 16:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 16:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG/NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 5 7 08:39, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:09, 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. Tone 06:30, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ketterman, Missouri[edit]

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

State Historical Society calls it a post office; doesn't appear on pre-GNIS topos (nor on the most recent topo). Only coverage I can find is passing mentions, mostly related to a nearby cemetery. Appears to fail WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Quite a few results on newspapers.com dating to that era for people from there and some goings-on there. I have corrected the article which incorrectly said it "is" a community, but there are no results for the last many decades. Reywas92^Talk 18:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Reywas92.72.49.7.25 (talk) 03:53, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Kammerer[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Unable to locate any significant biographical details in secondary sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: I found this article (part 1 part 2) that I think is somewhat in depth. But everything else I found is weird gossip type stuff like this. Other than that, I see nothing else that satisfies WP:GNG. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 21:59, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 22:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would say that this article qualifies as biographical by a secondary source. [9] Fbdave (talk) 22:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The source you cited an interview with Kammerer, so it is a primary source. Magnolia677 (talk) 06:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ehh, with interviews it can go either way. On one hand, you're correct that anything the interviewee says is primary. On the other hand, the fact that a notable publication is giving a somewhat lengthy interview to this person should indicate some level of notability. In this case, the interview seems more like an easy, surface level interview and therefore shouldn't really be used as an indicator of notability. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 08:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is also this article: [10] Fbdave (talk) 12:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to being notable. No, interviews are not in any way a source that adds toward passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:38, 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. JGHowes ^talk 23:21, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Raney, Missouri[edit]

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

State Historical society calls it a post office in a rural store. GNIS gives it a census code of U6, which means it doesn't have the legal recognition necessary to pass WP:GEOLAND. Topos show a maximum of three buildings near the site over the years. Search for WP:GNG-bringing coverage comes up empty. Not notable. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lots of newspapers.com results for people by this name, none for this place (searched with "St Clair"). Reywas92^Talk 18:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep valid article about a rural settlement, even if the population was very small.72.49.7.25 (talk) 03:55, 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. JGHowes ^talk 23:21, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copeland, Missouri[edit]

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

The usual State Historical Society page calls it "Copeland Post Office". It doesn't appear on the 1894 topo; the next small-scale topo is 1960, and it's not on that one. In fact, it doesn't appear on small to medium scale topos until 2011, after it was entered into GNIS. The topos it does appear on marks it as a post office. Not a community, fails WP:GEOLAND. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete The GNIS source is our old friend, "New World War Chart (a map of Missouri)", which is quite a bad sign. Not indication that this wss anything beyond a post office. Mangoe (talk) 14:05, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with township in which Copeland is located.72.49.7.25 (talk) 03:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- And why? Generally, !votes in a deletion discussion should include some semblance of a statement as to why the proposed action is appropriate? Hog Farm _Bacon 20:10, 25 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. JGHowes ^talk 23:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chloe, Missouri[edit]

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

The State Historical Society piece linked in the article calls it "Chloe Post Office". The post office supposedly closed in 1940, and a 1941 topo shows one building at the site, presumably the office. The three houses and two or three barns that appear a little bit south of the site decades later do not appear to be related to Chloe. Fails WP:GEOLAND as a post office, not a community, and does not pass WP:GNG, since there appear to be no sources that give more than two sentences to this place. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete Clearly just a post office. Mangoe (talk) 14:19, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with township in which Chloe was located.03:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.7.25 (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ~ mazca ^talk 17:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian American Sport & Culture Association[edit]

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

delete: WP:CONFLICT, WP:VERIFY and WP:NOTE.-- Editor7798 (talk) 15:00, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:48, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:48, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:48, 9 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 16:06, 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. Tone 06:30, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegian Summer Biathlon Championships[edit]

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

Biathlon is an Olympic winter sport. The summer version of it, and on a national level, are not notable. Geschichte (talk) 09:33, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:56, 9 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 16:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This championship doesn't appear to have received a lot of coverage even locally -- there's routine coverage such as dates and results, but nothing in depth that I could find. Probably everything else in the category should be deleted as well. Paisarepa 22:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the category: I fully agree! Geschichte (talk) 10:17, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:44, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Brooks[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a politician, notable only for having briefly been the leader of a minor political party without legislative representation. As always, this is not an automatic notability guarantee under WP:NPOL -- the key to making a person notable for something like this is to write a substantive and well-sourced article that demonstrates the significance of his leadership, not just to verify that he existed as a political party leader. But of the seven footnotes here, one is his own self-written content on his own self-published website, and two are just reduplicated repetitions of two of the other four -- so there are really only four reliable sources here, and all of them are just covering the fact of his initial selection or the fact of his resignation two years later. But simply verifying the start and end dates of his leadership term is not how you make a leader of a minor political party, which had no representation in the legislature during his term as leader, notable enough for a Wikipedia article -- you need ongoing coverage of his work in the role to demonstrate the significance of his leadership, and simply being able to verify that he existed as a minor political party leader is not an "inherent" notability freebie. Bearcat (talk) 15:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete leader of a minor party with no power.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:37, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The topic of this article does not meet WP:NPOL, nor WP:GNG.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:48, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No notability. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above, leader of a minor party with no significant coverage. — Kawnhr (talk) 18:48, 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. Tone 06:31, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ideal Group[edit]

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

The company does not meet WP:NCORP. The page has been tagged for a notability issue since 2015 and not yet addressed. Faizal batliwala (talk) 15:29, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Faizal batliwala (talk) 15:29, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not being addressed for fixing a tag can not be a good rationale for AfD nomination. --☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 18:12, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no SIGCOV so fails WP:GNG Spiderone 12:43, 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 06:31, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Buffalo Niagara Film Festival[edit]

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

93 unique Google hits including directories, namechecks, self-published and crowdfunders, but not reliable independent sources. The article appears to have been created as part of a walled garden (the rest of which have been deleted), by a promotional editor. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - much as I like to encourage indie film-makers and new talents, this just doesn't meet WP:GNG. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:17, 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 17:49, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Filip Filipi Janković[edit]

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

promotional article sourced almost entirely to black hat SEO sites/spam/press releases and name drops. Praxidicae (talk) 14:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable individual unsourced to reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:03, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to be notable. Subject was not even mentioned in the supposed Forbes article in the citation. --Infogapp1 (talk) 22:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:01, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hussain Saddam[edit]

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

Paid for spam about a non-notable student activist. Most of the sources are passing mentions at best or regurgitated PR puffery. Being general secretary of an organization doesn't pass the notability test. Praxidicae (talk) 14:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:49, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — I’m in total alignment with the thought process of the nom. A before search doesn’t show subject of our discussion has sufficient in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of him. Celestina007 (talk) 20:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Another editor created Draft:Saddam Hussain with similar but non-identical content. Hussain Saddam was created as Draft:Hussain Saddam after the last content edit of "Saddam Hussain" draft then moved to mainspace, but the content is different enough that a history merge is inappropriate. I changed the "Saddam Hussain" draft to a redirect to the page under discussion here, and put {{copied}} templates on both talk pages. Draft:Saddam Hussain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Based on the English coverage only, this person is getting coverage similar to what a small-town mayor in the United States would get. I confess I have not tried to read the translations of the non-English sources. For all I know they could say "He's won multiple awards on a national scale" or something like that, but I'm not seeing it in the article text. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:14, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable Bangladeshi activist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable person.--Rocky Masum (talk) 14:59, 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 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

V774 Sagittarii[edit]

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

Fails WP:NASTRO. This star is included in a number of large catalogues and databases, but there is zero research published solely about it or about it and a small number of other objects. Any notability is based on its potential size based on an unreliable Gaia DR2 parallax distance (and possibly on variability, although it is faint and not anything out of the ordinary in its class). Lithopsian (talk) 14:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:43, 17 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, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-06 ✍️ create

