Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 September 18

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 17 September	19 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 11:53, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sparrow, Missouri[edit]

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

State Historical Society calls it "Sparrow Post Office" and implies that that was all there was. If it appears on pre-GNIS topos, I'm not finding it (the article includes the 1953 Gaines topo as a reference, but the three versions of the Gaines topo I can find online don't include it: '55, '78, 82). Aside from some passing mentions and inclusions in tables of post offices, I'm finding no coverage for Sparrow. Hog Farm _Bacon 23:34, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 23:34, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 23:34, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete 1950 aerial homes in on a farmstead with nothing else around; clearly just a post office. Mangoe (talk) 16:23, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or merge to township.72.49.7.25 (talk) 03:29, 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. – Joe (talk) 11:54, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gaines, Missouri[edit]

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

State Historical Society calls it a post office on the Ben Gaines farm. Somehow, that was turned into a statement in an article that Gaines was town built on land owned by Gaines (sounds like WP:OR to me). Found a result in an old county history about the "Gaines ranch", a newer county history refers to it as "the Gaines store". Topos never show more than two buildings at the site. Looks like another GNIS error where the page creator managed to original research claims of a "populated place" and statements it was a post office into calling it a town. Hog Farm _Bacon 23:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 23:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 23:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete Topos show a couple buildings; pretty obviously not a town. Mangoe (talk) 16:09, 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 no consensus. As I've said elsewhere, the outcome of this discussion hinges on NCRIC, which has been challenged enough that overruling "delete" opinions based solely on this criterion doesn't feel right. A discussion about the status of NCRIC would be useful. Absent such clarification, this discussion is a "no consensus", defaulting to keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:46, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saad Usman[edit]

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

The article clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG. The sources in the article are simply directory/stats listings, which I believe do not establish notability. Have performed a WP:BEFORE and nothing came up. I've nominated two articles previously which were similar and they have been deleted (here and here). Editors over there cited the WP:CRIN guideline which is being debated itself and for it to change, precedent is needed, clearly those guidelines aren't being accepted and seem to me like they'll never be able to satisfy the GNG. Another argument given by editors on similar pages is given that sources in other languages might exist, I am thoroughly unconvinced by this as none of these sources have materialized and I feel like it's an argument which can be used anywhere; all an editor has to do is claim that sources exist. Please note I am a new editor and this is my understanding after trying my best to read as many guidelines and past discussions as possible, I could have easily made mistake, but I am just trying to be bold. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the individual meets the notability requirements. The bigger concern is about this "new" user, which has been flagged by other editors, myself included. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG/BIO/SPORTBASIC. A great example of why there is consensus at NSPORT to rewrite NCRIC and remove the low-bar domestic appearance criteria. Just one solitary LA match played, contributing next to nothing. No sources available beyond routine and indiscriminate statistics. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- fails our notability requirements, particularly WP:NSPORTS and WP:GNG. Reyk _YO! 19:59, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets NCRIC. Mass-nominating articles (at a rate of >=3/min) from one third-world country during a world-wide lockdown is not the way to change notability guidelines. Meets an SNG and I put no stock on the assertion that a search for GNG has been exhausted; it's hard enough to achieve it during normal times and with better-studied subjects in more affluent parts of the world. Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep supporting the assertion of Usedtobecool. Northern Escapee (talk) 8:51, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Redirect to List of Port Qasim Authority cricketers, which would need to be created. StickyWicket (talk) 21:09, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:47, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adil Zarif[edit]

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

The article clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG. The sources in the article are simply directory/stats listings, which I believe do not establish notability. Have performed a WP:BEFORE and nothing came up. I've nominated two articles previously which were similar and they have been deleted (here and here). Editors over there cited the WP:CRIN guideline which is being debated itself and for it to change, precedent is needed, clearly those guidelines aren't being accepted and seem to me like they'll never be able to satisfy the GNG. Another argument given by editors on similar pages is given that sources in other languages might exist, I am thoroughly unconvinced by this as none of these sources have materialized and I feel like it's an argument which can be used anywhere; all an editor has to do is claim that sources exist. Please note I am a new editor and this is my understanding after trying my best to read as many guidelines and past discussions as possible, I could have easily made mistake, but I am just trying to be bold. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:20, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:20, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:20, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:00, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:00, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: - unlikely to have further cricketing notability, only playing one List A match. --Whiteguru (talk) 12:55, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG/BIO/SPORTBASIC. A great example of why there is consensus at NSPORT to rewrite NCRIC and remove the low-bar domestic appearance criteria. One solitary match played, in which he contributed very little. No sources available beyond routine and indiscriminate statistics. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one match notability is absurd. It is not like we make people notable for being the instructor of record for one official university course. Even publishing one article in an academic journal is almost never enough to make one notable. There are a few people notable for having published one book, academic or otherwise, but they are rare. Most writers who are notable, be they academics, aretists or however else one would describe writers, have many works to their name. This one match criteria is just absurd.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:01, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Meets NCRIC. Mass-nominating articles (at a rate of >=3/min) from one third-world country during a world-wide lockdown is not the way to change notability guidelines. Meets an SNG and I put no stock on the assertion that a search for GNG has been exhausted; it's hard enough to achieve it during normal times and with better-studied subjects in more affluent parts of the world. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:00, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:13, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Rawalpindi Rams cricketers, which would need to be created. StickyWicket (talk) 09:00, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 11:15, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yol Pranvarin[edit]

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

BLP of a Thai actress with no demonstrated reliable source coverage - was tagged with WP:BLPPROD shortly after creation in 2017 and was saved by the addition of one very flaky gossip-site source which doesn't verify any of the facts in the article. There may be Thai-language sources, but the Thai Wikipedia page on her, while longer, is also unreferenced and tagged for notability so I can't find anything useful there.

At this point it appears to fail WP:N and remains an effectively unsourced BLP. ~ mazca ^talk 23:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ~ mazca ^talk 23:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. ~ mazca ^talk 23:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Khaosod is not flaky gossip-site. The linked article for Khaosod newspaper cite 950,000 daily circulation which is among top newspapers in Thailand. This article [1] shows that Thai Post (ไทยโพสต์), Khaosod (ข่าวสด), Matichon (มติชน) all have 950,000 daily circulation in 2018-2019. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 06:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unfamiliar with the area so I'm happy to accept that it's a major publication; but by my Google-translate-assisted reading of the article it's an almost completely contentless fluff piece of wedding pictures. It might be a decent newspaper, but that linked article doesn't seem worthy of one, and certainly isn't coverage that really helps source an encyclopedia article. ~ mazca ^talk 18:49, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Lerdsuwa's comment about the cited source notwithstanding, I'm not really seeing in-depth coverage about the subject herself. News searches turn up mostly routine celebrity news covering e.g. her wedding, etc. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 23:12, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:13, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:52, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Her filmography is not insubstantial, and there's recent coverage (including Thairath piece printed since my previous comment).[2][3] --Paul_012 (talk) 17:13, 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 keep. – Joe (talk) 11:57, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mackenzie Thomason[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a politician, notable only for having been the interim leader of a minor political party without legislative representation. As always, this is not an automatic notability guarantee under WP:NPOL. There are also minimal WP:RS which do not seem to amount to WP:GNG. What coverage does exist seems to be WP:ROUTINE. Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:32, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:32, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sufficiently sourced including non-trivial profiles in the National Post (a national newspaper) as well as CBC News. Therefore passes GNG as there is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Sowny (talk) 00:41, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two pieces of WP:ROUTINE coverage does not make "significant coverage", nor WP:N.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)

According to WP:ROUTINE, "announcements, sports, speculative coverage, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article." The sources used in the article go far beyond that. Sowny (talk) 16:13, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Sowny. Though they are basically irrelevant, the NB NDP is still treated as a major party in the media. Thomason was included in the leaders debates, for instance. -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

His attendance at a leaders debate is a valid consideration, but not on its own determinative of WP:N, particularly in the absence of significant coverage that could establish WP:GNG.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)

According to WP:GNG "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." If you look at a number of the sources cited, that standard has been met. For instance:here, here, and here. Sowny (talk) 16:16, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG. Significant amount of material has been added to the article since the nomination, sources that feature substantial coverage, and for which WP:ROUTINE doesn't apply. The only case for removing the article seems to be that he is "only an interim leader". While technically correct, the statement is also misleading as presented here when he was at the helm of such political party during a recent election. Either way, we base notability not on achievement or title, but on significant sourcing, of which Sowny has added many examples to the article page. Acebulf (talk) 17:41, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sowny. — Kawnhr (talk) 18:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I gree with Sowny. User:Rushtheeditor (talk) 17:51, 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ambarish Bhattacharya[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG, provided sources are just WP:ROUTINE promotional press in the Times of India and don't back up the grandiose statements made in the article. While his (alleged) filmography is extensive, it's not clear that he has enough major roles in notable works to meet WP:NACTOR Searching for additional coverage, the most significant coverage I could find was some brief praise in this review [4], although it's possible that editors able to search in Bengali may be able to find more coverage. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : I agree with the nominator, most of the reliable and independent sources seem to be routine promotional press and very short. Couldn't find independent and reliable sources that extensively talk or critique his works. Clearly fails WP:GNG and for SNG, he doesn't seem to fulfill the criteria for WP:NACTOR. AngusMEOW (chatter • paw trail) 21:59, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete It seems odd that there doesn't seem to be much overage outside of the Times; I'm starting to get the impression that the Times allows PR piece submissions that are published as if they are regular articles (along the lines of Forbes "contributor.") OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:37, 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 22:24, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bhaworiya[edit]

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

Non-notable film. No significant coverage, the article seems very promotional. Fails WP:NFP, WP:NFSOURCES, and WP:NFO AngusMEOW (chatter • paw trail) 21:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:22, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:22, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment possibly the film passes WP:NFILM, the language seriously needs improvement to make it encyclopedic. --☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 17:02, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to concerns around WP:GNG and WP:NFILM Spiderone 19:17, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- On the basis of both quality and quantity (in-depth coverage in RS), not even close to satisfying WP:NFILM. Sunshine1191 (talk) 12:49, 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 Simon Dominic. In general but especially for uncontroversial topics, please attempt to redirect/merge (or another alternative) before nominating for deletion, which is a last resort. czar 22:24, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No Open Flames. (EP)[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSIC, no verifying references, just a link ti iTunes to sell the EP. Advert. Fiddle Faddle 20:57, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 20:57, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 20:57, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Simon Dominic, the EP's creator. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 08:13, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Simon Dominic per Dom Kaos. The label does not have enough coverage to be considered as notable.--☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 17:04, 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. Sandstein 09:45, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by number of Fields Medalists[edit]

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

This list article sorts the existing Fields Medal#Fields medalists table by country of birth/citizenship, which is not relevant information for the award and is often contentious. There's already consensus from Talk:Fields Medal/Archive 1#Nationalism (2014) and Talk:Fields Medal/Archive 1#Removing the entire nationality column (2020) that nationality/citizenship/birth is irrelevant data that shouldn't be in the main article. The list also fails WP:LISTN since the topic "countries by number of Fields Medalists" is not notable as a cohesive group: there are sources with tables or brief mentions of countries associated to Fields Medal awardees, but not many with actual significant coverage on the topic.

Unlike the Olympics for instance, the Fields Medal is awarded to mathematicians who are not formally attached to countries (but are usually formally attached to universities). Many of the awardees are also barely related to their listed countries for various reasons. The issue of associating each person to a country is often problematic and unproductive, while still being irrelevant to the award itself.

This list was recently nominated for AfD here that was closed as "keep" with no prejudice to merge due to the large number of delete/merge !votes. What has changed since then is the new overwhelming consensus at the potential target article (Talk:Fields Medal/Archive 1#Removing the entire nationality column) that nationality/citizenship/birth is not relevant data for the Fields Medal. — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I normally dislike rapid (less than ~6 months) renominations at AfD, the discussion at the Fields Medal Talk page provides valuable information and a strong indication that tabulating this kind of information is, as the nominator says, often problematic and unproductive. It is unsuitable for the proposed merge target, so merging the list itself is not really an option. A few sources were provided in the previous AfD; in my estimation, they might warrant a brief mention in the main article that the geographical distribution of Fields medalists is a topic people have discussed, but they can't sustain this list, which is fundamentally WP:OR. There are real, irreducible ambiguities in how to associate nationalities to medalists, and a list of countries is not a good way to present that information. There's room in Fields Medal for actual prose on the topic, if someone is willing to write it, but this list doesn't do us any good. XOR'easter (talk) 21:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Country in which the medalists worked at the time of their award might be relevant, and is still listed in the Fields medal article. Country of birth citizenship or citizenship at the time of the award is not relevant, in many cases is a matter of original research (because naturalization records are not public and high-level academics tend to move between countries much more frequently than some other people), and in some specific cases here the guesswork and original research needed to fill out the table has led to egregious mistakes (Martin Hairer is listed as the sole Swiss entry but despite being born and growing up in Switzerland appears not to have ever been a Swiss citizen). —David Eppstein (talk) 21:25, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Country of birth" and "country of citizenship at time of award" are (a) not particularly relevant (you could make an argument for listing the countries in which a medalist was educated) and (b) mixing them (listing e.g. Hairer twice) is weird. Also, this isn't even done accurately: Roth, Werner, and Grothendieck were all born in Germany (although none of them should be considered a German mathematician), and Russia is not the same as the USSR. Overall, too much original research goes into this. —Kusma (t·c) 21:39, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the above, particularly that too much original research is required. --Bduke (talk) 03:08, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Procedual close - While I am in sympathy with the anti-nationalist delete rationale, I think we should not be declaring an "overwhelming consensus" on an argument that was only started yesterday and it is at least a week too soon to begin this AfD. — Charles Stewart (talk) 06:05, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Chalst: While I understand that the previous AfD and the catalyst discussion for this AfD are quite recent, that doesn’t preclude a productive renewed AfD discussion here with the new points brought up since the last AfD and the new near-uniform agreement at the main article talk page. The delete !votes in this AfD are already more numerous and detailed in reasoning than in the entirety of the last AfD.
If the issue is just a week or so, it wouldn’t be much more productive to procedurally close this AfD and re-nominate in a week (particularly since this AfD would be open for at least one week anyways). — MarkH₂₁^talk 06:43, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MarkH21: Personally, I think the delete case is strong and it is a good thing to see the synthesis of the rationale here. So far, though, Bduke and myself are the only participants in this AfD who were not part of the emerging consensus at Talk:Fields Medal, and the issue is much larger than this list: there are 191 subcats of Category:Lists of people by nationality, including the one for Nobel laureates containing 23 lists, and I guess that these lists see a fair bit of use, so I imagine a case for their navigational value could be made. I don't like be bureaucratic, but I think the issue deserves more time for reflection and to gather participation than the seven days that the AfD process normally allows. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've raised the general issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists#Are lists of people by nationality worthwhile, especially regarding awards? — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:48, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why nominate the same thing a month later when it ended as keep? I'll just copy and paste what I said in that one. Category:Fields_Medalists shows there are two other lists with the information: List of Fields Medal winners by university affiliation and List of Fields medalists affiliated with the Institute for Advanced Study. I don't think these list would all fit in the main article. News media that announces the winner mention what country they are from. Dream Focus 17:15, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that's really just an example of repeating guesswork and unreliable information across multiple articles. The prevailing opinion so far is that the "nationality" column does not belong in the Fields Medal article, and so by extension the "country" column should be removed from the IAS list. (As for whether those lists should exist, they aren't really in the same situation as this one. University affiliation isn't ambiguous like "nationality" has turned out to be, and those lists don't require WP:OR to fill out like this one.) XOR'easter (talk) 17:41, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The renomination was due to the new discussion regarding the non-relevance of nationality/citizenship/birth to the Fields Medal.
  Also, as I mentioned in my nomination, Fields Medals are awarded to mathematicians who are actually formally affiliated with universities but not with countries. Whether a list would all fit in the main article is relevant to merging, but it's not a factor in whether the list should be deleted outright. News media also mention how old winners are and a host of other details that aren't pertinent. — MarkH₂₁^talk 17:54, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with others that the collation of this information is problematic and doesn't really add much to the encyclopedia. "By country" is a problematic metric when most academics are most prominently affiliated by university, not country, and the country of the university is often different to the country of origin, It's also OR on how nationality is counted between origin and where they are based. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:30, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 07:47, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2016–17 Recreativo de Huelva season[edit]