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:54, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly A. Hyman[edit]

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

As per the last AFD, still no indication she is notable. this isn't independent rs, it's a press release, this write up is a puff piece and wasn't enough last time, imdb isn't rs, random forbes contributor pieces aren't rs and this readers digest uk article was written by the manager of a marketing company. Praxidicae (talk) 14:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. I don't have access to the previous incarnation of the page, which was deleted as the outcome of an AfD discussion in 2017, so I can't assess whether the current page is different from/better than its predecessor: however, there's nothing in the current page to demonstrate notability per WP:NACTOR, WP:NAUTHOR or WP:ANYBIO. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 15:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being the wife of a federal judge is not a default sign of notability, and that is probably the best angle Mrs. Hyman had for notability. Her career as an actress was not enough to establish notability. Her role as a journalist and writer is just not enough to make her notable, nor is her role as a broadcast journalist. Her actions as a lawyer are worded in a truly promotional style here, but there is so little substance that even the excessive promotionalism of the article leaves us with nothing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:35, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's zero to base her notability on at this point and she doesn't just get an article because she's married to a federal judge. It's also obvious from the promotionalism in the article and recreation after another AfD that this is probably an advert article. which we shouldn't encourage. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:44, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability. scope_creep^Talk 09:23, 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) 22:38, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Sri Lanka Under-19 Tri-Nation tournament[edit]

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

The other under 19 tournament is being nominated for deletion and is looking as if it is going to end up in delete. The page is an under 19 tournament which doesn't pass WP:CRIN. As usual all comments welcome . CreativeNorth (talk) 14:28, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my comments at a similar AfD. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG/NSPORTSEVENT; no significant coverage of this relatively minor age-group tournament, just routine stuff, mostly in largely indiscriminate specialist sources. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 19:10, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. StickyWicket (talk) 09:37, 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 speedy deletion : "15:50, 17 September 2020 Discospinster deleted page Rajarshi n patel (Multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria A7, G11)" czar 06:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rajarshi n patel[edit]

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

Non-notable and self-promotion. Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC AngusMEOW (chatter • paw trail) 14:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. Very new article, clearly undeveloped. Author may have COI, so an additional reason for quality control. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:11, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AleatoryPonderings This is their edit summary on the page "I have created my own biography Page" I don't think Draftifying is the option, Speedy Delete?

I see Praxidicae has just tagged it for CSD, so I guess we'll see what the outcome of that is. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:22, 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) AngusMEOW (chatter • paw trail) 13:59, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Sullivan (Alaska politician)[edit]

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

Non-notable politician. Legislative service:1975-1976. Fails WP:NPOL. Not to be confused with Susan Sullivan an Actress and Susan Sullivan (politician) from Canada. AngusMEOW (chatter • paw trail) 13:01, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep United States state legislators are notable-thank you-RFD (talk) 13:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NPOL: Politicians … who have held … state/province–wide office are presumed notable. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Doesn't fail WP:NPOL. United States state legislators are always kept, in my experience. pburka (talk) 13:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NPOL, which considers all members of state legislatures to be notable. This is for good reason, as legislators and their activities are frequently covered by reliable sources (especially newspapers); a search of newspapers.com turns up several sources on Sullivan's legislative activity, such as [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 13:43, 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 : "17:15, 23 September 2020 Justlettersandnumbers deleted page Majid Yaser (Mass deletion of pages added by Editor3342: G5, created by a banned or blocked user (ArmanAfifeh) in violation of ban or block)" czar 06:49, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Majid Yaser[edit]

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

Non-notable Iranian actor. Fails WP:ENT No important roles in notable movies or TV shows(upon checking on his IMDB profile). AngusMEOW (chatter • paw trail) 11:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:48, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:48, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G5 - Created by a sockpuppet of ArmanAfifeh. Ahmad^talk 06:51, 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 Procedural close. already tagged for CSD and another editor nominated for AFD at the same time (non-admin closure) Megan☺️ ^{Talk to the monster} 12:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rangapori[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No indication of importance. No sources. Looks promotional. Fails WP:GNG AngusMEOW (chatter • paw trail) 11:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Four editors all tagging this article for deletion at the same time, must be a record – Thjarkur (talk) 11:45, 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 deleted by User:DGG. BD2412 T 04:36, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rangapori[edit]

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

While the article states this is "the most famous company in Bangladesh", it doesn't have sources backing up this claim. Furthermore, in searching for sources this appears to be untrue. This company does not meet WP:NCORP. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 11:40, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rangapori (2nd nomination) was opened in parallel. @AngusMEOW: you may wish to copy your nomination over here.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 12:16, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:A7 and WP:G11. SITH (talk) 12:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
G11 maybe, but it isn't an A7 since it states that it is "the most famous company in Bangladesh" which is a Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 12:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete No indication of importance. No sources. Looks promotional. Fails WP:GNG AngusMEOW (chatter • paw trail) 12:28, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:49, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:49, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - zero evidence of notability and obvious attempt at promotion Spiderone 18:10, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I have deleted it G11 speedy. DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 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. I see wide agreement here that we should not retain this article. Arguments are put forward for deletion and for moving to draft space to enable CreamyGoodne55 to source the article but as they are blocked indefinitely and have stated they have no intention of editing further, I have placed greater weight on the arguments for deletion and so have closed this discussion as delete. If anyone would like the page to be moved to user space or draft space so they can work on the article, just drop me a line on my talk page. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Isle of Axholme Evening league[edit]

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

Non-notable, minor, local amateur cricket competition. Highly unlikely that any coverage exists beyond primary sources and possibly local routine results in local press. Cricket competitions below ECB Premier League level are generally not notable. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of cricket-related deletion discussions. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Publisher responce

Is there any point discussing this. This is targetted harrasment by Wjemather Just look at the other pages that Ive published this year and see hes done the same thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Humberside_Alliance_cricket_league

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Bob_Welton_cup

Or better yet just look at his contributions today and tell me its not targetted

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Wjemather

Adding 331dot So an Admin can see whats going on.CreamyGoodne55 (talk) 11:44, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You need more than just the fact someone is working on articles you have contributed to as evidence of harassment. I see nothing to indicate that you personally are being targeted in bad faith to harm you or Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 11:48, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

331dot Then whats the point, if you cant see that this is targetted harrasment then I refused to engage in the discussion about this and you can just let people run pages like its the Mafia. Weve put hundreds of hours into publishing these pages. This page today is the culmination of 2 weeks of searching newspaper articles and Ive had about 20 books on my desk to find information out but because one person wants to abuse me its just "hey lets delete it". Delete the pages, ive lost all interest in ever doing anything on Wikipedia if this is how you deal with Bullys, just let me copy all my articles into work documents and Ill host them elsewhere.CreamyGoodne55 (talk) 11: 58, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Draftify. I concur with 331dot's assessment that this nomination is in good faith, I think the article's creator doing some work on improving the article in the draftspace and learning how Wikipedia's collaborative editing process works would be beneficial for them and the article. I am familiar with WikiProject Cricket so I could put them in touch with some users who may be willing to assist, and as an AFC reviewer I would certainly keep my eye on it. At the end of the day the article is unsourced at the moment and therefore fails verifiability tests but covers a potentially notable topic and a considerable amount of work appears to have been put into it. Incubation in the draftspace, as opposed to deletion, would be beneficial for all those involved. SITH (talk) 12:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Responce to StraussInTheHouse

As I have already said I have zero interest in contributing to anything on Wikipedia if the admins and other authors are going to support a user who is attacking people because he thinks he owns the Cricket pages on here. Interestingly you only have to look back at his contributions and hes done the same to the golf pages to the point where other people have stopped contributing. If you want proof as to why this is targetted and harrasment I will break down the full events

I have published and posted these pages for the last 5 years without any other involvement past some people acknowledging them and fixing typos (my spelling is terrible). Not once has anyone tagged them for anything past the Bob welton Cup Page got tagged for not enough sources that I accepted.
2 Weeks ago I edited the Lincolnshire_Premier_League page to allign it up to the other lincolnshire cricket pages
Wjemather Deleted the table I was working on for player records stating "format cancelled season; remove awards (not significant and not reported in independent RSes at this level)"
As someone involved in the actual cricket league I know that Awards in that league are very significant and as is the case in Lincolnshire County Cricket league That I also published they are well recieved
Some Back and throwing between myself and Wjemather at which point he posts on my personal page telling me " Hello. I wanted to let you know that in your recent contributions to Lincolnshire Premier League, you seemed to act as if you were the owner of the page. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. This means that editors do not own articles, including ones they create, and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, remember that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC)"[reply]
I kindly reminded him that I was working on the page to add things and his edit, that he did 4 times! wasnt warranted and I was working on filling the page with information.
He immediately tags all the pages I posted around that (And has stated his intention to tag more before 331dot stepped in) for deletion.

Now if you want more evidence that this is targetted then please go to the users talk page where firstly he states at the top "Nowhere near as active as I used to be – mostly due to being busy doing other things, but also because Wikipedia as a community has proven itself absolutely incapable of" and then lists things he thinks are up with Wikipedia

and secondly he has history of doing this with Golf pages.

Now if that isnt targetted and not in good faith I dont know what is.

I am 100% willing to give this a second chance, if Wjemather admits he did this to target me and all of the deletion tags are dropped because of it. If not then as I said I will not be doing another thing on Wikipedia past looking at everything Wjemather does like a hawk for him to slip up. If hes man enough to admit that he was abusing the fucntions because of an argument Im happy to apologise for letting it get heated and we can end it there.CreamyGoodne55 (talk) 15:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. This debate has been heavily sidetracked: nevertheless, the guidelines at WP:NTEAM make it clear that we should follow general notability guidelines for this sort of organisation. There's no evidence that the league meets any of the GNG criteria and I've been unable to find any significant coverage which might demonstrate notability. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 15:40, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly fails WP:GNG due to lack of reliable sources covering the subject in depth Spiderone 16:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @CreamyGoodne55: here's the path to keeping these articles: you've mentioned that you've done a lot of research, consulted several books, etc. That's great, but none of that is in the article. In fact, there are no references at all right now. Just because someone nominated an article for deletion doesn't mean it will be deleted -- it just means its deletion will be discussed. All anyone will care about is whether this has received sufficient coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. List those books/sources here, and people will support keeping. Resist making it about the nominator. Many of us have been in a similar situation of having hard work nominated for deletion to know it can be extremely frustrating, but you do yourself a disservice by focusing on the nomination rather than the content/sourcing. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - As it stands the article fails to meet GNG, however the user has mentioned having sources. Moving it to draft space gives it the chance to be improved once the user has returned from his current editing ban. Greyjoy^talk 05:23, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - if the article's primary editor does genuinely have lots of sources available, let's give him/her a chance to add them and then give it another shot in mainspace -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThis is my last comment on the situation as I can see that the person in question is back to harrasing golf pages now hes got his monopoly on cricket pages. If you want to see the level of pettiness he has and why I can say this is a targeted attack with zero care (Well ignoring the fact he hasnt made a single comment on any of these since doing them but apparently that isnt enough). Please turn your attention to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lincolnshire_Premier_League&action=history which is where this attack stared. Whilst I was banned The user is question went back and undid the article again, only this time he did a very quick minor edit straight after so you cant undo his changes, meaning the work I and others have done is lost without retyping it. Sadly the admin I asked to get involed doesnt seem like hes one bit interested, even going on to his page to say he can carry on delete flaggging my pages once the decision has been made on these (331dot for those interested). Ive spoken with everyone involed in creating and keeping up with these pages and we are all in 100% agreement that we will not be doing any more work on wikipedia so the user in question (which hilariously I have been told i will banned permanently if I say anything about him again when hes allowed to do this to 100s of hours of work) has got his way. Sad day for places like here when the obsession, gatekeeping and abuse of rules reigns over people wanting to do what this place was created for, the preseration of information for the future. CreamyGoodne55 (talk) 12:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI find it pretty laughable hes now trying to remove discussion about what hes done on a page he created and called me out for trying to remove things from earlier. But, yeah this was not a targeted attack.CreamyGoodne55 (talk) 17:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

I dont think its very fair for the decision making that now I have proof that this was a targetted attack the user in question can keep removing the posts to make him look better. Can you please lock him out of making edits until a decision on this has been made.CreamyGoodne55 (talk) 16:37, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) We don't ban users just because a deletion discussion is going on. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:14, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Local interest only. Nigej (talk) 14:32, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin - due to their permanent ban, the creator of this article won't be able to work on this in the draftspace Spiderone 17:32, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't think we'll ever get sourcing to show that this league is notable - it certainly isn't anywhere up the standard of ECB Premier Leagues - for example the Kent Cricket League - let alone organisations such as the Lancashire League or Australian Grade Cricket. Per the cricket project guidelines it would need to show substantial sourcing and a much wider notability. Given that the only person who would be likely to work on any draft is now permanently-banned, it makes no sense to draftify. So, three green lights: pitching in line, impact in line and hitting the wickets: plumb lbw and got to go Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:03, 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 13:42, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prima (CBD)[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND scope_creep^Talk 11:28, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability not established and WP:PROMO issues. 1292simon (talk) 08:58, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:59, 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 11:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020–21 Deportivo de La Coruña season[edit]

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

Team in a non-fully professional league. We deleted articles like this of Burgos CF, Real Oviedo, Real Murcia, Gimnàstic de Tarragona, Lleida Esportiu… Asturkian (talk) 11:03, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:21, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:21, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:40, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 14:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG/NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and wow, I didn't know how far down La Coruna had fallen down the league! This surprised me. Govvy (talk) 20:29, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 5 7 08:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, sad to see such a historic club so far down. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:09, 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 11:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Hacker Purity Test[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

GNG fail. Tagged as unsourced since 2010. The test is definitely a "thing" if you poke around on various old servers (example, example) but it does not seem to have attracted any reliable sources in the 31 years since its inception. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:26, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:26, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:26, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to either Hacker culture or Purity test: Barely found anything about the term. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 13:30, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect doesn't work as long as the topic isn't mentioned in the target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's a clear lack of independent sources and I don't think the topic deserves a section in either of the articles mentioned by Superastig. 13:21, 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. The arguments for deletion are stronger. Notability requires sources, and there are none of substance here (the article cites one dead website of unclear reliability, http://www.rileyandson.co.uk/html/45407.html.). The "keep" opinions don't rebut this, but appear to argue that such locomotives are inherently notable, which has no foundation in guidelines or policy. Sandstein 10:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LMS Stanier Class 5 4-6-0 5407[edit]

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

Hardly notable steam locomotive, one ref citing a glimpse on a TV programme from 1991, and the other is parts from the owner's website. Both aren't significant enough to prove notability. Nightfury 10:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 10:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 10:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is pragmatic. At a total guess without checking there's probably about 10 of these in preservation. And there wil be sources in the offline magazine. It is probably be possible to merge with all its mates in with LMS Stanier Class 5 4-6-0 (preserved) if anyone with a positive outlook on the this. But given other results this is probably a keep. Has this been discussed at WikiProject level because we really need consistent guidlelines. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:51, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Only in very exceptional cases are individual locomotives notable, and this article utterly fails to assert any sort of notability. Entirely fancruft in my opinion. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is one of 18 preserved locomotives of this class, ten of which have WP articles. Merging into one combined article, or even the main LMS Stanier Class 5 4-6-0 is faintly ridiculous. Preserved UK mainline steam locomotives are notable. – Iain Bell (talk) 16:02, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yes we have 10 WP articles for these preserved steam locomotives, but nearly all of them are also unsourced fancruft, with no sourced material establishing notability. We do presume notability on each train class, but not on the individual locomotives. Jumpytoo Talk 19:25, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 17:40, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:47, 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. Tone 13:42, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pritisha Borthakur[edit]