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

Team in a non-fully professional league. Sakiv (talk) 19:44, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sakiv (talk) 19:44, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:57, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:57, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:58, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, failing WP:NSEASONS. Govvy (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG/NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 20:57, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasoning above. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:00, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NSEASON failure. Number 5 7 10:33, 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:44, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kitana Baker[edit]

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

Appears to fail GNG. Part of some 'publicity stunt' type promotions, and other exploitative media ("hot lesbian action"? c'mon WWE). I'm not seeing any in-depth coverage or other notable activity. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 18:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 18:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 18:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a total failure of the GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to circumvent wp:entertainer and wp:gng--☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 17:06, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus that this article satisfies GNG (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:54, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kalutara Stadium[edit]

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

Subject appears non-notable per WP:NBUILDING. Article is almost entirely copypasted from [5] page of one of the teams that plays there. Can't find sources about the stadium itself in the English language. Going through AfD instead of Speedy Deletion as somone with more local knowledge may have insight about non-English sources. (note this is my very first AfD -- I found this by working on the copypaste tag backlog) Themillofkeytone (talk) 18:08, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are quite a few sources online, a lot of wiki-copies and some other stuff for the venue. Two teams play there, some other events. The article could be greatly improved towards WP:GNG if the effort was put in. So I question whether this is the way forward with the article with this AfD. Govvy (talk) 20:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find significant coverage about the stadium itself, aside from the teams which play there. Happy to look at whatever people are able to dig up -- my Google-fu may not be as strong as others. I will note that WP:NSPORT doesn't say anything about buildings. My understanding of WP:NGEO is that the fact that two teams play there does not mean it is notable. Themillofkeytone (talk) 20:22, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the stadium has hosted an international friendly. [6] So ye, maybe you need a do a bit more homework. Govvy (talk) 21:29, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm inclined to be lenient here; two top flight teams play there, and from that there must be coverage in non-English sources. Giant Snowman 20:57, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs some work though. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:59, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Non existence of english sources can not be enough ground for deletion. --☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 17:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, have addressed the copypaste issue. This is one of only a few stadiums in Sri Lanka solely dedicated to football. During the season it regularly hosts matches in the Super league and Division 1 competitions. There are a significant number of reliable sources, in both English and Sinhalese - which satisfies WP:GNG. Dan arndt (talk) 05:41, 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 18:01, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Volkmer[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NPROF and WP:NAUTHOR. Not an endowed chair or, as far as I can see, a member of any learned societies. Low citations on Scholar: [7]. (Unless, contrary to my layman's expectation, math is in fact a low-citation field.) Two reviews of his book Multiparameter eigenvalue problems and expansion theorems, but without more it doesn't look like a WP:NAUTHOR pass either. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:47, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think this is a pass of WP:Prof based on the number and quality of publications and their being widely cited. (Msrasnw (talk) 18:45, 18 September 2020 (UTC))[reply]

hope you don't mind, I "fixed" the formatting of your vote as it was being lumped together with the wikiproject deletion sorting messages. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 22:06, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Math can be a low-citation area, depending on the subfield. If the research area is sufficiently towards the pure side of the spectrum, citation counts will often be low, and looking at other criteria is more illuminating. XOR'easter (talk) 18:52, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. It's a low citation field but we still need evidence of academic or other notability. The only other thing we have is a book with three reviews, two of which (the MathSciNet and zbMATH ones) are more or less automatic, and the notes for WP:PROF#C1 explicitly list those as not counting towards that criterion. The book is enough to raise my opinion from delete to weak delete, but I'd like to see something else at the same level before agreeing to keep this. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:29, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Any idea how the top three items in the Google Scholar profile could be from other people? I've seen misclassifications and odd behavior on GS before, but that's an unusual level of it. XOR'easter (talk) 20:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - A combination of Google's autoclassifier being stupid and Volkmer himself not taking care to remove the misclassifications from his profile, I'd guess. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:29, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - That sounds plausible. Sometimes I can puzzle out what led to the misclassification, like a book and a review of it getting mixed up, but here I couldn't tell what had prompted the errors. Not a big deal, though. XOR'easter (talk) 03:54, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Citation numbers below the bar for his field [8] [9], and absence of any other fact supporting notability per WP:NPROF. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 22:24, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Not quite enough to push over the WP:NPROF bar... -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:03, 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 18:02, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KQ Entertainment[edit]

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

Recreated article on a non notable group, possible by an account with a COI and/or a multi-use account ([10]). Listing here for community input. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:36, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable company. Article was already deleted after being PROD'd, and was recreated not long after by the same editor with no improvement. Alex (talk) 17:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG. Priyanjali singh (talk) 12:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong | [chat] || 07:28, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Steinman[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILMMAKER and WP:GNG. There is decent coverage of Desert Runners but there exists basically no coverage of Steinman herself and notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. I was unable to find any significant, independent, reliable sources covering Steinman. W 42 02:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. W 42 02:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. W 42 02:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steinman has worked on a number of films that have each gotten notable recognition from prestigious film festivals. This article, though lean, provides more references and more awards than most filmmaker stubs.SJTatsu (talk) 18:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steinman can make 100 films, but the purpose of a biographical article is to provide information about the individual -- not their films. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 21:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion. As of this writing there are a total of 16 citations. Only 2 are about the person Jennifer Steinman: an interview with her, and about the development of a film by her ("Interview with Desert Runner's Jennifer Steinman". MtnMeister; "Film sees grieving U.S. moms in Africa learning new way to mourn". SFGate.). Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 21:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC); edited [reason: forgot to specify], 02:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per your critique, more citations and more biographical information have now been addedSJTatsu (talk) 06:49, 2 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Remove the overload of citations about films and we will see exactly how many citations are about the individual (aside from the interview with Steinman about the film, I counted 2 more citations about Desert Runners; 3 citations for Time for Ilhan; 3 citations for She Started It; 2 ciations for Sunny Side, one in Spanish; then there are the citations for festival announcements and lineups, and film awards). The totality of the article has little to do with the purpose of a biographical article: information about an individual's early life, education, career, and personal life. If you need guidance on how to create a biographical article, see for example: Mari Asato, Barbara Hammer, Avigail Sperber, Lucy Walker. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 11:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I was going to add Ms. Steinman's Ted Talk (which incorporates very personal information along with filmmaking), and saw the deletion page. I looked at Maria Asato's page and it has almost no biographical information beyond one line. Ms. Hammer's page similarly has three lines of biographic information, two of which contain info about filmmaking. I want very much to be inline with expectations when I add to this page. Am I missing something? Many thanks.Championable (talk) 17:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Ms. Hammer's page similarly has three lines of biographic information. What are you talking about? Barbara Hammer's bio includes "Life and career", "Awards", "Style and reception", "Grant", "Feminist and lesbian works impact", "Illness, right to die activism, and death", "Filmography", and "Retrospectives". There's a huge difference between content that addresses a filmmaker's style, history, and influential films she is known for -- and content about films 1, 2, 3, 4, etc, by a filmmaker. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 12:25, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! I apologies if it came across as a comparison of the whole article. I promise it was not. Rather, I was referring to specific purely biographical info that was not related to her work. I definitely don't want to diminish the importance and impact of Ms. Hammer. One thing of note I was thinking about is that Ms. Hammer's page was started in 2005, and has been developing over the last decade and a half. If you look at the first version of Ms. Hammer's article, it was 186 words, and developed over the next 15 years. With that said, I respect everything you are saying and am just discussing in a normal tone (I won't use emojis though.)

Respectfully, I also checked Samantha Gash's page (star of Desert Runners) along with several other filmmakers, and I don't see the biographical information. I love Desert Runners and was inspired by Gash's journey and Steinman's parenting story in her Ted Talk (which I will add to here), but I respectfully wanted to say that there are many recent pages without the information you are requesting. With that said, I shall make it a mission :) to find what you requested. Thank you! Championable (talk) 18:38, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:48, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete Most of the interviews are conducted by joe schmoes, including the one referenced in lede. Graywalls (talk) 20:27, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I could call out Rich Roll as a very well known interviewer,but I believe the work of the others is legitimate, and shouldn't be dismissed. Championable (talk) 01:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She qualifies as notable as a creative professional. "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." She is an independent filmmaker. Her film Desert Runners got significant mainstream coverage. The rest of her coverage is consistent with being an independent filmmaker. Besides, she is midcareer and likely to continue to produce other films of note. SJTatsu (talk) 01:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:33, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I was really wanting to vote keep on this, but I can't in good conscious with the current state of the sourcing. While I think her films have gotten some coverage, it doesn't seem to "significant mainstream coverage" as implied. Even for her film Desert Runners. Which only has three film critic reviews on Rotten Tomatoes that are kind of fringe film websites. The lack of good sourcing about her films aside, ultimately for a biographical article to be notable there should be some sources discussing the person that it is about and not just their films. There isn't much about her personally though. So, it doesn't stand biographical article. Let alone does it get a pass because of her films. That said, I think a case could made that Desert Runners is notable enough for an article about it. Since there is some, although likely subpar, reviews of it. Although, that's a different matter then this AfD, but at least it's something. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:05, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The criterion cited by SJTatsu is so poorly-written that it is constantly misinterpreted and misused and it drives me mental. The point of that criterion isn't that anyone who ever wrote a book or made a film that hits GNG by dint of having a few reviews on release is therefore automatically also notable. The bar is higher - the work should be "significant" or "well-known", ie, it is known in its field past being routinely reviewed on release. I see no indication that Steinman's one notable film hits that bar, so the criterion shouldn't apply. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:48, 27 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. ‑Scottywong | [soliloquize] || 07:30, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ryōhei Arai[edit]

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

This page seems borderline when it comes to passing WP:NACTOR, so perhaps additional thoughts at AfD can tip the scale. The only clear role meeting criteria 1 as a "significant role" in a notable show is WorldEnd. The other linked roles do not appear to be major. The redlinked Battle Spirits: Burning Soul (is it a notable show?) has the character billed 11th at ANN, and there are six characters in the photo, so I'm inclined not to count that as major. The video game roles don't have anything to indicate they are significant. The tipping point comes in the dubbing role of Korean show Love in the Moonlight, where the character is billed third on the page. So are there thoughts on whether this counts as significant? A dubbing role isn't much different for voice actors in the first place. Even if thoughts are yes, it's still borderline, with this being only the second major role to be "multiple". - 2pou (talk) 19:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. 2pou (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --2pou (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note. This page seems to be transcluded twice on the log for today? Not sure what might be going on there. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:30, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @AleatoryPonderings: For some reason I had to create this more than once. The first go-round, Twinkle created all the log and sort entries and notified as appropriate, but this actual AfD page was not created. Said something about a missing token? Anyway, I had to recreate the AfD, and in doing so, Twinkle made another log entry. I have removed it. -2pou (talk) 20:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2pou, Got it! Thanks for the detailed explanation :) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP the main protagonist WorldEnd and the rest of his work shows he is a notable voice actor, having a significant part in notable media. Dream Focus 02:32, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That role is admittedly a significant one, but my question to the community is which, if any, of the other roles is notable in order to satisfy the multiple criteria of NACTOR and not have a case of WP:TOOSOON. To be clear, I am not convinced all other roles are not notable; I am just looking for input on what others think since my opinion is more of an, "Eh... I dunno. It seems like a stretch, but please tell me what I'm missing." -2pou (talk) 05:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Toosoon is just a pointless essay, and no idea why you'd use it here for someone who has been working since 2013. Dream Focus 23:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Jeez... why so hostile? Essay or not... it was only intended to illustrate the point of the question, not claim that one needs X amount of experience to qualify. If preferred the question can simply be phrased as "Is it too soon to say that this actor has had more than one notable role, or do we think we're already there?" knowing full well that there is always potential for getting cast in a major role next week, next month, next year... in which case it would become clear that WP:NACTOR is satisfied. -2pou (talk) 01:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:09, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per DreamFocus, the actor passes WP:NACTOR, there are multiple films and significant coverage is a subjective term. To me considering his acting career, the article can stay. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 17:10, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The point of WP:NACTOR and other similar SNGs is that it gives us a rough guideline as to when people will probably have the kind of significant coverage necessary to pass WP:GNG. But none of the keep arguments here have actually provided any sourcing that indicates notability! Without sourcing, we cannot retain the article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:40, 27 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 18:02, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ghum Hai Kisi key Pyaar Mein[edit]