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

Non-notable. Lacks significant coverage in many of the references cited in the article. She fails WP:JOURNALIST AngusMEOW (chatter • paw trail) 10:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:58, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:58, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:58, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:58, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't seem to be notable as a sportsperson or entrepreneur or poet or journalist; fails WP:GNG Spiderone 12:44, 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 11:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Bob Welton cup[edit]

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

Non-notable low level local amateur cricket competition. Highly unlikely any sources exist beyond primary sources and routine results coverage in local press. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:16, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:16, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly fails WP:GNG due to lack of reliable sources covering the subject in depth Spiderone 16:37, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- This is my last comment on the situation as I can see that the person in question is back to harrasing golf pages now hes got his monopoly on cricket pages. If you want to see the level of pettiness he has and why I can say this is a targeted attack with zero care (Well ignoring the fact he hasnt made a single comment on any of these since doing them but apparently that isnt enough). Please turn your attention to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lincolnshire_Premier_League&action=history which is where this attack stared. Whilst I was banned The user is question went back and undid the article again, only this time he did a very quick minor edit straight after so you cant undo his changes, meaning the work I and others have done is lost without retyping it. Sadly the admin I asked to get involed doesnt seem like hes one bit interested, even going on to his page to say he can carry on delete flaggging my pages once the decision has been made on these (331dot for those interested). Ive spoken with everyone involed in creating and keeping up with these pages and we are all in 100% agreement that we will not be doing any more work on wikipedia so the user in question (which hilariously I have been told i will banned permanently if I say anything about him again when hes allowed to do this to 100s of hours of work) has got his way. Sad day for places like here when the obsession, gatekeeping and abuse of rules reigns over people wanting to do what this place was created for, the preseration of information for the future. CreamyGoodne55 (talk) 12:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Look CreamyGoodne55 (talk · contribs), he doesn't have a "monopoly" on the cricket pages as there are probably others that I would acclaim to that monopoly status. HawkAussie (talk) 06:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of significant coverage to demonstrate notability. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 20:12, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no evidence that this will be able to pass WP:GNG. HawkAussie (talk) 06:06, 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 11:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

North Lindsey League[edit]

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

Non-notable low-level local amateur cricket competition. No sources likely to exist outside primary sources and routine results coverage in local press. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 10:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. There's no evidence of independent, significant coverage for this organisation: fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 15:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly fails WP:GNG due to lack of reliable sources covering the subject in depth; this is clearly an amateur competition and none of the teams or players involved seem to meet the notability guidelines either Spiderone 16:39, 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. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Humberside Alliance cricket league[edit]

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

Non-notable low-level (defunct) local amateur cricket competition. No sources likely to exist outside primary sources and routine results coverage in local press. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:01, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:01, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 10:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I find this incredibly childish and ridiculous

I have posted and edited all of the lincolnshire cricket pages for the last 5 years and because I ask someone not to delete the batting and bowling awards sections on the Lincolnshire premier league page he has now tagged all of my pages for deletion.

For starters its ridiculous that an "editor" can act this childish and I ask him to be immediately removed and banned from wikipedia for blatant abuse of position.

Our work is to find historical information on cricket in lincolnshire and post it up on wikipedia for all to seem. We have a society that sits monthly and have backing from Lincs Cricket, the ECB and have help from webistes such as Cricket Archive, north lincs Library, Gimsby Library and Doncaster library. We have been doing this for several years and Ive never had a single complaint about what I was doing.

This is hundreds of hours of work that is being vandalised by an idiot.

I not only expect this to be removed immediately, but I expect an apology aswell. CreamyGoodne55 (talk) 11:16, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I notice the idiot in question has used the argument that there are too many first hand sources. Ive answered this question before in that all of the cricket pages I publish doesnt have internet sources, its the whole reason why we are trying to put them on wikipedia!!!!!! The sources are the books, newspaper articles and anecdotal evidence I have in front of me and I cite this when I post them

Im also a editor and admin for Play cricket and when informtaition is put on there (Which it has for most of these pages, I reference them to that.

I really dont know what else to say on the matter, I am so annoyed with thisCreamyGoodne55 (talk) 11:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CreamyGoodne55 If you make more personal attacks, you will be blocked. 331dot (talk) 11:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will further add that if a subject does not have significant coverage in independent reliable sources(I don't know if that is the case here or not), it cannot be on Wikipedia. Sources do not need to be online, but they do need to be published and accessible to the public. You cannot use Wikipedia as a web host for your information. 331dot (talk) 11:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

123dot So its been fine for 5 years for my pages to be on wikipedia but now one person is annoyed at me because I asked him not to adit out a table I was working on they have to all be deleted?

This is targetted harrasment, Might be time for a harrasmnet and bullying report to go in. CreamyGoodne55 (talk) 11:29, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CreamyGoodne55 I am not 123dot. They are not "your pages"; they belong to the community, which you are told with every edit you make. The fact that they have existed for five years is completely irrelevant. You need to stop the personal attacks, calm down, and make a logical case preferably based in Wikipedia guidelines as to why the articles you wrote should remain. 331dot (talk) 11:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

331dot Apologies for tagging your username wrong. I am not saying they are MY pages, but I published them and the only pople that have edited them up to today is myself and the other people I am working with. The only reason the user in question has even gone on the page is becuase hes targetting everything Ive published this year. And this is why I made the point about length of serivce. Ive been doing this for years and only one person has had an issue and that was with citing references with a book (I openly admnit I am a begining in that regard) and we resolved this. But now Im led to believe that I have to defence the articles I published and it has nothing to do with a user targetting me and my articles?

Users are allowed to notice edits or articles and take action regarding them if they are acting in good faith. This is a completely normal thing in Wikipedia. If you have evidence of any malicious intent(which is not just the mere fact someone noticed your edits and took action) or bad faith, please offer it. I don't see any here- so I suggest that you focus on the specific concerns given by the person who started this discussion. 331dot (talk) 11:46, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. A cornerstone of Wikipedia is that pages must be verifiable, meaning that they have garnered coverage in independent sources which are independent of the subject; and that this coverage could be described as significant. There's no evidence that this organisation has attained either of these things. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 15:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly fails WP:GNG due to lack of reliable sources covering the subject in depth Spiderone 16:40, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable local cricket league. Only sources listed are from the organisation themselves (play-cricket is a UGC site where teams / leagues manage information about themselves, which the page creator admits to being a contributor to). Spike 'em (talk) 09:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable local league that fails SIGCOV and it seems like the person who created is connected to it or the website he is using as sources somehow. Which is a clear COI. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:07, 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. czar 06:47, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spiral Diner[edit]

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

Local business, fails WP:NCORP/WP:CORPDEPTH. Routine business only. History section largely WP:OR. Kleuske (talk) 18:11, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 18:11, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 18:11, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 18:11, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable; fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Article has several citations, none of which count towards notability (WP:ORGDEPTH). They consist of directory entries, non-notable awards, branch openings, and restaurant reviews that don't meet WP:PRODUCTREV. Per WP:ORGDEPTH: "Examples of trivial coverage that do not count toward meeting the significant coverage requirement: ... standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as: ... of the opening or closing of local branches, franchises, or shops". I did some WP:BEFORE checking and turned up nothing further. It seems their most notable claim to fame is being a vegan restaurant in the middle of "Cowtown USA". Normal Op (talk) 19:49, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I was going to vote delete, but then did a google news search and there are tons of recent news about this place, NBC 5 Dallas, Dallas Morning News, Forth Worth Star Telegram, to name a few. Also they have won some awards. I feel it is meets WP:NORG. Expertwikiguy (talk) 09:14, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Care to mention some of those articles? Just claiming there are isn’t a very convincing argument. Kleuske (talk) 09:16, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:53, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:54, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:58, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A few reviews and announcements in local sources, but nothing that shows WP:CORPDEPTH. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:49, 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 11:38, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sky Sudberry[edit]

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

Per WP:ONEEVENT. Appeared as an 8-year-old child in a film but no other indication of notability Nigej (talk) 09:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 10:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 10:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. Nigej (talk) 06:43, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agreed with the nomination. WP:ONEEVENT, WP:GNG, WP:TOOSOON. EverybodyEdits (talk) 15:12, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The available sourcing is about the films itself or human interest pieces related to the film's release. No standalone notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:12, 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 11:38, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arun Jamkar[edit]

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

Non-notable doctor. None of the references talk about the subject in detail. Clearly fails WP:GNG AngusMEOW (chatter • paw trail) 09:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wholly promotional article. Alleged references are either passing mentions or "Foo," said Jamkar interview references that look as if they are supplied by a PR machine. " India.[1][2][3][4] [5][6][7][8][9][10] " is a prime example of WP:CITEKILL, but there are no facts, no notability, asserted. An inherently lazy article. Nothing to show a pass of WP:GNG. Fiddle Faddle 09:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. No evidence of anything that would pass WP:ANYBIO or WP:NACADEMIC. All the references are about other people or things, and do nothing beyond proving his job title. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 10:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I had created article as I thought the person is notable but I will go with what others think of it. Thank you. -- Dr. Abhijeet Safai (talk) 10:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 10:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 10:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 10:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. non notable surgeon. Priyanjali singh (talk) 15:22, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing notable about this person as of now. Riddhidev BISWAS (talk) 12:38, 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 11:38, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blind Divine[edit]

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

Does not satisfy WP:BAND. Only reliable, third-party sources that I could find were Tucson Weekly and Phoenix New Times; the latter one only features trivial mention. The former one is an album review, but I don't think it would be enough to establish notability. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 08:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 08:27, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yeah, these are the only half-decent sources I found. Although the first one is not decent at all since it's just a trivial mention. The latter one is decent, it's reliable since it's an album review, but that's just one good source and one is not enough. Google search results are the standard databases, streaming service entries, lyrics sites, concert sites and blogs, with these two sources included. I am not convinced of their notability. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:46, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete apart from the notability issue this article is very promotional to the extent that it would qualify for speedy deletion G11 as spam, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:10, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concept Records[edit]

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

I declined a prod by Another Believer, not because I thought the topic was undoubtedly notable, but because I think it should redirect to Totally Scott-Lee, and I'm not fond of un-discussed "deletion-by-redirect", so here we are. The label does seem to have been associated with a few notable artists, but I can't find any sources with substantial coverage that are independent of the topic. Perhaps this discussion will unearth a few. Also pinging Dcljr who contested the prod.

I believe that Totally Scott-Lee is the correct target as most of the casual mentions I found of this label are in that context. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:48, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:48, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:48, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Oops. That was actually a mistake on my part, because I didn't mean to touch any PRODs that were already removed by others. Anyway, I have no opinion on what should actually happen to the page (as long as it follows our guidelines). - dcljr (talk) 22:59, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein ^talk 07:11, 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn after sources provided, with no editors arguing for deletion. ~ mazca ^talk 17:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Telikin[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet the requirements of GNG. A few sources that pretty much review every computer reviewed this one,[16][17][18] but IMO that isn't enough. Guy Macon (talk) 06:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Guy Macon (talk) 06:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 10:21, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I saw an advertisement for this product in 2012 and figured I could help by writing a Wikipedia article to go with it. I had no need or intent of buying a Telikin PC for myself or my parents and have not been able to contribute meaningfully to the article since then. I realize this comment adds little to the discussion. But I wanted to at least say something to avoid the impression that "even the article creator has abandoned it" and the like. —Soap— 13:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Significant product reviews in prominent reliable sources: [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]. I'm not clear why the nom considers this insufficient. ~Kvng (talk) 15:19, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing Nomination. The next time a closer sweeps through the AfDs this should be closed as "withdrawn". --Guy Macon (talk) 15:57, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Girl from Tomorrow. Consensus is that this person is not notable, redirecting per ATD. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:40, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Marshall[edit]

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

Procedural nom, as this was previously prodded. Fails WP:NACTOR. Only four roles, per IMDb: [24]. Three, if you count The Girl from Tomorrow and the TV movie based on it as one role. The best I could do by way of coverage is [25] and some namedrops in contemporary reviews of the show, which is not very good. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:34, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:34, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:34, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article lacks any truly reliable secondary sources, which is what we need to demonstrate impact, which is the key to notability. Wikipedia is not a place to do original research.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Girl from Tomorrow where Marshall is most well known, as per WP:ATD. Deus et lex (talk) 07:13, 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. czar 06:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of sports competitions between teams representing continents[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:LISTN. Delete per WP:IINFO. Of the twenty-eight items on the list, twenty-one are not actually between teams representing continents (e.g., USA vs Europe, Europe vs. Rest of the World). Unsourced. Paisarepa 03:34, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Paisarepa 03:34, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, content of list does not fit title, not an overarching topic. Call me crochety, but golf isn't a team sport either, just a lumping of individual competitors' scores... Reywas92^Talk 17:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is pure WP:LISTCRUFT. --fuzzy510 (talk) 09:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 10:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 10:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 10:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Spiderone 16:48, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails LISTN, but that said, the content of the article doesn't match the title. It's impossible to tell what the criteria is for the list so doesn't meet WP:LISTCRIT. Its all OR. Is golf or pool a team sport? // Timothy :: talk 05:50, 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. czar 06:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Radio KAOS (Slovenia)[edit]

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

Not finding any coverage in reliable sources on this internet/cable station; fails WP:GNG. Raymie (t • c) 03:27, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 03:27, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 03:27, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced and owner is a red link Copyrightpower1337 (talk) 18:37, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about the station. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 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 06:16, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Choraliers[edit]

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

None of the links listed have "Choraliers" in them - this is akin to adding every high school whose sports teams are the "Redbirds" on Redbird. In addition, a cursory search of [26] shows many results not on the page. It's just plain unsourceable in addition to being the wrong type of dab page. Just doesn't belong. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 02:54, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 02:54, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:16, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:16, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR. This is essentially just a list of schools that make bare (if any) mention of choraliers. In addition to this the only choralier group with an article - Shawnee Mission East Choraliers has questionable notability. Ajf773 (talk) 10:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to choir, or delete Serves no purpose as a disambig page. Acebulf (talk) 23:49, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only one of those have their own article and it just got switched to a redirect. There are plenty of articles for choirs. Category:Choirs More common name for it. Dream Focus 01:57, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR. Lorstaking 13:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Search is better. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:12, 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 07:48, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Kwame Asiedu Walker[edit]

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

BLP of an unsuccessful candidate for the Presidency of Ghana with no other claim of notability. He was recently deciding whether to run again, according to sources I found. As an unsuccessful past candidate and possible current candidate he does not pass WP:NPOL. Mccapra (talk) 02:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 02:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 02:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully contest your wanting to have the page deleted. I agree that unsuccessful candidates may not be suitable for wikipedia. However, he was not unsuccessful. He indeed contested in the 2016 elections after the country's Electoral Commission gave him the clearance. Most bloggers only captured the earlier parts when the EC raised objection to his candidature. Subsequently he was cleared and I am gathering documents to that effect. Kindly wait as I work to improve the page other than proposing it for deletion. If you've noticed, the page is being worked on gradually. Also, the man is a politician who has done other things in Ghana and which I would include in the page.