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

Article does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NTV. BEFORE revealed promo pieces and database style entries. Nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV that addresses the subject directly and indepth. Also searched under Ghum Hai Kisi Ke Pyar Mein. // Timothy :: talk 17:11, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 17:11, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 17:11, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong Keep:~~ American editors need to understand that tv production in India works a little differently. Unlike in the US where a script is first pitched to a network which then recieves a pilot order and then a series order, in India tv networks pick up shows on the basis of the script and trusted Production houses only. Also, unlike the US where upfronts take place in May to advertise upcoming shows for Fall (their plots and cast), in India new shows are usually announced not more than six weeks before they air on tv, so there isn't much in terms of pre-production to actually report. Like in this case, the first report of the series being developed came out only three weeks ago [11]. Yes, technically the article shouldn't have been created before the series premiere but that ship has now sailed. Improving the page to meet Wiki standard makes more sense now than deletion. With the series premiere only two weeks away, i'm sure that the bigger platforms like Hindustan Times, Times of India, Tribune etc will also cover the show in depth, which is exactly what happened in the case of Lockdown Ki Love Story. A few more articles about the series:[12][13][14][15][16] There are many more from TellyChakkar, but it isn't classified as a reliable source so I haven't added those here. Sunshine1191 (talk) 02:10, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No one can predict whether this show will be notable. It may very well just have routine, run of the mill,promo coverage. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, articles shouldn't be created because someone thinks it might be notable someday. None of the sources you list show notability. They are routine, run of the mill promo pieces. // Timothy :: talk 03:40, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then care to explain why Call Your Mother has had a Wikipedia article since 22 May 2020. Mid-season is still 4 months away (8 months in May). If a series that doesn't even have a tentative launch date yet can have an article then why can't one whose launch date is only two weeks away! Sunshine1191 (talk) 05:54, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sunshine1191, Good find, you should nominate it. But OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. // Timothy :: talk 07:27, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I Change my vote to Delete. To clarify however, it is not because I feel my previous reasoning is inapt. My argument was never about OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but about the logistics of it all. This Afd will close on the 25th and the series will premiere on the 5th. Deletion for 10 days still seems completely pointless to me. The reason for my change of opinion is Technical. The promo released by Star Plus states the series title as Ghum Hai Kisikey Pyaar Mein not Ghum Hai Kisi key Pyaar Mein, and considering the poor quality of the current article and the surplus of redirects on Wikipedia, deletion and proper recreation looks like the best option. Sunshine1191 (talk) 16:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable since all the article about it extremely brief mentions and also WP:TOSOON applies. It's not like the article can't be recreated if (or when) it is released and becomes notable anyway. Also, just an FYI "other stuff exists" isn't a good AfD argument. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:23, 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 redirect to 1991–92 Georgian coup d'état#Loyalists. Consensus is that this oddity, which has very scarce soucing, can be briefly mentioned there. Sandstein 09:36, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Black Pantyhose Battalion[edit]

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

Accuracy. Tagged with {{hoax}} for a month now, all the sources in the list either seems to be WP:OR and blogs. Does not seem to contain any verifiable information. A a s i m 16:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am not entirely sure it's a hoax, as I found one (1) source on Google Books: [17]. But it's in snippet view and literally the only source available so even if this group existed, the information is not verifiable (at least under the name "Black Pantyhose Battalion") and there's no name in the Georgian alphabet to search. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:05, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Spoke too soon. They appear to have been better known under the name "Black Stockings". I found [18] (full book at Internet Archive: [19]) and [20], [21] (under the name "Furies"), all of which look reasonably reliable. Not sure where I'll end up !voting wise following this. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~Consider me a weak keep for now.~~ I also found a reference on ProQuest to an Associated Press report that went out on the wire on or around 30 October 1993, referring to the "so-called black stocking women" associated with Gamsakhurdia, but I can't find a full version of the article. This article would need to be pared back substantially to conform to the available sources, I think, but this group does appear to have existed. I would suggest moving to Black Stockings (Georgia) or potentially replacing the redirect at Black Stockings if this is kept, since there's virtually nothing under "Black Pantyhose Battalion". AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:36, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete and redirect to 1991–92 Georgian coup d'état#Loyalists per Lockley below. The English-language sources we have now aren't substantial enough to merit a whole article, and I agree with the POV issues Lockley raises. Incidentally, my punk band Angry Black Socks Battalion will be releasing our debut album soon, so stay tuned for that. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:00, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hello @AleatoryPonderings: -- here is the sole relevant paragraph from the AP story you were looking for, datelined Tblisi, in this case printed in the St. Joseph (MO) News-Press of October 31 1993: "His most ardent followers have since nurtured a cult of personality around the 54-year-old intellectual. Some of the most devoted are the so-called 'black stocking women,' a term used here for lonely women." And here is a pdf copy of the Helsinki Watch document which the article refers to but does not link to. I agree with you that collection of passing mentions are sufficient to take this out of "hoax" territory, so I'm going to remove the hoax tag. But the article is full of claims & apparent puffery which needs to be sourced or deleted. It would be key to find the Georgian-language version of the phrase. (When I start looking Google seems to think I want foot porn, and I -- just don't.) Unless and until we can develop better references this is effectively unsourced, and must go. --Lockley (talk) 21:45, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Lockley. I guess I'm more inclined to keep and stubbify as opposed to deleting entirely, but I agree that this needs a substantial overhaul (and, perhaps, some more drastic measures) to be suitable for mainspace. As for the Georgian version of the phrase, the English transliteration given in my first source above is Shavi Kolgotebi, which Google Translate phonetically back-transliterates as ჩავი კოლგოტები. Not knowing Georgian, I have no way of telling if this is on the right track, but it may be a start. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 22:00, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you, about saving the article if possible. Another possible idea is a redirect to 1991–92 Georgian coup d'état#Loyalists where a four-sentence description of this organization could do, since it's already mentioned there. I'm questioning whether the use of the "militant organization" infobox, the asserted names, especially that word "battalion", the repeated use of "BRB", if all of that tends to unduly promote this as some kind of disciplined fighting force, when that's not consistent with the sources we've found. Googling back the interwiki links gives us "Black Tights Battalion" (fr) and "Angry Black Socks Battalion" (ar). What did they even call themselves, I wonder. --Lockley (talk) 01:48, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 1991–92 Georgian coup d'état#Loyalists. I think AleatoryPonderings makes a good case for why that I don't really feel the need regurgitate. Plus, it's already mentioned there anyway. So, I zero reason not to redirect it. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:10, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the link given above, for reasons given above. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for reasons given by User:AleatoryPonderings. Mztourist (talk) 03:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First, I thought this is a legitimate sub-page of 1991–92 Georgian coup d'état. But it actually covers the subject well beyond the 1991–92 Georgian coup d'état. Hence this can be only a separate page. The subject is obviously notable per se. My very best wishes (talk) 15:41, 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 no consensus. ‑Scottywong | [talk] || 07:33, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Henriette Mertz[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFRINGE, no substantial coverage in mainstream sources Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:42, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:42, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:42, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yep. There doesn't seem to be any WP:MAINSTREAM sourcing that I can find. jps (talk) 20:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You looked at the references in the article, right? Johnbod (talk) 20:22, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Among others. Odd that you think there was "mainstream rubbishing". jps (talk) 20:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think Joseph Needham CH FRS FBA is mainstream? That's odd. Johnbod (talk) 20:38, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately Google Books only allows access to page 541 for me. But that's still not extensive coverage on Mertz herself it seems, more a mention? —Paleo Neonate – 04:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@PaleoNeonate: I agree that what is pretty much a casual dismissal isn't enough on its own. I also can't find her name in Garrett Fagan's book - she not in the bibliography, Google books doesn't show anything, and I can't see anything in my copy. Have I missed something? So far I reluctantly don't find anything that meets our criteria for notability so although I like to have articles debunking fringe writers, I don't see a justification for this one. So far as McNeil goes, his book is sadly another example of a publisher publishing a purely fringe book - you can read the last chapter in his book to see that he's trying to convince people that most of the fringe claims are real. Doug Weller talk 10:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As often, the mainstream rubbishing of her theories provides enough coverage for GNG. Johnbod (talk) 20:22, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The coverage from Childress falls under WP:FRIND and that from McNeil appears to be a mention, both not satisfying WP:NBIO's "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable". Please ping me to reevaluate if someone comes up with enough satisfying sources. —Paleo Neonate – 04:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Considering that Pburka found various sources that appear to be about Mertz and her career. —Paleo Neonate – 02:54, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A passing mention and some sources that are themselves within the fringe bubble don't add up to a notability case. In principle, mainstream criticism can raise a fringe author to notability, but I don't think that's happened here. XOR'easter (talk) 07:29, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Without fundament, there can be no building. Without good sources, no article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Her book, Pale Ink, was reviewed in Western Humanities Review (1974). It's also discussed briefly in Parables of Possibility (Martin, Columbia University Press, 1995, pp. 7,222). She appears to be referenced fairly frequently by mainstream scholars as a well known fringe theorist. pburka (talk) 15:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd be interested in where these "fairly frequent" mentions are, because I certainly couldn't find any GScholar, ProQuest, or JSTOR. The only significant coverage is a small handful of mentions in newspapers in the 70's (which, upon further investigation, falls easily into the junk food news category) or Childress and other fringe authors. I don't see any actual scholarly coverage absent the one book review. Almost all of the mentions in scholarly or RS are mere passing mentions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Where are the "fairly frequent" mentions? Examples in scholarly texts include: Parables of Possibility ("for example, Henriette Mertz proposes..."), Trans-Pacific echoes and resonances (..."the equally curious book of Henriette Mertz..."), A Floating Chinaman ("a Chicago patent attorney and independent researcher named Henriette Mertz fell under...", Bulletin of the Geological Society of Greece ("...concerning the location of Ogygia, there are various viewpoints, such as...Mertz"), Eastern Mediterranean Cartographies ("According to Henriette Mertz from Chicago..."), From Continent to Continent ("Fu Sang was the subject of another book, Pale Ink, by Henriette Mertz, published first in 1953 and reissued in 1972..."), Antiquity ("One may find many precursors in the 1960s such as The Wine Dark Sea...by a patent lawyer, Henriette Mertz"), etc. These aren't significant coverage, but they do suggest that she was familiar to mainstream scholars. pburka (talk) 19:14, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of Parables of Possibility, Trans-Pacific echoes and resonances, A Floating Chinaman, From Continent to Continentand Antiquity are more than passing mentions. Your quotes are nearly all that is said about Mertz in all of these sources. Whatever level of familiarity that she has to mainstream scholars, they spend nearly no time discussing her work in any serious sense. The exception is the piece in the Bulletin of the Geological Society of Greece. This is actually a lecture delivered at the 12th International Conference of the Geological Society of Greece and is an utterly woo-woo filled piece of nonsense. The author, I.D Mariolakos, claims an affiliation with the University of Athens but that university's web site has no reference to them and they appear to specialize in "geomythology". That is, claiming that Greek (and specifically and only Greek) myths are real histories by suggesting that places mentioned in those myths are real places that are well-described. This is not a lecture that inspires confidence. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reminds me that the editor who started this article in 2006 also seems to be LTA pushing Greek pseudohistory (SPI archive)... If one of her books has decent reviews and is more notable than Mertz herself, and independent material mentions those in the context of her hypotheses, an article on that book would also be a possibility, or short mentions of her in the relevant articles may be WP:DUE, like in the literature on those topics. —Paleo Neonate – 00:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Fringe theories, but well enough known to be reviewed in scholarly journals, e.g. The Geographical Journal (Crone 1965), Geographical Reviews (Carter 1965) and Western Humanities Review (Rickett 1974). Given that the subject was active in the 60s and 70s, it's plausible that there are more sources offline. More recently, Greek Reporter (Tsolakidou 2012) also reviewed her work, but I'm not entirely sure if it's a reliable source. Above, I also provide evidence that mainstream scholars were familiar with her theories. pburka (talk) 00:39, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

... there's also a review of Pale Ink in The Notebook (Stephenson 1975) but I can only find citations, not the actual text. pburka (talk) 01:54, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More offline sources is plausible, —Paleo Neonate – 11:26, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to coverage of her fringe theories, I found a nine paragraph story about her legal career in the American Bar Association Journal Vol. 35, No. 1 (Jan 1949), pp. 35-36[22]. pburka (talk) 01:14, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found a Chicago Tribune Obit but it was very short. scope_creep^Talk 10:14, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is not a significant enough reaction to her fringe ideas within mainstream publications to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete It seems like she's mentioned in some places, but it's questionable how much impact or influence her ideas had outside of other fringe authors like David Hatcher Childress. I'm tempted to suggest a merge or redirect to Hyperdiffusionism, but it's not clear how much influence she had there either or even how much she wrote about the subject. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. pburka has it right: the cumulative coverage of the subject's work, only partially documented online, is more than sufficient to establish notability. Of equal importance, references in scholarly literature take Mertz's research seriously, even if her conclusions are rejected -- not characteristic of pseudoscience and fringe theories. Her books show substantial library holdings -- for example, Gods from the Far East is still held by a few dozen, mostly academic libraries, surprising for a 1975 paperback original, while a recent edition of Pale Ink is held by hundreds of libraries. It's important as well to keep in mind that Mertz's writing fell into a school, for lack of a better word, of historical speculation running from Thor Heyerdahl at the rational end to Immanuel Velikovsky at an opposite extreme, which received extensive print coverage in the 60's and '70s. None of the delete proponents have attempted to assess this coverage, resting instead on plainly inadequate, cursory Googlish searches, a practice not conducive to properly maintaining an encyclopedia. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 20:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 18:02, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Lombardi (actor)[edit]

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

Obscure actor doesn't meet our standards for notability. Orange Mike | Talk 16:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:29, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to meeting our notability guidelines for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:57, 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 18:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blindfire[edit]

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

This entry has been unsourced for over a decade. Sure, a Google search shows the concept exists, but I'm not really finding reputable journalistic secondary coverage to justify keeping this article at this time. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have heard about it, but no good sources to back it up. So unless this gets a good source it's a delete. Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 17:12, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Transwikify to Wiktionary.★Trekker (talk) 17:25, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see zero good sources that support this definition, styled as a single word. Original editor was an an SPA named "Blindfire". An Ngram shows a peak of usage circa 1976 related to a British missile targeting system, but nothing promising otherwise. This seems very much made up one day. --Lockley (talk) 04:39, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Billy Connolly#VHS / DVD releases. Tone 18:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Connolly: The Essential Collection[edit]