Delete what we mean by 'unsuccessful" is "unelected". Just because someone successfully made it on a ballot does not make them notable, the cut-off for notability is not running but being elected.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:24, 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 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. czar 02:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Baker, St. Clair County, Missouri[edit]

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

Hard to search for this one, since the site has apparently been under a lake for decades, but the State Historical Society calls it "Baker Post Office", which definitely smacks of GNIS error. Appears to fail WP:GEOLAND. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:17, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:17, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:17, 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 02:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dooley Car Rentals[edit]

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

paid for spam about a non notable car rental company that happens to be connected with a notable company. Praxidicae (talk) 02:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom, there is no evidence that WP:COMPANY or WP:GNG are met. A quick WP:BEFORE exercise just returns just run-of-the-mill coverage and passing mentions. It is telling that the article has to rely on the types of references it does, for even the very basic information that is included (company registration record, directories, adverts, etc). The editing patterns are also, per nom, consistent with those often seen when WP:PAID concerns are raised. Guliolopez (talk) 08:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the page doesn't meet the criteria outlined at WP:CORPDEPTH. I note that the page creator has commented on the article's talk page, but the argument there appears to be based on OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and some vague Wikilawyering nonsense suggesting that Wikipedia needs to keep the page in order to comply with European competition law. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 08:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: almost all mentions are the subject's own sources or travel sites. Not notable enough to keep and no independent reliable third-party sources found. ww2censor (talk) 11:29, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:43, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:43, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:43, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While this is an improvement over the WP:G11 iterations, despite the heroic efforts of draft and main space article creators, the subject still does not meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Please see the sourcing requirements there. The independent coverge is not sufficiently significant, nor sufficiently in depth. What we have is a WP:COATRACK built of routine, mostly non independent coverage of an entity that was bought by a larger entity and wishful thinking. This does not even merit a redirect to the new owner. I have seen the creator's talk page arguments and find them insufficient to overcome the deficiencies, if anything, they are just more promotionalism. I have read and concur except where they vary from my own rationale with the prior deletion rationales extant at time of this writing. I will, for the record and as a reminder, state that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and that mumbo-jumbo about European competition law is irrelevant, and just gives the impression that this is an attempt to promote a business.

individual assessment of each source at time of this writing

"Company Search". search.cro.ie. is simply a business listing, routine coverage
"Car Rental Council of Ireland : Rental Companies - Dooley Car Rentals"' is a routine listing by a group "representing Ireland's car rental industry"
"DOOLEY Car Rental at Dublin Airport (DUB)". Is a routine, promotional listing by Dublin Airport
"Dan Dooley Cork Car Hire (ORK)". Is a routine, promotional listing by Cork Airport
"Car Hire". Shannon Airport.Is a routine, promotional listing by Shannon Airport that lists ( I guess) all the care rentals there.
Reddan, Fiona. "Enterprise Rent-A-Car acquires Dooley Car Rentals". The Irish Times. was the best hope for significant, in depth, independent coverage. It's a brief piece about Enterprise buying Dooley
"Dan Dooley profits dip as board pay doubles". independent. while independent lacks sufficient depth or significance.

--Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:23, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

This page should be kept alive on Wikipedia Because ;

1. Company established in 1976 with a history of more than 40 years. (https://search.cro.ie/company/CompanyDetails.aspx?id=57675&type=B : Here the name is mentioned as Dan Dooley rent a car. After acquisition by Enterprise Rent a car, the name was changed to Dooley car rentals ; https://search.cro.ie/company/CompanyDetails.aspx?id=593977&type=B) cro.ie is the The Companies Registration Office of Irish Government

2. Ireland's largest independent rent a car company according to CAR RENTAL COUNCIL OF IRELAND (http://www.carrentalcouncil.ie/Companies.html?NI=16270747)

3. Partner of world's largest car rental company, Enterprise Rent a Car (Mentioned in Enterprise's Wikipedia page; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enterprise_Holdings#Mergers_and_acquisitions, Enterprise is the largest car rental company in the world; https://www.bloomberg.com/press-releases/2019-09-23/world-s-largest-car-rental-operator-recognized-for-corporate-citizenship-and-industry-leadership , https://www.forbes.com/companies/enterprise-holdings/#4c0b99803310 , https://brandirectory.com/rankings/car-rental-services/2017/table)

4. The company's existence and partnership with enterprise has been validated by multiple, independent news sites (https://www.irishexaminer.com/business/arid-20446884.html , https://www.irishtimes.com/business/transport-and-tourism/enterprise-rent-a-car-acquires-dooley-car-rentals-1.3034930, https://www.limerickleader.ie/news/home/243747/a-wonderful-move-as-us-giant-buyslimerick-based-dooley-car-rental-fleet.html )

5. The company's pay policy to the Board of directors has lead to controversy in Ireland (https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/dan-dooley-profits-dip-as-board-pay-doubles-36035821.html)

6. Article contains citations from reliable, independent, 3rd party, Irish National newspapers, not just travel sites as accused above.

7. Comapny is listed in official websites of Dublin and Shannon airports in Ireland (https://dublinairport.org/dublin-airport-car-hire/dooley-car-hire-dublin-airport/#/searchcars and https://www.shannonairport.ie/passengers/explore-ireland/car-hire/)

8. The article has been written in a neutral point of view - not advertising, and no original research included.

Please consider above and keep this page alive. Thanks! (NixBee (talk) 12:18, 18 September 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:38, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, not a notable company. Spleodrach (talk) 17:43, 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 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. czar 02:38, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blackjack, Missouri[edit]

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

According to the State Historical Society source linked in the article, this was also known as "Sample Post Office" which was ... guess what ... a post office. Not on the 1886 topo. 1939 topo has a "Black Jack School" but no town named Blackjack. Small cluster of about 5 or 6 buildings on the 1991 topo where the school supposedly was. Google maps suggests the buildings are two houses and 4 barns, with a Church of God Holiness down the road. Oddly, on the recent topos, the location marked for Blackjack keeps moving steadily eastward, suggesting that USGS doesn't know what/where this is. Not seeing this is a legally recognized place at one point, mainly just a post office, then a school, and then a farm. Not a WP:GEOLAND pass. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:13, 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 redirect to Sea Launch. czar 02:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Floating launch platform[edit]

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

This article is nothing but WP:DICDEF. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 13:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 13:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment This could be salvageable if someone added material talking about the subject in general. I have doubts that such a source exists, and that therefore expansion would necessitate WP:OR synthesis of material on the platforms listed. Mangoe (talk) 14:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On further reflection I'm going with redirect to Sea Launch given that it's the only real example. Mangoe (talk) 13:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a valid redirect to Sea Launch. Timofei Vatolin (talk) 16:00, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI agree with Mangoe - seems a notable concept. I'll take up the challenge and see if I can find anything to add to it. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:51, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - The only existing floating launch platform is Sea Launch. Until another comes into existence, a redirect should be all there is. SpaceX has a floating landing platform. Blue Origin also plans only a landing platform. Tercer (talk) 13:47, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:10, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination is erroneous as this article is nothing like a dictionary definition. WP:DICDEF actually explains the difference and mistake: "One perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a dictionary entry, and stubs are often poorly written...". Andrew🐉(talk) 11:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sea Launch per Tercer. XOR'easter (talk) 22:09, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sea Launch: per above reasons // Timothy :: talk 17:23, 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 delete. Tone 07:48, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jayasri Rachakonda[edit]

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

supporting roles in most of her films and a non notable lawyer. fails WP:NACTOR Priyanjali singh (talk) 16:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Priyanjali singh (talk) 16:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Priyanjali singh (talk) 16:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Couldn't find many sources.TamilMirchi (talk) 02:23, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Her role in Chadarangam is a prominent character, and she has a series for films and tv shows lined up for release, which are delayed due to pandemic, which were listed but later removed from the article due to the delayed/undecided release dates. SAMillYOU (talk) 10:12, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:10, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete delays in release may mean never being released, people are not notable until they are notable, and when you only have one significant role you are not notable. For all we know her other productions may never be released, or in the market when they are released they will be entirely ignored.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:19, 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.

Move to draftspace until I can reapply for submission please. SAMillYOU (talk) 13:11, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Edo Maajka#Singles. WP:ATD-R czar 02:34, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Obećana Riječ[edit]

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

Non-notable song. I didn't find anything besides Amazon pages and lyrics websites. Koridas 📣 02:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion While I'm the first editor of this article, I don't recall ever writing a word of it. Going back through the history indeed reveals I only renamed "Obecana Rijec" so the title would include diacritics. I yield the decision to others. – Miranche^T C 17:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Edo Maajka: Barely found anything about the song. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 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 no consensus. JGHowes ^talk 23:36, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Civic Media Center[edit]

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

fails WP:NONPROFIT and WP:NORG. hyperlocal organization with local significance only. not suitable for global encyclopedia. WP:NOTYELLOWPAGE Graywalls (talk) 18:42, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 18:42, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 18:42, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That article was indeed in a bad condition but I've cleaned it up and added some better references. The best two new refs to indicate significant coverage in secondary sources would be Fine Print Magazine and "Taking Libraries to the Street: Infoshops & Alternative Reading Rooms", a journal article in American Libraries Mujinga (talk) 23:08, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

reply The fine print mag = fail. That's not a significant coverage. That's an event announcement. American Libraries I couldn't say. I don't have access to it and am not sure what it says about Civic Media Center. What did it say? Graywalls (talk) 23:54, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree regarding Fine Print, "The SpringBoard dinner will take place on April 9 at the Matheson Museum, 513 E. University Ave. For more information, call the Civic Media Center at (352) 373-0100" - that's an event listing sure, but there's an extra 400 words of coverage there about the CMC and the annual dinner. The American Libraries article has significant coverage of the CMC, I downloaded it from JSTOR via the wikipedia library, or do you want me to send email it to you? Mujinga (talk) 10:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About fine print magazine "The Fine Print is a volunteer-based, seasonal publication based in Gainesville, Florida. Our mission is to serve the Gainesville community by providing an independent outlet for political, social, environmental and arts coverage through original, local and in-depth reporting." So that would only count as a local per WP:AUD Graywalls (talk) 20:18, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @Mujinga: Where did you find "How To Maintain An Alternative Library: The Civic Media Center Five Years On"? I can't seem to find it online, but it looks like a quality source that's primarily about the subject of this article. That, plus the paragraph or so in [27] and the coverage in [28], would just get it over the keep line for me, I think. I'm foundering on WP:AUD requirements atm; the vast majority of coverage I'm finding is local to Gainesville. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment ya know, they said "Czopek said" FOUR TIMES, clearly putting it into the side of dependent secondary even if it's not quite into churnalism territory. It's also WP:ROUTINE in the local NPR affiliate WUFT Gainesville, again pretty much local WP:MILL nonprofit doing non-remarkable typical local thing. Graywalls (talk) 04:25, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the majority of the coverage is local and Graywalls was indeed correct above to point out Fine Print is local, sorry about that, but WP:AUD finishes with "at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary" and that for me would be the "Taking Libraries to the Street: Infoshops & Alternative Reading Rooms" by Dodge. "How To Maintain An Alternative Library: The Civic Media Center Five Years On" I found via the Wikipedia Library, on ProQuest. Mujinga (talk) 12:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

that for me would be "On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary." Graywalls (talk) 04:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Dodge is in American Libraries. It is the flagship magazine of the American Library Association (ALA) which promotes libraries internationally, and has a circulation of 58,000. Mujinga (talk) 09:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment Of course, "at least one" meaning, not surpassing this is an automatic fail, but barely getting above this line isn't an automatic keep. Graywalls (talk) 02:04, 25 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 02:31, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arachnaphobia (truck)[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline. I am not seeing anything about monster trucks at Wikipedia:Notability (sports) and anyway, logic suggests that it is drivers, not their vehicles, that are notable, though I get how the named trucks may throw a wrench, pun intended, into this field. Still, no sources have been added to this in the past 15 years, the AfD then (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archnaphobia (truck)) was no consensus, I think it is time to revisit this. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:24, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:24, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Checking List of monster trucks there are many; some have substantial pages, a few are as thin as this page on content. Nearly all pages have citation tags, editors jumping up and down about appropriate sources for this form of entertainment. Keep and add the improve sources tag. --Whiteguru (talk) 12:13, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a particularly strong argument, and tagging for more sources is not going to do much - nobody found any in 15 years, and neither me nor Gab4gab below found any now. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:51, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to satisfy the general notability guideline. Searching for coverage finds very little. There are multiple wiki articles which are not helpful to notability. The best I found was [29], which is not signifcant coverage having about six sentences. One of the wiki articles claimed this truck retired in 2011 so I wouldn't expect to find much recent coverage. Some monster trucks probably have enough coverage to be notable. This one apparently does not. Happy to reconsider if better sources surface. Gab4gab (talk) 13:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:49, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. AFAICS, this truck fails WP:GNG. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:10, 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. JGHowes ^talk 23:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kirk McCullough[edit]

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

Non-notable hunter/businessman. No meaningful in depth coverage, only small town papers/passing mentions. Praxidicae (talk) 16:33, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:54, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:54, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've added several sources. These include two podcast, newspapers, Arkansas Supreme court increasing the sources to ten so far. I will continue filling it out as I go through sources.Just4kids (talk) 19:12, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Podcast appearances won't help toward notability, nor do court cases. Praxidicae (talk) 19:12, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough at least those sources back up the other news sources that have been cited, but 'A podcaster does not need to be notable to be reliable' ^[2] And if multiple journalist are interviewing the subject whether they are multiple text news sources, or multiple podcast over years it points to reliable information. And in this case that reliable information points to the subject being notable within their subject.

I didn't say it was unreliable. I said it doesn't establish notability and it doesn't. Praxidicae (talk) 20:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I see someone who re-invented the duck call and how duck hunters call their game with not only adding and changing the technology of the instrument but also honing the tune and pitch is notable. As well as building a reputation for doing so for 30 years is worthy of notation.Just4kids (talk) 20:34, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Just4kids: we do not base notability on accomplishments, we base it on coverage in independent media. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:59, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Feb 21, Ahmedabad Mirror / Updated. "Humourist Sairam Dave to perform for Trump". Ahmedabad Mirror.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
^ {{cite web | url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Archive_20#Blogs_vs_Podcasts

Delete I can't see why this hunting guide is notable, and the sources do not support notability either. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:59, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As an hunting guide and inventor of a better duck call with multiple independent and reliable sources throughout the career that support notability. and this article meets WP:GNGJust4kids (talk) 11:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only quality ref is [30], and I don't think it's good enough for WP:BASIC. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:07, 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 keep. A disagreement existed as to exactly whether this has sufficient coverage to pass the notability standards, and most editors seem to have come to the conclusion that it does just about do so based on the sources now provided. ~ mazca ^talk 17:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Citrine (programming language)[edit]

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

Non-notable programming language, just 1 reliable reference (InfoWorld), that doesn't provide a significant coverage to satisfy GNG. I tried to find references for notability, I can't find them.