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

I'm unable to find much secondary coverage specifically about this collection. I tried PROD, but another editor removed, so here we are at AfD. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:00, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:00, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Billy Connolly. Not independently notable. --Lockley (talk) 17:25, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 17:39, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 17:39, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Billy Connolly#VHS / DVD releases and add it to that list – I'm not sure there's anything to merge. Richard3120 (talk) 17:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the target already mentioned. I agree there's nothing to make it notable enough on it's own, but people still might search for it. So, I see no reason not to redirect it. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:49, 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 Materialscientist (talk) 12:06, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anjum Lucknowi (poet)[edit]

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

Just declined this at AFC, the subject clearly doesn’t meet WP:GNG,no sources ,poorly written and borderlines A7 Megan☺️ ^{Talk to the monster} 15:33, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Megan☺️ ^{Talk to the monster} 15:33, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Megan☺️ ^{Talk to the monster} 15:33, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable and fails WP:POET as well as WP:ANYBIO ~ Amkgp 💬 15:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7 I don't see any significance or nay level of notability to meet the standard of WP:GNG. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:22, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's also good to note that a draft of this exact article also already exists at Draft:Anjum lucknowi. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as unsourced, non-notable BLP. --Lockley (talk) 18:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced WP:GNG failure Fiddle Faddle 20:52, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable subject clearly fails general notability criteria, in particular it fails to satisfy WP:POET. Previously deleted under G5. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 06:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note that an editor is busy moving this article around. I and one other have placed it back in article space since the deletion discussion is already in progress. May I suggest a SNOW verdict on this article, please, and a speedy close? Fiddle Faddle 07:58, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete - can we bundle the near-identical Anjum lucknowi in with this? I'm not sure if it's ineptitude by an inexperienced editor or an attempt at gaming the system, but it might be worth considering salting the page. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 08:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with the bundling, and a wide distribution of salt in draft and main space Fiddle Faddle 09:21, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Might we also note Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Anjum lucknowi and consider whether it should run independently of this or be closed at the same time, please? Fiddle Faddle 11:15, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The editor is really being disruptive and tying to evade deletion of the article. Has just moved the article above back to draft space after noting it was tagged for speedy deletion per A10 Megan☺️ ^{Talk to the monster} 09:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:NOTHERE They have just added implausible references to random facts! See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Khan tabrez suggestive of LTA since April 2020 Fiddle Faddle 10:54, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ‑Scottywong | [comment] || 07:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hartley Jackson[edit]

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

Declined speedy due to "claims of notability postdating prior afd". This would mean the coaching at the WWE Performance Centre, which contained no notable events and therefore seeks to inherit notability from the WWE PC. Leithwei notes and acting credits are wholly not notable. Most titles are not notable and the ones that are also seek to inherit notability. Similar issues were noted in the previous AfD that resulted in delete. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER for the wrestling and the acting and fails WP:ATHLETE for Lethwei. Addicted4517 (talk) 08:40, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Reading the Wrestling notability essay it seems he scores notability for his time as coach and producer for WWENXT at WWE Performance Center. It seems that none of the Australian wrestling championships are mentioned in the notability essay, displaying bias against Oceania/South Asian wrestling. Until such time as this notability guideline is updated, the article fails. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:13, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: Please give me some time work on the notability essay which will include updated information on his Australian wrestling championships. I am trying to source all the relevant information over the next week along with the sources. I believe there is notability for the time as coach and producer in WWE. Also for the championships from both Australia and Japan, plus the coaching and contributions to Australian wrestling. --Jammo85 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a valid argument for Keep. Please also provide more sources as indicated in my changes and fact tags. You need to prove how Jackson is notable in his coaching stint in WWE by providing notable events while in that capacity. If you do not that is a fail of said notability. Also please prove his Australian title victories are notable (none of said titles are notable so you have a big problem there). Some notes on your previous sourcing - never use Cage Match for anything other than match results (the Iron Man claim requires something more specific than just the result of the match) and The Weebly website is a fan site and not reliable by default. Also - you used Word Press again and you can't do that as I said. Someone else also took Fandom off and rightly so. Addicted4517 (talk) 06:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty clear that the notability essay doesn't help. Zero1 isn't listed, and there is a reason for that - it's not workable by itself. That's the point of the essay. It's the same with other promotions. I can tell you that notable experience is not essential in being a coach anywhere let alone WWE. He applied and got the job just like anyone else with just experience - notable or otherwise. As far as I know, there is nothing notable during his coaching tenure and that's partly why I nominated this for deletion. You need a specific event that was notable in itself and specifically details Jackson's direct involvement from independent reliable sources. I can tell you now - there aren't any. You've also added sources that are not reliable and I'm about to remove them, and the podcast as well as that is a blatant case of inheriting notability and name checking. Oh, and local newspapers are not substantive and therefore can not be used. You need mainstream sources. Addicted4517 (talk) 08:28, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have listed all the sources I can find online and added the citations to the areas you requested. (**Edit** I am looking through more sources and information online though Wrestling Observer and other reliable websites listed in which I'll update over the weekend **End Edit**) As for other citations and inheriting notably sources, I was using other pro wrestler pages as a guideline that have done the same thing, there are a lot out there with far less notability from both Australia, Europe and the USA who cite sources that inherit notability, but their pages remain. Again my first article and its a learning process so I want to better understand for future reference. I am wondering in your opinion, what makes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Bownds, another Australia pro wrestler notable in this instance, or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Brooks_(wrestler) notable? I am curious to learn, as I used these articles as a starting point. I want to further understand what is needed so I can better my articles so they don't get cited for deletion, but some with less history, less traveled, less information, no citations or far less sources still remain online? And what is the reason Zeor1 not listed in the notability essay? What is notable seems very subjective, especially between some of the companies that ware listed and not listed. Thank you.--Jammo85 (talk)

Bownds worked for Dragon Gate (listed in the essay) and had an NWA World Title shot. Brooks - I argued for the deletion of that some time ago and got shouted down over sourcing. Since the argument he has joined Ring of Honor and would have had a match at the Anniversary show this year but for COVID-19. Do NOT use other wrestler's articles as a guide. The guide is policy guidelines like the ones I used in my nomination and consensus. No one has supported you yet and there's a basic reason for that. Jackson is not notable. You've made some other mistakes which I am about to correct - usage of other unreliable sources and sources that don't make the claims noted. Also, stop using emotive adjectives (ie "famed") without an independent back up. That's why I have already removed uncited material from his coaching section. Clearly you are a big fan of his and that is clouding your judgement. You think he is notable, but you are yet to provide the smoking gun that proves he is who you claim he is. Addicted4517 (talk) 00:17, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is where it gets confusing. With Bownds if you are basing it off the notability essay then it fails notability? His Dragon Gate appearance was for three matches (in which the matches are not referenced or cited from a source?), not consecutive for 3 months as the as the essay says, or held a championship on that list. He just had a NWA World title shot (which is not referenced or cited from a source?). His article also contains a lot of inheriting notability and name checking with who he was on events with etc? So that's why it gets confusing to me, as Jackson has worked for NJPW, the WWE and had an NWA World Tag title shot (all referenced)? I do think Bownds is notable as I know his history, but I just want to be clear with the articles, as it seems subjective for some articles over others. Thank you for your information in regards to those articles and the fixes. I agree the Adam Brooks article should remain as I'd like to contribute to Brooks' page in the future. --Jammo85 (talk)

Jackson did not wrestle for WWE so strike that claim out. NWA World Tag Team title is not the NWA World title. Aside from that, no more comparisons. Treat those separately otherwise you'll make mistakes, and if you make too many of the same mistakes you may have trouble maintaining the assumption of good faith in your editing. For the record, Greg was with Dragon Gate longer than that and also had a couple of regulars there come to Australia. Addicted4517 (talk) 08:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 15:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I could not establish notability per WP:BASIC or WP:ENTERTAINER. The nominee's name is very rarely mentioned beyond noticing that he will fight a certain person in a certain event, even in the japanese media. The most reliable, independent source I found in japanese was [23], which is fine because it focus on Hartley's appearance in a movie, and it's an independent source. But there are too few sources like that. I do appreciate Jammo85's efforts in contributing a lot to the article, but unless we have more coverage of the subject by more independent sources, the article unfortunately does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 00:00, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Walwal20. I appreciate the feedback and thank you for the help. --Jammo85 (talk)

Keep: really think he should have a page just based on my own opinion I know wiki has a policy but he's a Australian wrestling legend The preceding comment was added by Pidzz (talk · contribs) 11:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, this is an invalid vote per WP:PPOV. Prove he is a legend. Reality check - he's not. Addicted4517 (talk) 05:20, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ENTERTAINER criterion 1 and possibly also criterion 3, and also WP:PWBIO, though this is just an WP:ESSAY and whose list is largely incomplete. Changing my vote per my re-assessment of sources and WP:ENTERTAINER. Criterion 1 reads: "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". I'll leave the english content aside, as you can easily find/read them; in japanese we have [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] and numerous mentions in Zero1 sources, which are not independent, but still relevant to establish appearance in stage performances. These sources talk about his appearances in multiple events. Whether these stage performances are notable might still be in question, but he participated in many nation-scoped competitions (and one intercontinental [29]), so there is plenty of reason to believe they are indeed notable. Overall, based on what I found, it is in my understanding that these events are notable within the pro-wrestling world. Therefore, I consider that he meets WP:ENTERTAINER criterion 1. Besides that, I think I'd also add that googling "Hartley Jackson" and "ハートリー・ジャクソン" for images yields many results of him (many videos too), most of which on unreliable sources such as blogs and social media. This indicates fame as an entertainer, and we can even argue WP:ENTERTAINER criterion 3 here; the fact that he has performed in multiple countries [30] helps that point of view, as he would be merely a local personality if he did not attract fans to the shows. Best, Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 06:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of japan-related deletion discussions. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 06:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note first that the seventh link is from an unreliable source, both in terms of the site itself (Word Press) and in terms of the content as it would be subject to pro wrestling embellishment. The claim that the listings at the essay that has been referenced many times are incomplete is in itself subject to debate, and my argument would be that it is complete for the purposes of notability - especially as it relates to Australia. Looking for images is a weak argument that requires written context for which there is very little from independent reliable sources. The rules of BLP's are very strict in this regard. As a person familiar with the pro-wrestling world, the assertion that the Japanese links provides reason to believe in the existence of notability is highly questionable. I also can't believe you referenced the Pro Wrestling Fandom - the epitome of embellishment and WP:PROMO. Performing in multiple countries would not count anyway if he wrestled for non notable promotions, which is the case here. I would therefore dispute the claim to a pass on criteria 1 of WP:ENTERTAINER. You would need to provide independent reliable sources to back this assertion up. Addicted4517 (talk) 08:46, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A few things:

We're not discussing "significant coverage from reliable sources independent from the subject". We are discussing whether these tournaments happened or not.
After some investigation, I found the official website for the intercontinental championship [31] which reads: ハートリー・ジャクソン（NWAインターコンチネンタルタッグ王者）, that is, "Hartley Jackson (current king of the NWA intercontinental tag)".
This information was also already listed in Intercontinental_Tag_Team_Championship_(Zero1). Since it is not properly sourced, I will do so now.
Still in Intercontinental_Tag_Team_Championship_(Zero1), doesn't it seem weird that most names there have Wikipedia articles? Why would we delete only Hartley's?
Lastly, please don't make me feel like I'm doing all the investigative work without equivalent effort from your part.

Best, Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 15:27, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"We are discussing whether these tournaments happened or not is another invalid argument and also trying to devalue the primary rule of WP:BLP in the process. The references to the Zero 1 title are another case of inheriting notability not to mention a version of "what about this article" (AKA these wrestlers have held the title as well). Those other wrestlers are notable despite holding that title, not because of it. This is about the person, not the title in other words. And it's funny you claim I haven't done research, and yet I am easily able to refute your points. My nomination is based in the very research you claim I have not done. I maintain my position and you are yet to provide a valid argument to the contrary. Addicted4517 (talk) 05:01, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Addicted4517 I believe I went over the top with the last item I gave, so I'd like to say I'm really sorry for that. Also, I appreciate that you are working on improving the article by removing undue sources and non-WP:NPOV statements. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 15:32, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per WP:ENTERTAINER criterion 1 and criterion 3. As the subject has had significant roles in stage performances, or other production. You can link this directly to professional wrestling events and performances, some related in this article. In criterion 3, Jackson has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Entertainment meaning that of pro wrestling. Jackson has not only competed for over 20 years, but has coached talent locally and worldwide, even for the largest company listed in WP:PWBIO WWE and WWENXT and has many supporters of this. He has also made considerable and prolific and innovative contributions to the very undervalued Australian wrestling community by bringing more international experience back to coach others after his excursions. Along with coaching and producing WWE talent with his skills also falls under criterion 3. Wrestling is also considered creative, especially the training and event aspect, so its possible WP:ARTIST WP:CREATIVE criterion 1 can come into play here as it states the person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors, in which case for Jackson is true in the professional wrestling world. He is regarded as a very important figure and regarded to be Australia's top trainer that is even cited by a reliable source in PWTORCH. He is also widely cited by his peers, successors in interviews and statements, some of which are included in the article. He has fought for AND held notable championships that are listed in Wikipedia articles as notable championships. This should NOT be included as inheriting notability, because winning a championship is a notable accomplishment, especially both local and international championships. As per WP:PWBIO He was with not only signed with WWE, but also to NJPW. I understand it was not as a wrestler for WWE, but as a coach and producer where he is able to give innovative contributions to signed talent through his coaching and producing of events. But as a wrestler for NJPW, its sourced he was attached to NJPW in LA from December 2005 to moving on to NJPW Japan ending July 2006. Even though it was a different country, NJPW still organized events at the LA Dojo and the events in Japan, making it in line with the WP:PWBIO where Jackson consistently appeared for NJPW over the course of three months. This covers many bases for notability in that criteria. WP:SPORTSPERSON can include his fight in Lethwei, as a sportsperson is presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition. Jackson participated in Lethwei in Japan and it was a major professional competition held at the Korakuen Hall fighting venue in Japan. The company ILFJ signed a broadcasting deal with MNTV (Myanmar National TV) for events to be aired in Myanmar with livestreaming of events available in Japan on AbemaTV and FITETV. Thanks --Jammo85 (talk)