References in the article:

[31] entry submitted by Gabor de Mooij (The language author)

[32] not notable

[33] users content

[34] One reference is not enough for GNG

Also the project in GitHub [35] looks not active (67 stars!). Charmk (talk) 16:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:33, 1 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. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-09 ↻ restored, 2020-08 ✗ PROD

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:42, 9 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 01:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd not call the project inactive: they had a release in March, and they plan their next release next March [36]. The Jax magazine coverage appears to pass the independent and substantial tests of a source for notability: for GNG the question is, does it count as reliable? — Charles Stewart (talk) 18:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the notability case is borderline according to the GNG and the article has maintenance tags indicating nontrivial content issues, but the article is decently written and interesting. In the absence of verifiability or neutrality issues, I don't think we should be deleting this kind of article. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:39, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The available references are not enough to write a good article using secondary resources. if the article topic is interesting and may become notable in the future, then writing a draft (using secondary resources, without COI) is the right thing to do for Wikipedia. I started this draft in August because the article topic is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article and the current article is written by the language author himself (COI). if you are interested in the article topic, you could help in improving this draft for the future until the article topic becomes ready for Wikipedia. Draft:Citrine_(programming_language) Charmk (talk) 08:47, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unpaid CoI editing is only a delete rationale if the content fails the WP:TNT test. This is not remotely the case for this article: it has mild POV issues in a small number of sentences. Similarly, the GNG criterion sets a bar far below that required to ensure that we can write a good article; it ensures only that we can put together a nontrivial one. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:19, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Could those who want to keep this article perhaps just list the three best sources on which their argument for notability is based? After all, three good independent references to reliable sources is all we need. Charmk (talk) 11:58, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are two independent sources in the article. Additionally, there's a paper from a conference on education programming that has a passing mention of Citrine: "Probably the most interesting approach to the problem of programming language localization is the one introduced in Citrine, version 0.7, whose vocabulary is automatically translated between natural languages [5]." (Jakub Swacha, 2002. Polish Python: A Short Report from a Short Experiment. In First International Computer Programming Education Conference (ICPEC 2020), ed. Ricardo Queirós, Filipe Portela, Mário Pinto and Alberto Simões. OASICS Vol. 81) [37]. Per guidelines, the case for notability is in the grey zone; I !vote keep due because I think we can get an acceptable article out of what we have, one that is verifiable, neutral, maintainable, and of encyclopedic interest. — Charles Stewart (talk) 17:33, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I agree with you, Also we relax our inclusion criteria for free & open source per WP:NSOFT#Reliability and significance of sources. Charmk (talk) 22:48, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chalst, after InfoWorld, what is the second independent source? ~Kvng (talk) 15:27, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kvng, According to my understanding, He means this reference [38] jaxenter doesn't have a Wikipedia article (not notable) but he says it's a reliable source, the question is "Could we accept this type of sources because Citrine is an open-source project?" Charmk (talk) 16:39, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Charmk, that looks acceptable to me. I don't think open source needs to factor into it. ~Kvng (talk) 16:50, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kvng Thanks Charmk (talk) 17:07, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is written by user (Gabordemooij). The user name is identical to the language author (Gabor de Mooij) Charmk (talk) 08:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources: [39], [40]. ~Kvng (talk) 16:52, 26 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. As Scope creep has pointed out, this is a discussion, not a vote, and the more comprehensive arguments put forward by those advocating deletion have not been refuted. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

5paisa[edit]

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

Doesn't meet the polices: WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Generic run-of-the-mill references. scope_creep^Talk 21:21, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:27, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:27, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Promotion of a company. Priyanjali singh (talk) 10:34, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete. This Wikipedia page is for a discount stockbroking company 5paisa, a subsidiary of full service stockbroking company India Infoline. This is not an advertisement, therefore, it is suggested to edit the contents of the page to suit wikipedia standards so that it does not look like an advertisement. For your reference, other discount broking companies in India are Zerodha, Upstocks, SAMCO Securities, Alice Blue, Fyers etc. and most of these companies have wikipedia pages. –Brar ^(Talk) 10:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument Spiderone 12:04, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject of the article is obviously notable. A quick Google search reveals mentions in all major Indian media houses. Just because the subject of the article is a for-profit commercial enterprise doesn't imply that the article too is self-promotion or advertisement. Stensrim (talk) 09:44, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:SIRS. Mere mentions alone in Indian media houses do not necessarily guarantee notability. Spiderone 12:07, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looking at each reference in turn:

[41]] . standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as of changes in share or bond prices, Fails WP:CORPDEPTH
[42] standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as of changes in share or bond prices, Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
[43] standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as of changes in share or bond prices, Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
[44] of a capital transaction, such as raised capital Fails WP:CORPDEPTH
[45] other listings and mentions not accompanied by commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH
[46] of the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business, Fails WP:CORPDEPTH
[47] Press release. Non-RS.
[48] of a product or a product line launch, sale, change, or discontinuance, Fails WP:CORPDEPTH
Press release. Non-RS
[49] Fails WP:ORGIND.

The references are run of the mill business news that fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. The other refs are the same. scope_creep^Talk 23:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Has received coverage from all major Indian newspapers and magazines. Therefore, we cannot consider any outcome other than Keep. -112.79.85.37 (talk) 05:54, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User is a SPA who has created no other edits on Wikipedia. scope_creep^Talk 07:33, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I completely agree with scope's assessment of the refs above. There is no significant coverage from reliable secondary sources here and the keep votes, some of which seem to be from SPAs, don't provide any sources that satisfy the criteria. Spiderone 12:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - All the delete voters are obviously and clearly biased in their viewpoint. And so what if some votes are from SPAs. Everyone gets to have their say in Wikipedia, atleast in principle. 192.12.109.33 (talk) 13:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP Editor. It may come as a bit of surprise but WP:AFD is not vote. It is a discussion. So diving in, head first with Strong Keep' without rational thought to back it up, in relation to our notability policies is no use really. It doesn't benefit anybody. scope_creep^Talk 14:27, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:00, 25 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 02:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Youtooz[edit]

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

not exactly my field, but judged merely as a company, there is no substantial independent reference from a reliable general interest publication. Even if the Daily Star is accepted as a RS, what they published is a promotional interview, where he proprietor of the firm is allowed to say whatever he likes about it -- such references are not truly independent. The others are trade publciations. DGG ( talk ) 01:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although most news are not from major publications, there is significant coverage in that when you search google news, there are at least 4 pages of results for this company from various publications, mostly industry and licencing related. I have added two more sources and partnerships to improve this article. Also note that the partnerships & licensing are mostly with very well known companies. Expertwikiguy (talk) 08:34, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Significant coverage" and the number of Google Hits aren't listed as criteria for establishing notability, nor are assertions of "partnerships & licensing" being "mostly" with "very well known companies". Your comments on these lines are starting to crop up on multiple AfDs. We have guidelines for this - please read WP:NCORP??? HighKing⁺⁺ 13:14, 23 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 01:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete DailyStar is considered an unreliable source at WP:RSP so it can't be used to establish WP:N, and the Bob Ross source doesn't mention Youtooz. The article's other sources are about different product launches from the company or announcements of partnerships which will result in a product launch, both considered trivial coverage in WP:CORPDEPTH. A search of Google, JSTOR, NYT and Gale did not produce additional sources. Z1720 (talk) 01:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about the company aside from its activities. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 14:35, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:14, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:16, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peyman Keshavarz[edit]

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

Article was created by an LTA that is indef blocked (GTVM92). Subject is non-notable. huji—TALK 00:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:34, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:34, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:34, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I looked it up, but I only found chemistry books. This proves that there is almost no significant coverage of the athlete. Koridas 📣 02:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 07:11, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - comprehensively fails GNG, which far surpasses scraping by on NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:14, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG by a long shot. --IWI (talk) 19:53, 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 keep. Nomination Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) scope_creep^Talk 08:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Okpaleke[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable producer. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. No effective coverage. scope_creep^Talk 00:03, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the reviewer who accepted this at AFC I will remain neutral, but scope creep I recall our conversation about coverage on the article's talk page where you appeared to consider there to be sufficient coverage. I respect that your opinion has altered. May I ask what changed your mind, please? Fiddle Faddle 06:28, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Fiddle Faddle: I think your right. I thought it was somebody else. Thanks for calling it out. scope_creep^Talk 08:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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] Feb 21, Ahmedabad Mirror / Updated. "Humourist Sairam Dave to perform for Trump". Ahmedabad Mirror.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

[2] {{cite web | url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Archive_20#Blogs_vs_Podcasts

[1]

[2]