I have removed material for the reasons in the edit summaries, including one claim that I am directly challenging due to a subscriber only source (Wrestling Observer) that I consider to be totally incorrect and requiring a public source; that being "Hartley Jackson became a key figure in Australian wrestling". He is not and never has been. Cage Match only provides one match in New Japan which is nowhere near the three month requirement and that site is reliable for match results particularly for NJPW. There was no source even before my edits from PW Torch. It is well known that Jackson was NOT a member of TMDK and that Cage Match is unreliable on this point. Everything else you have stated here is either personal opinion or inheriting notability as before, except for Lethwei which is not listed at all anywhere in WP:SPORTSPERSON so as he has not won a title and further has only had one match that is hardly notable either. Addicted4517 (talk) 12:17, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So cagematch is reliable when it's positive for your source, but unreliable when it positive for mine? That is interesting. Its well known that Jackson is not a member of TMDK? Not well known by whom, what is your source saying he is NOT a member? Articles dislike youtube, twitter citations for references etc I understand that in regards now to a wikipedia article, but it's live proof that Jackson is a member of TMDK along with links to physical events where he is a member event speaking as a TMDK member. The MCW Youtube along with their VIMEO online library of events from MCW vs TMDK in 2016 backs this up - https://twitter.com/mcitywrestling/status/740350703919464448 - https://www.cagematch.net/?id=29&nr=1293&page=2 - https://drawingheatblog.wordpress.com/tag/tmdk/ - http://prowrestlingguerrilla.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3596&start=1240 - https://theringsidereviewvic.wordpress.com/2016/03/07/mcw-ascension-2016/ - https://411mania.com/wrestling/furious-zero1-new-years-dream-series-2017-review/ - I've researched and its even stated by members who created TMDK on their own personal social media accounts that Jackson is a member of TMDK, even though that cant be referenced. So to say its well known that he is NOT a member is just untrue, where as you could say there is not enough reliable sources and even try to help find something (even if the outcome is that you cannot find any, but there is stuff out there). Also how do you know Hartley Jackson has not been a key figure in Australian wrestling, when he clearly has been by his history, sources and citations in the article. What I try to write in the article is not a personal opinion, its what I have gathered and observed from online sources, live events and history research and interviews. Yes some material and citations may not be up to scratch, but I am trying, which is why there is other editor help. I have tried to cite completely everything that I have written for this article. Cheers. --Jammo85 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jammo85, overall I believe the article is good. Also overall I agree with Addicted4517's edits/reverts. Some sources did not directly back the surrounding sentence; that is, it required some search within the source in order to find the validation; I redirected some sources to better sites in this sense. The article at this point includes a decent amount of detail; I wouldn't say it has WP:Too much detail, but it is on the borderline. I suggest the focus is shifted towards improving the article, as some statements seem a little bit off to me, like the fact that South Australian Serial Killers is another name to the The Mighty Don't Kneel group, which is not true (I clarified this in the article). There is also still some work to do to achieve a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV). Best, Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 15:42, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WalWal20 Thank you for that. All your help on this article is much appreciated and thank you for the information. Also thanks to Addicted4517 for your help with edits/reverts. I am trying to get the best to understanding for the article and you've all provided valuable input and information. Cheers! --(talk)Jammo85 (talk) 16:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let me make this clear first of all. The formal source list states with regard to Cage Match; "Strictly used for match results and not other information." That is what I have done, so you can not use it to prove Jackson was a member of TMDK, and those other sources are all unreliable - I already put down Word Press before, you never use a forum as a source and Twitter can only be used for verified accounts and even then it is discouraged. 411mania is considered only marginally reliable and needs a reliable source to back it up. There is not one reliable independent source that confirms that Jackson was a member of TMDK. IIRC this was argued about on the talk page of the article before it's previous deletion and consensus was achieved in that regard as it being falsely reported. I suspect this was simply because Jonah Rock was a member and fans just made the connection purely because of the formation of the SA Serial Killers. It is not up to me to prove he wasn't a mmeber. You can't prove a negative. It's up to you to prove he was and you can't because there are no sources that are allowable under WP policy. I know because I have looked. When I said "personal opinion" I was referring to Jammo's comments above. He makes the claims, but there aren't any sources to back them up. He is over playing Jackson's notability. I think that's all I need to say. Addicted4517 (talk) 00:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that there is no single reliable source independent from the subject (I did not know about cagematch), but the fact that there are a few sources (reliable or not) indicating that he was a member of TMDK is really frustrating. Because of this I agree that it should not be placed in the article yet. In any case, asserting that he was never a member of TMDK doesn't seem reasonable... Why does Hartley himself post pictures of the TMDK? He uses the TMDK shirt here [32] and there is a TMDK picture here [33]. There must be a reliable source somewhere, but until we find it, it is better not to place in the article. (why doesn't TMDK has a website with this information for gods sake.) Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 02:57, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Addicted4517 digging into the depths of the archives, I found this [34]. This has to be reliable, what do you think? Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 03:15, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a an extensive history of TMDK in this article Walwal20, which includes Jackson as a member of TMDK. Here is the link [35] Would this source be ok? Jammo85 (talk) 03:53, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jammo85, for an ordinary article I'd say that reference is fine, but since we're talking about a biography here, we must be extra careful (per WP:BLP). Let's way till Addicted replies, and then we continue from there. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 04:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, Last Word on Pro Wrestling is not reliable because the managing editor is Jamie Greer - who wrote for Wrestlezone, an established unreliable source. I meant to add that to the source list and I forgot. I'll do it now while I think of it. Just as an aside, there have been many instances of wrestlers wearing someone else's merch to promote said wrestler, team or stable without being directly a part thereof (AJ Lee wearing Bayley's tee on Raw just before she retired springs to mind). The archived source isn't independent. As to why TMDK didn't have a website - I would guess that it was because it wasn't a creation by a promotion as such. That's why you'll find promotions saying anything about it is questionable even on their official websites (ie Melbourne City Wrestling). It's the perfect reason why independent sources that are reliable are essential. Addicted4517 (talk) 04:44, 28 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) 15:04, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bright Start Fellowship International School[edit]

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

References do not establish pass of WP:GNG. Lack of reliable resources. Priyanjali singh (talk) 14:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Priyanjali singh (talk) 14:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Priyanjali singh (talk) 14:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:15, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per WP:NSCHOOL, schools are not inherently notable and need to pass WP:GNG; this school doesn't pass Spiderone 14:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article does not meet GNG or NORG. Sources do not show notability and BEFORE showed nothing. // Timothy :: talk 14:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. -Hatchens (talk) 03:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NSCHOOL and WP:NORG. High schools not inherently notable, normally international schools get enough coverage but in this case it does not seem so. Roller26 (talk) 13:43, 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. Tone 18:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gulshan-E-Islam Urdu High School[edit]

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

References do not establish pass of WP:GNG. Lack of reliable resources. Priyanjali singh (talk) 14:44, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Priyanjali singh (talk) 14:44, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Priyanjali singh (talk) 14:44, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:15, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per WP:NSCHOOL, schools are not inherently notable and need to pass WP:GNG; this school doesn't pass Spiderone 14:02, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article does not meet GNG or NORG. BEFORE showed nothing that helped notability and sources in article do not establish notability. // Timothy :: talk 14:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:26, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

O Studios Entertainment[edit]

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

Vanity production company, fails WP:NCORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — no in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 16:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable source to pass WP:GNG to begin with Megan☺️ ^{Talk to the monster} 16:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Usama Mukwaya as non-notable. --Lockley (talk) 19:47, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not satisfy wp:sigcov or wp:ncorp --☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 17:13, 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. Tone 18:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Barkaat Malik Muhammad Islam English School[edit]

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

Promotional article, references do not establish pass of WP:GNG. Lack of reliable resources. Priyanjali singh (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Priyanjali singh (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Priyanjali singh (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:NSCHOOL -- Padavalam🌂 ► 08:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per WP:NSCHOOL, schools are not inherently notable and need to pass WP:GNG; this school doesn't pass; mere listings in databases and passing mentions in the media do not count as significant coverage to pass GNG Spiderone 17:24, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lina Ashar[edit]

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

Non notable person. fails GNG. Lack of reliable resources. Priyanjali singh (talk) 14:38, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Priyanjali singh (talk) 14:38, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Priyanjali singh (talk) 14:38, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Priyanjali singh (talk) 14:38, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete overly protional article on a non-notable individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:47, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 17:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. While the awards are promising, they do not seem to have the level of significance required for WP:ANYBIO. The award-givers are not independent from the subject, I'd say, and they all have a local scope. Maybe a case of WP:TOOSOON. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 22:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:24, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- The article has a promotional tone to it. Not enough substantial material to pass WP:BIO. Sunshine1191 (talk) 10:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete currently fails WP:BIO and WP:NBUSINESSPERSON. It seems to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Its genuinely inspiring to see self-made businesswoman in generally male dominated Indian business landscape. Roller26 (talk) 11:25, 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. Tone 18:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tiya Gandwani[edit]

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

This biography of a living person is sourced only to twitter posts. Tagged for A7 in 2009, but detagged, and BLProdded by Mdaniels5757 in January this year, but deprodded by an IP, so it appears that AfD is my only option. Intriguingly, the creator's userpage appears to be an inappropriate cross-namespace redirect to this article and they're using the article talk page as their own talk page.—S Marshall T/C 14:37, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 14:37, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: Fair number of supporting roles, but it doesn't seem like any significant roles. Nothing in the sources or that I could find of a review that gave more than a name-drop. Can't see how WP:NACTOR is met here. Ravensfire (talk) 17:36, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the user space redirects were from the page move that created the article and never cleaned up. Ravensfire (talk) 17:37, 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 18:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rustomjee Cambridge International School[edit]

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

Promotional article, references do not establish pass of WP:GNG. Lack of reliable resources. Priyanjali singh (talk) 14:36, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per WP:NSCHOOL, schools are not inherently notable and need to pass WP:GNG; this school doesn't pass Spiderone 14:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kangaroo Kids International Preschool[edit]

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

Promotional article, references do not establish pass of WP:GNG. Lack of reliable resources. Priyanjali singh (talk) 14:32, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Priyanjali singh (talk) 14:32, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Priyanjali singh (talk) 14:32, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:37, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it takes a lot to make pre-schools notable and we do not have that a lot here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:05, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per WP:NSCHOOL, schools are not inherently notable and need to pass WP:GNG; this school doesn't pass Spiderone 14:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above. Does not meet GNG or NORG // Timothy :: talk 14:38, 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 no consensus. ‑Scottywong | [spout] || 07:35, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Olympia, Missouri[edit]

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

State Historical Society suggests a Mr. Hyatt opened a store, and then asked the USPS for authorization for a post office, which was given. The only small-scale topo I can find this on is the 1962 topo, which shows three buildings at the site. I'm trying to get newspapers.com access through WP:LIBRARY, but in the meantime, I'm going by Google Books, which brings up nothing useful for this "populated place." Hog Farm _Bacon 14:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 14:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 14:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The community existed and was deemed worth a post office by the government. See no reason to delete, Wikipedia is not "running out of room". Seems a valid short article and I've added a bit of geographic context. Vsmith (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've said on several of these that "the community existed." How do you know that? Leaving aside that "community" is a problematic rewording of GNIS's "populated place", what we have is a name on a map, and a post office with the same name.Given GNIS's manifest problems with categorizing places, we're left with "there was a post office, which was probably here." Given the history of such post offices, that's not enough evidence for the existence of a "community". Mangoe (talk) 18:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Post offices were established to provide services to the residents of a "community" and often was a part of a "rural" store as travel to some nearby town or city was not an easy task. There are such "communities" still in exitance in rural areas - I know of several still serving their communities within a 20-30 mile drive here in the Ozarks. Back in the 60s I ran a rural milk route collecting milk from farmers and delivering their produce to a receiving station in the county seat. During that time I visited several of those rural store/post offices. These rural "communities" were and are real and Wikipedia should recognize them. Vsmith (talk) 14:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete I found a 1950-eera aerial which shows that the southeast corner was occupied by farm buildings, and the southwest corner by a building that could be a house or store or who knows what. I'm not finding anything that indicates this was anything beyond yet another 4th class post office. Mangoe (talk) 18:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to have been a small community with ~15 residents or so, but a community regardless. It is a sourced stub, meets GEOLAND with official recognition from the post office. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 18:58, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hi @Hog Farm:, what I see in newspapers.com is about 12 to 15 mentions for "Olympia, Missouri" in Missouri papers. They're from the 1919-1926 era & most of them occur in ads from a W.E. Harrison retail store there. That appears to be the extent of Olympia's heyday, such as it is, not notable as a town then or 100 years later. --Lockley (talk) 19:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that it meets even minimal requirements for notability. A post office inside of a general store does not constitute "notability". Glendoremus (talk) 16:32, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid stub about a rural trading point. If maps tell us that the site dwindled by the 1960s, add "little remains of the original site". That would serve our readers better than deletion.72.49.7.25 (talk) 03:45, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The only reliable evidence we have comes from the State Historical Society of Missouri which calls Olympia a store and a post office installed at the request of the store owner. Comments like "the site dwindled by the 1960s" are pure speculation without any basis in fact. Glendoremus (talk) 18:11, 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 18:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kangaroo Kids Education Limited[edit]

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

Promotional article, references do not establish pass of WP:GNG. Lack of reliable resources. Priyanjali singh (talk) 14:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Priyanjali singh (talk) 14:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Priyanjali singh (talk) 14:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:32, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It would help notability if we had links to all these awards claimed. There is one page with awards, but I cannot see "Kangaroo Kids" mentioned. So a hopeless case for notability. -- Whiteguru (talk) 11:41, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely agree with Whiteguru here; struggling to see a case for this one Spiderone 08:08, 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 18:04, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manav Rachna International School[edit]

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

Advertisement, references do not establish pass of WP:GNG. Lack of reliable independent resources. Priyanjali singh (talk) 14:29, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:32, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources Spiderone 17:23, 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. Tone 18:04, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Little Einsteins Preschool[edit]

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

Promotional article, references do not establish pass of WP:GNG. Lack of reliable resources. Priyanjali singh (talk) 14:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Priyanjali singh (talk) 14:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Priyanjali singh (talk) 14:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:32, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment The India.com and India Today articles are the same from Press Trust of India and another source is from Business Line. That's two pretty solid sources with 30 seconds of checking. This feels like WP:BEFORE was discarded and tossed aside without a care. Ravensfire (talk) 20:45, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

India.com is a press release and Businessline is an announcement. Priyanjali singh (talk) 11:41, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the above comment, the links show robusity and notability. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:35, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ravensfire, you can be sure that the user tossed out WP:BEFORE hard before nominating. They nominated 10 articles for Afd within exactly 25 minutes. I think they did it believing that the creator of all 10 articles (same person) had accepted undisclosed payments for them. Roller26 (talk) 11:58, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per WP:ORGDEPTH, WP:ORGIND and WP:NSCHOOL. The sources mentioned above are routine announcements in PTI which was carried by a number of newspapers. It does not in anyway convey significant coverage. Looking at all the sources and news reports, I could only come up with these which need attention. [36] [37] [38] [39] [40]. All these contain very PROMO material with huge chunks being just interviews with the organization executives. Hence huge question of independent coverage is there. A number of them being trade journals would hardly qualify as reliable source. The requirement for notability for private organizations is pretty high and I don't think they have significant coverage in even one independent RS let also multiple to establish notability. Roller26 (talk) 12:18, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per analysis of the sources by Roller26 - thank you for that. Had the OP included this analysis at the start, this would have been pretty slam dunk. Agree with you on the sources, several of them are obviously press-release journalism pulled from the same release, there's an couple of interview's which don't help. This looked interesting, but it's about a specific franchise, not the company in general. Same here from a google news search. Just not enough sources there for NCORP or GNG. Ravensfire (talk) 13:19, 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. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 15:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aishwarya Sridhar[edit]

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

non notable photographer. lack of independent reliable resources. fails GNG. Priyanjali singh (talk) 14:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Priyanjali singh (talk) 14:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Priyanjali singh (talk) 14:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Priyanjali singh (talk) 14:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Award winning photographer. Youngest ever to win awards such as Best Nature and Wildlife Award. Covered in sources such as [41], [42], [43].--Chuka Chief (talk) 14:32, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

non notable awards.Priyanjali singh (talk) 14:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Entity passes WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. -Hatchens (talk) 02:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks like a notable photographer. Having some coverage from reliable resources. Passes GNG. DMySon 16:22, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Pass WP:GNG Some reliable sources 1,2,3,4 indicated her notability -- Padavalam🌂 ► 08:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep easily passes WP:GNG and WP:BIO. She has got pretty significant coverage in number of RS. Priyanjali singh, you are supposed to do WP:BEFORE before nominating a article for AfD. This nomination seems that neither did you do WP:BEFORE but also didn't check the sources in the article itself. Roller26 (talk) 11:37, 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. Tone 18:04, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Scheerer[edit]

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

Would have attempted prod, but I believe it was already prodded, and deleted back in March. Journeyman actor. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:12, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:12, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt per nom. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:29, 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 18:04, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infolob Solutions Inc.[edit]

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

Promotional, does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Chuka Chief (talk) 14:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promo, and fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 19:19, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete. Found no sources outside of routine coverage and press release, and therefore fails WP:NCORP. Also delete per WP:NOTPROMO. -- Dps04 (talk) 18:58, 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 no consensus. ‑Scottywong | [confess] || 07:38, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Burns[edit]

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

Poorly sourced, non-notable BLP. I tried redirecting it to the band per WP:ATD, but was reverted. I believe that the band passes WP:NMUSIC but this member does not, and therefore propose that this title redirect to Stiff Little Fingers. – bradv🍁 13:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:12, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:12, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - saying Jake Burns is not independently notable from Stiff Little Fingers is like saying Marc Bolan is not independently notable from T-Rex. Burns is regularly interviewed by notable magazines and newspapers worldwide, like the Irish News (Ireland) [1][2], Newcity (USA) [3], The Japan Times (Japan) [4], Belfast Telegraph (Northern Ireland) [5], Vice (Canada) [6], Stuff (New Zealand) [7], Morning Star (UK) [8] and Sportskeeda (UK sports mag) [9]. That list is just from the first 2 pages of a Google search, I could easily post a bunch more but I think the point is made. Suffice to say, if we've now set the bar so high that even Jake Burns is not considered notable, there are a TON of other pages that will now need to also be deleted. Robman94 (talk) 16:17, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Every single one of those links describe him as "Jake Burns of Stiff Little Fingers" and are primary source interviews with him talking about his involvement in Stiff Little Fingers. Kind of undercuts your assertion that he is independently notable of Stiff Little Fingers. Richard3120 (talk) 19:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - This information in this article about Jake Burns is advertisement like and not particularly factual. Stiff Little Fingers page is relevant however this page is not. I propose it is deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Punkfan48828 (talk • contribs) — Punkfan48828 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Could I ask that an admin check if Punkfan48828 is a sock puppet for Broonie5460 and Wikiuser2020belfast. Robman94 (talk) 16:48, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a note at the relevant page. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:53, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Jake Burn's is a National Treasure in Northern Island. His reputation as a humanitarian is unchallenged. Say nothing of his successful solo career outside of Stiff Little Fingers. A simple glance at his Discogs profile will support he has over a dozen solo recordings with his side bands; 3 Men + Black, Dead Men Walking, and Jake Burns And The Big Wheel. User:Bradv you are out of your field of depth.--Jauma2368 (talk) 17:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
May I suggest that, rather than insulting me, you improve the article to address the issues I mentioned? That would be time well spent. – bradv🍁 18:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Stiff Little Fingers, quite obviously, and salt the redirect if necessary. That Stiff Little Fingers are themselves notable is beyond doubt, being one of the very first UK punk bands, widely discussed in books and magazine articles documenting the era, and with a string of hit singles and albums in the UK [44]. Jake Burns is well known as SLF's frontman, and his name is a valid search term, but Burns has no notability outside of the band – none of his other musical ventures are notable, and as Robman94 inadvertently proved above, all discussion of Burns in reliable sources is in the context of playing with SLF. I mean, his own Twitter account is "JakeBurnsSLF"... Richard3120 (talk) 19:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. SLF is very obviously a notable band, and there's plenty of sources that cover Burns' life and work outside the band, e.g. [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54]. --Michig (talk) 09:00, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing it, to be honest – OK, the AllMusic review is about his other band, albeit without a rating. But the Rock Bible is entirely about SLF, despite mentioning Burns' other band in the title and then never mentioning them again, the Dead Men Walking is basically Burns playing acoustic versions of SLF songs and one solo single, and all the other sources are primary source interviews with Burns, mainly talking about his memories of forming and playing with SLF. There's a few lines about him marrying and moving to Chicago, and his activism work, but I honestly don't see enough notable information outside the band to warrant a separate article, I think this could easily be included in a few lines in the SLF article. Richard3120 (talk) 21:19, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is famous, albeit famous for being in one band, doesn't the fact that they're famous mean that they're also notable? You'll notice that it's almost always Jake Burns from SLF that gets interviewed, not the other guys. If being famous doesn't count when you've only been in one notable band, how is someone like Marc Bolan notable? Now, I'm not for one minute suggesting that you go and put Marc up for an AFD, and I'm using him as an extreme example, but he only ever had one band, T-Rex. I could give a long list of other guys that are also famous for being in one band, but I won't out of fear that someone would indeed put them all up for AFD and it would be too much work to defend so many articles all at once. Robman94 (talk) 22:53, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or maybe redirect to SLF: about 30% of the article is about SLF and the sources for Burns own biography are mostly mentions of participation but nothing really significant about him. BTW, where is the verification he is "National Treasure in Northern Island"?. ww2censor (talk) 09:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - WP:Music says that musicians may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria. Jake meets 5 criteria:

1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works - see links above

2. Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart - his singles "She Grew Up" and "Breathless" both charted in the UK

5. Has released two or more albums on a major record label - 1. On Fortune Street (2002, EMI), 2. Drinkin' Again (2006, EMI)

6. Is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles - 1. Stiff Little Fingers, 2. Jake Burns and the Big Wheel, 3. Dead Men Walking

7. Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style - he is a prominent figure in punk rock music. Robman94 (talk) 23:19, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. This is blatant WP:REVENGE. Hence I am moving ahead to close this accordingly. (non-admin closure) Celestina007 (talk) 14:58, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bansian[edit]

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

Proposing deletion of Bansian for lack of notability, verifiability and original research by the editor— Preceding unsigned comment added by LwdBell (talk • contribs) 13:18, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in accordance with WP:GEOLAND.--Mvqr (talk) 13:19, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep this is obviously a bad faith nom (and a revenge nom) but has no basis in policy. Praxidicae (talk) 13:22, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Praxidicae. LwdBell, revenge nominations are not a productive way to settle disputes. They are just a waste of everyone's time, including your own. — Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:12, 18 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 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:12, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per above. Qualifies WP:GEOLAND. --Ab207 (talk) 14:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep A village article do not need to delete. Priyanjali singh (talk) 14:56, 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 speedy keep. Another bad faith blatant WP:REVENGE nom by the same editor hence I am also going to close this one immediately. (non-admin closure) Celestina007 (talk) 15:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bachhowal[edit]

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

The subject of page Bachhowal is

1. Not notable
2. Doesn't have independent verifiable 3rd party citations
3. Contains almost all Original research— Preceding unsigned comment added by LwdBell (talk • contribs) 12:57, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in accordance with WP:GEOLAND.--Mvqr (talk) 13:08, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep this is obviously a bad faith nom (and a revenge nom) but has no basis in policy. Praxidicae (talk) 13:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Praxidicae. — Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:02, 18 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 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Speedy keep per above. Qualifies WP:GEOLAND. --Ab207 (talk) 14:25, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep A village article don't need to delete. Priyanjali singh (talk) 14:57, 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) 15:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amjad Ayub Mirza[edit]

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

We deleted this in March 2018. This is a new ref-bombed version, but I still don't see enough to pass WP:GNG. Sources are either low quality, of doubtful reliability, are written by him, or just report his own blog posts. Edwardx (talk) 13:23, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Edwardx (talk) 13:23, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete still no actual demonstration of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:49, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:49, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:49, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable person yet. Ngrewal1 (talk) 18:21, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added recent information that wasn't there before. Person of article in question also leads a rights group in the UK and recently made a speech at the UNHRC. Notable and reputed (aka not him writing blog posts or articles about himself) sources added for these points. Definitely see some notability now. Hindian1947 (talk) 08:47, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication of notability. --Nomad on Road (talk) 15:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails all criteria. -TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 20:47, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO. Qualifies for WP:TOOSOON. -Hatchens (talk) 06:00, 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. Tone 18:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Archana Mosale[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Her second film mentioned in the article is not released. - The9Man ^(Talk) 13:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As both the films don't have articles, they are presumed non-notable. Therefore, fails NACTOR. --Ab207 (talk) 14:38, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- No opinion on this actor's notability, but since when do we presume topics without Wikipedia pages are non-notable? That directly contradicts WP:N, WP:REDLINK, WP:NOTDONE, etc. pburka (talk) 15:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - pburka, You have a point but without articles, its difficult to assess their notability. And trust me, I watch a lot of Telugu films, even the crappy ones but never heard of these. Tried searching Telugu-language sources as well, but couldn't find anything. If anyone presents them, I'd happily changed my vote. -- Ab207 (talk) 20:08, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we lack sources that show that this actress is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:32, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems to fall significantly short on NACTOR and GNG Spiderone 17:22, 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. Tone 18:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kenya Make a Difference[edit]

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

Seems to be a non-notable organisation, coverage is solely local and very limited, charity is now defunct so it's not like there's going to be any more. PROD removed because the edit summary didn't clearly suggest it was being prodded and "No longer existing organization there is an active charity organization in Kenya under this name and it is causing a lot of confusion" is not a valid reason for deletion). However, it fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:18, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:45, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:45, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Small student group/charity. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the references go to 404, so can't verify. -- Whiteguru (talk) 06:34, 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 keep. Tone 18:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Burns[edit]

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

Coverage is all routine for a collegiate basketball player. Meets neither WP:NBASKETBALL or WP:NCOLLATH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:56, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:56, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources like [55] [56] [57] [58] are not what I consider routine. Meets GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:27, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG, see sources above Sportzeditz (talk) 14:36, 6 September 2020 (UTC) - creator of article[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:GNG, WP:NBASKETBALL or WP:NCOLLATH. Of the 4 sources given above, [1] & [3} are from syracuse.com. Clicking on "About us" takes you to advancemediany.com, a marketing company who promise to get "your stories to the right audiences"; hardly a WP:RS. [2] is a local newspaper and [4] is "entirely run by Syracuse University students". Of the references given in the article, all bar one are from local media or specialist college athletics media. --John B123 (talk) 18:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: syracuse.com is a major newspaper and its affiliation with Advance Media New York is not relevant to WP:RS. The Daily Orange is an independent newspaper that is also a RS. Sportzeditz (talk) 19:11, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- While syracuse.com is undoubtedly a reliable source (it's the major newspaper in the CNY area and the website of The Post-Standard), the daily orange is a student-run newspaper that doesn't strike me as particularly reliable. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:13, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to significant coverage in reliable sources such as major regional newspapers being enough to pass GNG. Smartyllama (talk) 13:28, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:08, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per the sources provided by Editorofthewiki. Syracuse.com is the official website of The Post-Standard, the major newspaper of record for the Central New York area. It is absolutely a reliable source, and any suggestion to the contrary is pure poppycock. Ejgreen77 (talk) 06:44, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:10, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

St. Benilde School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The school was previously deleted due to lack of notability. That has not changed, however, apparently this version of the article has some differences from the version that was deleted (I am not an admin, so cannot tell if it is G4 eligible). There have yet to be any independent, reliable sources provided which would count towards establishing notability per WP:NCORP. (t · c) buidhe 12:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 12:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 12:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 12:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:30, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL, and has no good refs. Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 19:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless admin goggles reveal it is broadly similar to previously deleted article, ki which case CSD. Consider salting Fiddle Faddle 21:00, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to De La Salle Supervised Schools: Per WP:INHERIT. As one of the voters in its previous AfD, the previous version of the article didn't mention the said target article, AFAIK. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 14:35, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom or move back to draftspace as this was moved to mainspace by creator when it should have gone through the draft process (has been declined before) Steven (Editor) (talk) 19:02, 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 keep. ‑Scottywong | [chat] || 07:40, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marina Karella[edit]

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

I might receive some flak for this one but given the case, it is appropriate. The article is described as one of a Greek artist but not a single sentence in the entire article speaks about her artistic achievements. The entire article revolves around her morganatic marriage and the children born out of it to Prince Michael of Greece and Denmark. Wedded morganatically means that she is neither a titular Princess of Greece nor a Princess of Denmark by marriage. i.e: Zero significance as royalty.

While the Greek version of the article does cover her artistic career, it isn't backed-up by any reliable sources and the only reference to her career in the English version of the article is a dead link. I have searched the web for reliable secondary English sources covering her career but have found none. I can read a little bit of Greek but not enough to translate any article and translation apps haven't been particularly helpful in this case. Another factor to consider is that does it make sense for an English article to be referenced by Greek sources in its majority. It makes more sense to just further develop the Greek version and improve its quality.

The trend that I have noticed over the past few months regarding royalty-related articles is that they can remain tagged for notability for years together to no avail, but once they are nominated for deletion, editors tend to jump into action-mode to gather sources to help establish notability. That being said I want to make my stand on the matter clear: IF during the course of this discussion the article is improved to the extent that it looks like a well sourced biography of a renowned artist, then I will gladly rescind my nomination but IF NOT then I stand by it as in its current state, the article fails to establish WP:GNG. TheRedDomitor (talk) 05:32, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep About 8 non english wikipedias have an article on her, so keeping an article in the Engish wikipedia would keep us in line with them - combined with the fact there seems to be RS discussing her, including a book on her....she would seem to qualify. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:39, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Deathlibrarian (talk · contribs): Mind listing the reliable sources? Just to put them on record. TheRedDomitor (talk) 06:49, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Sure "Ruas, C. (2005). Marina Karella at the Benaki Museum’s Annex. Art in America, 6, 195." (2)Yablonksi, Linda "Greek To Me" ARTFORUM "https://www.artforum.com/diary/linda-yablonsky-around-athens-and-hydra-69339" (3) "It’s all Greek for the royals; Londoner’s Diary. (2006). The London Evening Standard (London, England)." (4) "Katz, V. (1998, 07). Marina karella at earl McGrath: An illustrated quarterly magazine. Art in America, 86, 100-101. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/219745820?accountid=12372" (5) "Conti, V., (text by) Hultén, P., & (text by) Restany, P. (2004). Quatre aspects de l'art grec contemporain: Marina karella, nakis panayotidis, sophia vari, opy zouni Actes Sud: Arles, France. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/1320795184?accountid=12372" Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:16, 10 September 2020 (UTC) (6) "Prince Michael weds commoner" New York Times, Feb. 8, 1965 page 5"..... also, looking on Google books, there seem to be a few books about art and sculture that discuss her, however they are in German. French and Greek and I can't read them. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As stated by TheRedDomitor the article is a royal genealogical entry rather than a biography of an artist. Since this Afd's creation, a one paragraph portion has been added to the article about her work as a artist but the reference given to back it up is that of an online Art forum on which anyone can freely advertise their work. Also, putting up a few exhibitions in New York (which weren't covered by the reliable New York Times) isn't significant enough to grant notability on Wiki. Off the 6 references listed above, two are inaccessible and two are about her being married to the Greek prince (The one's in NYT and Evening standard). Also the book about her has very little to no coverage anywhere. I didn't find a single critic or user review about it which means that is it a possibility that the book is self commissioned. Basically, is Marina Karella a painter: Yes, but is her career as an artist well covered and notable enough to get a Wiki article: No. Sunshine1191 (talk) 11:39, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was asked to show some RS, so I did (please see above) as they weren't in the article already, I then added that to the article. Also please note, this article is only really showing English sources, there would appear to be a lot of Greek language sources about her that we don't have in the article for instance, most of the RS on the Greek article, are in Greek, but none of those are in the English article. IMHO the article needs a Greek speaking editor to look at it to do it justice. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:03, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Deathlibrarian Pls don't take my previous comment in a wrong way. I find your actions of trying to obtain sources to back up the contents in the article laudable. What i'm trying to say is that of the 6 references that you have listed above: The first is from Artforum. The name itself has the word forum in it, a platform where artists can come together to advertise their work as well as write about the works of each other. It is from a personal point of view, which reduces its reliability on wiki. The two references from actual RS, The New York Times and Evening Standard, are both about Karella's status as the wife of a Greek Prince rather than an artist. And the final two sources from the University of Melbourne's online library are inaccessible. It basically brings us back a full circle to the stage where there are NO references to establish her notability. Also, having an English article sourced completely from Greek sources makes no sense as a reader of the English Wikipedia wont be able to make heads or tails of it. Sunshine1191 (talk) 12:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Depending entirely on Greek sources is absolutely fine if that’s what we have and they’re reliable. Mccapra (talk) 13:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sunshine1191 Oh cheers, sorry if I misunderstood you, I got a bit defensive unecessarily there. My understanding of wikipedia policy is that we can reference any RS, whether it is available online for free or not ...so the academic journals on proquest, should still stand as RS...so yes fair enough the artforum may not count as RS, but the journals from proquest should, which gives us 4 RS about her as an artist. We should also consider we are mostly so far limiting to using *English* sources...... there's a bunch of other references in other languages, eg the Greek Wikipedia article uses all Greek RS I believe. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:48, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deathlibrarian I agree that Greek sources can definitely be used , so long as they are accurately translated and most importantly reliable. The problem with the proquest one's is that they aren't freely accessible by all. So how does one verify the content stated there if one can't read it in the first place. TheRedDomitor (talk) 14:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's no requirement that sources be free, nor that they be on-line. Anyone with a ProQuest account or access to a good academic library could verify them. pburka (talk) 03:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TheRedDomitor Yes my understanding is that sources have to be verifiable... but that means that a reference has to be provided, so they can be verified... not that the editor has to provide a copy of the article themself. They are on Proquest, which is a pretty common database in any case. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:40, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 19:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 19:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 19:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:10, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note- It has been 6 days since the article's Afd nomination but it has neither been significantly developed further nor reliable Greek sources have been added to establish notability as a painter. Sunshine1191 (talk) 10:17, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The greek article from which the article is translated also does not cite reliable sources to establish notability. It was stated that greek sources would be added to the article to verify the information but that hasn't happened either. Plus just because there are some sources for the information given doesnt mean that the information (artist in this case) is significant. As stated by Sunshine1191: putting up a few exhibitions in New York doesnt make her a notable painter. Any painter in New York can find a gallery to display their work. Recognition by media and people on notable platforms is what makes an artist significant. This doesnt seem to be the case here. 223.237.177.14 (talk) 05:06, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: After extensive discussion, It seems that nobody has really looked in greek and Deathlibrarian's sources have not been discussed for their content by any !voters. There is no requirement that sourcing either needs to be cited in the article or freely accessible online to establish notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:08, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the subject has helpfully compiled a web page that lists coverage in the press at http://www.marinakarella.fr/press I have only glanced over the page, but it appears that the sources all discuss her work, and for the most part are reliable sources. Vexations (talk) 12:52, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is some substantial RS there, from the looks of it. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:57, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added a list of sources to the talk page from before 2005 that show that there has been sustained, serious critical attention for her work in reputable sources. May I suggest that the nominator add the rest of the sources and fix the article? Vexations (talk) 19:32, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nom: I have updated the article with the newly found sources. It now has enough information to establish notability on the basis of WP:SIGCOV. TheRedDomitor (talk) 12:33, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Keep on the basis of the improvements made to the article by the nom. Sunshine1191 (talk) 12:47, 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 18:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Somali Unionist Movement[edit]

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

This article is mainly based on a singular source of original research. Additionally, a google search of "Northern Somali Unionist Movement" only returns 84 results. Therefore, it is unlikely that it meets notability guidelines. Jacob300 (talk) 11:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Jacob300 (talk) 11:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Jacob300 (talk) 11:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Jacob300 (talk) 11:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Jacob300 (talk) 11:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing SIGCOV in multiple RS to meet WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 15:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems sufficiently notably, considering this was a decade ago, "Military forces from Ethiopia and the self-declared Republic of Somaliland (which maintains a separate regional governing authority) engaged in armed conflict with the Northern Somali Unionist Movement in July 2010" ([59]) "Among the more organized diaspora groups involved was the Northern Somali Unionist Movement, (NSUM). " ( https://riftvalley.net/sites/default/files/publication-documents/Between%20Somaliland%20and%20Puntland%20by%20Markus%20Hoehne%20-%20RVI%20Contested%20Borderlands%20%282015%29.pdf ), "While suspicion has fallen on al-Shabaab, the radical Islamist group is far from the only suspect in the bombing. Besides the radical Islamists, there is also the Northern Somali Unionist Movement (NSUM), which opposes the secession of Somaliland and its control of the SSC region" ( https://jamestown.org/brief/briefs-176/ ), "Ethiopian police clashed with members of the Sool, Sanaag, and Cayn (SSC) militia, the armed wing of the Northern Somalia Unionist Movement (NSUM), in the town of Buhoodle on May 22, 2010, resulting in the deaths of four Ethiopian policemen and at least ten Somalis." ( https://uca.edu/politicalscience/dadm-project/sub-saharan-africa-region/somaliasomaliland-1960-present/ ), "In 2010, NSUM militants were involved in clashes between themselves and Somaliland forces near Widhwidh, in the Cayn region of Somalia." (https://allafrica.com/stories/201408290554.html) --Soman (talk) 17:58, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Soman, WP:GNG indicates that a topic is seen as notable if it received significant coverage addressing the topic directly and in detail, none of the links above go further than naming this entity, guidelines specifically mention that "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention". --Kzl55 (talk) 10:13, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With limited original scholarly sources and 2 out of the 3 reference links not existing, article does not meet WP:GNG. Ciiseciise007 (talk)
Delete - Both Google Books as well as Scholar return almost zero reliable sources on the topic [60] [61]. A handful of sources offer trivial mentions of this group but no detailed or significant coverage is available in reliable sources to address notability or warrant a stand alone article per WP:GNG. Additionally, the article is mainly authored by Middayexpress [62], a permanently blocked long term vandal of the Somali project [63]. --Kzl55 (talk) 10:13, 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 18:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaa (2019 film)[edit]

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

Cannot find any reliable reviews. References are press releases and non RS. Does not meet WP:NFILM. Ab207 (talk) 11:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 11:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 11:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to concerns around WP:GNG and WP:NFILM Spiderone 19:13, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bunk Campers[edit]

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

This page was created in 2010 by a banned user with the same name as the company. In spite of some heavy trimming from another editor soon after the page was created, it remains predominantly promotional, and a WP:BEFORE doesn't generate anything other than a few routine mentions. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH by a long way. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 10:32, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is still promo, fails WP:corpdepth, and doesn't get to good of results in a before search. Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 17:38, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is promotional material. -- Whiteguru (talk) 11:52, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:43, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:43, 20 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]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Avant (skyscraper)[edit]

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

Looks very promotional. There are no sources online on this skyscraper, except for this [64] Fails WP:GNG AngusMEOW (chatter • paw trail) 10:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not justified by available resources. fails GNG. Priyanjali singh (talk) 15:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:07, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:NBUILD, no awards, or sources found that contribute to wikinotableness, building size/height not wikisignificant (see here). Coolabahapple (talk) 02:31, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as well as above, poorly formatted and written, markup symbols in the text. Looks like a quick copy and paste job. Teraplane (talk) 00:07, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not entirely true that no sources can be found, a quick Google search bagged me this and this; more could possibly be found on a more thorough trawl. I've not added those to the article yet, as they don't necessarily support the article content, since it seems the (what was intended as) residential building is being repurposed as hotel instead. If the article does survive, perhaps it could be edited in light of this info and these added as refs, but I do think the onus is on the creating editor to do that esp. as they've marked the article as 'work on progress'. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems this could also be copypaste, as the content appears verbatim here. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if/when the copyvio issues are resolved, this building does not reach notability. --Lockley (talk) 18:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 18:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trilogy Mentors[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND scope_creep^Talk 09:47, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability not established, promotional issues. 1292simon (talk) 22:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:56, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:56, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:56, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I am inclined to say that WP:NOTJUSTYET applies to this organisation. We really need to wait and see what the market acceptance for them is and the depth of penetration is. -- Whiteguru (talk) 06:47, 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. ‑Scottywong | [squeal] || 07:41, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Toppr[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Generic online learning company. scope_creep^Talk 09:45, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. XOR'easter (talk) 15:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - routine coverage, notability not established. 1292simon (talk) 22:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:02, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:02, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:02, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per the below table, Reliable, Significant, and Independent coverage exists in WP:RS to show both WP:GNG and WP:NCORP coverage. Tags should be added on the article page to provide targeted feedback to improve article quality, rather than rush to an AFD. Ktin (talk) 01:22, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


#	Media Name	Links	Coverage
1	LiveMint	[65] [66] [67] [68][69]	Independent + Reliable Media + Significant (non trivial)
2	TechCrunch	[70]	Independent + Reliable Media + Significant (non trivial)
3	The Hindu Business Line	[71] [72] [73]	Independent + Reliable Media + Significant (non trivial)
4	The Economic Times	[74] [75]	Independent + Reliable Media + Significant (non trivial)

Comment Review of the references in the article:

[76] Topping the Growth. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH Not independent.

[77] Fails WP:CORPDEPTH standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as: of changes in share or bond prices

Same as the previous one.

[78] Ed-tech firm Toppr raises Rs 350 crore in series D funding. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH of a capital transaction, such as raised capital

[79] Fails WP:CORPDEPTH Standard notices

[80] WP:CORPDEPTH of the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business,

[81] Advert. Fails WP:SIRS, WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:PROMO

These are the first seven references. The other references in the article are low-quality junk refs that fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. scope_creep^Talk 07:16, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looking at the WP:REFBOMB that the previous editor has posted:

[82] Press-release. Also fails WP:CORPDEPTH of a product or a product line launch, sale, change, or discontinuance

[83] Press-release. Also fails WP:CORPDEPTH of a capital transaction, such as raised capital

[84] Also the same. Monies raised.

[85] Monies raised. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.

[86] Press release.

[87] Techcrunch. Lowest-quality ref possible. Non-RS. Deprecated.

[88] fails WP:CORPDEPTH of a capital transaction, such as raised capital

I'm not going to do anymore, as assuming WP:AGF they are all non-notable. A mix of press-release, adverts, standard notices, monies raised, capital transactions and share price changes that fail WP:NOT, WP:NOTADVERTISING, WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. scope_creep^Talk 07:27, 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 Moot. Redirected by creator, which is apparently uncontested. Sandstein 09:49, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Film 14[edit]

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

No indication of meeting WP:NCORP. References given are eiher not significant coverage or by connected parties. Google searches not finding anything better. noq (talk) 09:19, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:57, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:57, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:57, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note Since the nomination of the article the creator has redirected it to Adam Cushman, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Men of METRO[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No notability shown. Virtually all sources are connected to the single school this organization exists at. Fails WP:NORG. John from Idegon (talk) 08:32, 18 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 Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:29, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is only one reference that takes up the outcomes of the service these men offer. So lacking notability. -- Whiteguru (talk) 06:56, 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 18:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Karnan (2020)[edit]

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

Recreation of content that was moved to draft space to Draft:Karnan (2020 film), the redirect was deleted under R2, which makes this part WP:G4 recreation of deleted (or moved content). This can also be classed for WP:G6 as the article is in Draft space. However for some reason previous admin doesn't want to follow standard operating protocol and wants this to goto AFD which seems bizarre! Article fails WP:GNG, (A7) is not good enough for main-space in it's current form and shouldn't be in main-space in it's current form. Govvy (talk) 08:32, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Govvy (talk) 08:32, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:G4 is the recreation of content that was deleted after a deletion discussion, so it does not apply as there has never been a deletion discussion about this article before. There is no provision in WP:G6 to delete an article where there is also a Draft of the same article. While this article does appear to fail GNG, that fact does not make it eligible for WP:A7 as there are lots of articles that survive A7 deletion that do not pass GNG. A7 is only applicable to certain subject areas and movies is not one of those subject areas. If the standard protocol is to delete articles that have been previously moved to Draft space and then recreated under some IAR or shoehorned in speedy deletion criterion, I will not follow that procedure. All that said this should be Deleted as it does not meet notability guidelines. If it is deleted via this discussion then it would be eligible for WP:G4 if recreated as an article. ~ GB fan 10:15, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to concerns around WP:GNG and WP:NFILM Spiderone 19:14, 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 no consensus. T. Canens (talk) 01:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Roderick Riley[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL and WP:GNG - didn't play in the NBA. Boleyn (talk) 18:30, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I prodded this recently. The deprod rationale was "Outside of the D-League, he played for several teams in Europe and Asia. A search in sources from those countries is needed to establish if he passes WP:GNG or not". Basketball Reference seems only to have his US minor league stats [89]. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep He led a Bundesliga team in scoring, and there is some coverage in German sources like [90]. Some more coverage: [91] [92] [93] [94]. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:59, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:54, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Milo Cawthorne[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:11, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:11, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I am probably not up on the play when it comes to NACTOR but I think the main issue is also the lack of sources to the article. Along with the main part in Power Rangers TV series, he has had two lead parts in movies Blood Punch and Deathgasm, which he won an award for but I don't know how big that award really is. You can find reviews for these movies in Los Angeles, New York and Austin papers. As well as this and this but assume that isn't enough, as apart from to say he was in those movies, its mostly passing mention. Then some reasonable bit pieces in short films as well as his latest part being in Guns Akimbo. Found this article on him in Tearaway, a radio interview for RNZ Sidekicks podcast as well as this podcast interview. Then he has NZ Film and NZ On Screen profiles. Maybe a bit more in here but don't have premium NZ Herald access. NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 23:19, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:00, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per the above sources. It needs a rewrite, but he's been in enough notable works to merit an article. lethargilistic (talk) 09:30, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have founds some additional sources, including writeups in newspapers and NZ On Screen. Some I have incorporated into the articles, others I've linked on the talk page. HenryCrun15 (talk) 02:34, 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. Tone 18:09, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Tamil films dubbed by Sreeja Ravi[edit]

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

unnecessary list, WP is not IMdB. DGG ( talk ) 09:29, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:53, 2 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, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-09 ✍️ create

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:23, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:46, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sreeja Ravi, there is space there rather than having a standalone article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:16, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. scope_creep^Talk 19:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete - a standalone list article is not warranted here. 1292simon (talk) 10:00, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary trivial list. NavjotSR (talk) 15:20, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:20, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Geoffrey Banks[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Couldn't find any reliable sources about this actor. All sources are gossip sites or contain a passing mention. The awards he won are not well known awards and the film Who's Watching Oliver is not a known film. TamilMirchi (talk) 04:35, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 04:35, 3 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 was previously discussed at AfD and the result was no consensus. --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions: 2017-09 no consensus, 2011-11 ✗ delete

Logs: 2011-11 ✗ deleted

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 11:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:00, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article fails GNG, BASIC and NACTOR. Sources are mentions, nothing that covers the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 18:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wenchi Tomato Factory[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:NCORP. 1292simon (talk) 11:23, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:29, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:29, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per NCORP/GNG: [95] (GhanaWeb) [96] (GhanaWeb), [97] (The Graphic), doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2019.101786 (article in Food Policy). AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per AleatoryPonderings' sources. The GhanaWeb articles are particularly convincing. — Toughpigs (talk) 14:35, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AP turned up some SIGCOV Wm335td (talk) 22:12, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per AleatoryPondering's works. -- Whiteguru (talk) 11:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:49, 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 18:09, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sheep Springs, California[edit]

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

This was entered from Durham, but it does have a GNIS entry, and that entry says it is a spring, as does the only other source I can find that addresses it. For whatever reason it was never copied back onto the topos from GNIS, but at any rate, it's clearly not notable. Mangoe (talk) 03:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:23, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be literally a natural spring; no evidence that it was a community or otherwise notable. Glendoremus (talk) 03:16, 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 18:10, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oytcho-Visha[edit]

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

This subject is not notable. Notability requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This subject has only been mentioned in two independent sources, both of which are passing mentions. HenryCrun15 (talk) 04:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. HenryCrun15 (talk) 04:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. HenryCrun15 (talk) 04:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. HenryCrun15 (talk) 04:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cautious delete Never registered, doesn't look like its going to run candidates, so fails notability. But we'll know for certain at 2pm tomorrow when the candidate lists go up here.--IdiotSavant (talk) 04:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not running anything, so support deletion.--IdiotSavant (talk) 02:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only a passing mention in a news article, running no candidates. Doesn't meet notability. MerrilyPutrid (talk) 12:18, 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 18:10, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Seko[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NARTIST/WP:NCREATIVE. [98] and [99] are the best refs available, and they don't look super reliable to me. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NARTIST. Couldn't find any sources that look reliable. – SD0001 (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 keep. (non-admin closure) Dps04 (talk) 04:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Fisherman's Granddaughter[edit]

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

This film has 2 citations, but another editor thinks they aren't enough to support notability. Thoughts? Donaldd23 (talk) 03:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 03:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I guess. I tracked down one of the two reviews cited and found another. (If anyone can find the New York Dramatic Mirror ref, that'd be appreciated, because I couldn't find it online.) These reviews may not strictly satisfy WP:NFILM #1, but I think it'd be a shame for historic preservation purposes if we deleted this article on a more-than-century-old film just for lack of technical compliance with a guideline. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:25, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Two+ reviews, especially that early in the silent film era, satisfy WP:NFSOURCES. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found the review in the New York Dramatic Mirror which is of course public domain and available through Google Books. The review begins "A simple story, but well told, with good expression and heart interest, is presented in this picture." We should try really hard to save articles about films that are 110 years old. In this case, the director and the studio are both notable, and the film was reviewed in at least three publications. I will expand the article after work today. Two of the three reviews were positive, and I will add a plot summary. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above, it is important to have some examples of silent films. Historicity and the research given here satisfies WP:NFSOURCES. -- Whiteguru (talk) 11:59, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added a plot summary and additional critical commentary. The article now has links to reviews from three reliable sources of the era. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:04, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Passes GNG.★Trekker (talk) 08:03, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources including three film reviews so passes WP:NFILM and WP:GNG imv, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:03, 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. Tone 18:10, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Killer (1972 film)[edit]

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

I added a review that I felt supported notability. Another editor reverted and reinstated the "notability" tag. Let's let AfD decide...are the reviews online good enough to support the notability of this film, or does it fail WP:NFILM, and if so, it should be deleted. Donaldd23 (talk) 03:52, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 03:52, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 03:52, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Keep Well, i am sure there is a lots of thing to dig out from Hong Kong Public Library news/multimedia archive. https://mmis.hkpl.gov.hk/ Matthew hk (talk) 04:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

e.g.

"宗華信讒言被稱大殺手" 1972-01-07 The Kung Sheung Evening News Industrial and Commercial Daily Press Matthew hk (talk) 05:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well, a poster from this 1972 film is seen in the film Cecil B. Demented from the year 2000, so The Killer don't seem to be a completely forgotten or overlooked production. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 09:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Oleryhlolssons rationale. And WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 18:55, 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 13:20, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Venous needle dislodgement[edit]

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

This is part of an advertisement for a company making a safety device to detect a type of accident during dialysis ; this part describes the accident & its potential consequences; the company, itself Redsense Medical is described in the article at the adjacent AfD. The references and content here does not meet the standards of WP:MEDRS. I presume there is COI, for trying to get 2 articles when there is at most a very weak case for one is a standard promotional trick associated with paid coi editing . DGG ( talk ) 03:21, 18 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 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:19, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am going to agree there is COI here with the two articles referenced. It is part self-referential (so advertising). (This is a bit out of date as new machines take and return on the one catheter. I am surprised to see this.) Nonetheless, delete. WP:PROMOTIONAL --Whiteguru (talk) 07:21, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I came here from the WP:MED article alerts with a desire to save this article, but jeez. Even if this is "cited" with many sources, it will never imo be "significant" coverage required by GNG. At most, this is a obvious side effect of hemodialysis, meaning almost all coverage is likely to be insignificant/in-passing by definition. Basically, while this may have tons of routine coverage, it's just that - there is no article on "IV line dislodgement" or similar because duh, it's a complication of a dang IV line by default - even if people pull their IV lines out daily, it isn't notable enough for its own article. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:04, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

V Perumal[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL as a state-level party functionary. none of the sources are in-depth coverage on the subject. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 03:36, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 03:36, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Probably could have been nominated as speedy. Definitely fails per WP:NPOL. MrAureliusR_Talk! 03:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:06, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Ab207 (talk) 14:39, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero notability whatsoever Spiderone 16:30, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there seems to be quite a few sources here, but I'm a bit confused as to whether there is one or two CPI(M) politicians by this name, one from Coimbatore and one from Puducherry? --Soman (talk) 17:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete falls well short of NPOL and all sources appear to be passing mentions, except source #2 which does not mention him at all. Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:18, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- fails WP:GNG ,WP:NPOL -- Padavalam🌂 ► 08:23, 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 WP:SNOW keep. There is no reasonable prospect that this article will not be kept; hopefully advocates for this position will ensure that it is purged of all COI influence. BD2412 T 01:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Gad-el-Hak[edit]

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

It's not clear if WP:Notability has even been met. The page was created and heavily edited by the subject himself. He was called out multiple times for blatant COI, and was finally blocked recently. Another editor @Kj cheetham: and I have started to clean up the article; I've taken a knife to it and removed large swathes that were just self-WP:Puffery. I'm not convinced he is notable enough; even if he is, almost all references I can find to him are from his own website or that of his university, and/or scholarly articles that he has written. He has not been featured in any newspapers or non-academic publications, despite his claims on his resume otherwise (at least, not that I can find). Most other websites seem to either have copied from his website, or from the additions he made to Wikipedia. I would definitely like to hear what others have to say.

After removing his self-published material from the references section, that will leave us with not very much at all to work with. MrAureliusR_Talk! 03:32, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MrAureliusR_Talk! 03:32, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:Seems to me a pass of wp:prof based on citations and h-index. needs editing though(Msrasnw (talk) 03:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC))[reply]
Question. Do any of the societies listed on his CV get him past WP:NPROF #3? I don't know science. NPROF #5 also looks relevant, but I'm not sure about the prominence of his institution. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Fellow of the APS (verifiable here) and of the ASME (here) are definitely passes of #3. AAAS is more debatable but I would think it counts too. I'm less familiar with the other ones but I expect some of them are also passes. His citation record is also a clear pass of #1, and his named professorship at VCU is an obvious pass of #5. Speedy because the nomination seems to be based purely on personal opinion, bad-faith assumptions, and the wrong notability guideline (WP:GNG instead of WP:PROF). Incidentally, even if you were looking for GNG-like coverage, you should have at least found "Homage to a Legendary Dynamicist on His Seventy-Fifth Birthday", about Gad-el-Hak, in the Journal of Fluids Engineering. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C1 on GS citations. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy keep High level of citations, fellow of APS, and named chair makes it a clear pass of WP:NPROF, though I did consider briefly WP:TNT initially. -Kj cheetham (talk) 07:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possibly snow, per multiple WP:NPROF criteria. The citation record looks like C1, even in a high citation field, and the several fellow appointments to learned societies are a pass of C3. Comment that although it's not automatic, academics that get an article celebrating their nth birthday or retirement are very likely to be notable per C1 (a festschrift volume is an unambiguous pass). VCU should be a major institution for C5, and the anniversary article is a reliable source for the named chair (which, by the way, he no longer seems to hold). The article surely had/has numerous problems, and it is understandable that the nominator wanted clarification on notability before putting in further cleanup work. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Respectfully, I would like to appeal your decision and recent actions. I will try to be brief and use short bullets.
1. Early on the creation of this page, I supplied pictures of fluid flows that I took myself and have the copyright to. Each of those photos were published in peer-reviewed journals, but at that time, I didn’t have adequate references. WP removed the pictures, and I didn’t contest.
2. I now have adequate references in peer-reviewed journals, but you removed the 14-point bullets, and with those the (secondary-sources) references.
3. All the references are secondary sources, and are not self-congratulatory.
4. I am not advocating for a product or a company, for profit or not-for-profit. This page simply describes the scholarly contributions of a university faculty. Almost everything mentioned there is supported by references to peer-reviewed journals. A notable exception, is the birth date and place, but if you want to see a birth certificate, I am glad to supply that, privately of course.
5. I have seen many similar pages written by my peers, and none of those has the dreaded COI notices you bestow upon my page.
I urge you to remove all the COI and deletion notices, restore the 14-point bullets and references that you already removed, and ask me for any proof you wish. My page does not advocate a product or a company, but all the statements there are supported by secondary sources.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gadelhak (talk • contribs) 15:23, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You should not be participating, in this discussion or in editing the article. See WP:AUTOBIO for why. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gadelhak hope you don't mind, but I reformatted your vote so that it followed the pattern. Best, Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 21:30, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as an obvious pass of WP:PROF criteria 1 (citation profile), 3 (Fellow of the APS would be enough), and 5 (named chair). I have made a first attempt to edit the page for tone, so that it reads more like an encyclopedia article and less like a biographical blurb for a keynote speaker. XOR'easter (talk) 18:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Created by a WP:COI and wp:BLOCKED editor 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 11:40, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:PROF as a named chair, and fellow of societies/associations. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:13, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:CSK#3; if I understood well, the nominator proposed deletion more like a WP:TNT (here's not the place?), rather than to dispute its notability. The subject's citations are enough to establish a very clear notability per WP:NPROF#C1. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 21:27, 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 18:11, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Canadian Hot 100 top 10 singles in 2020[edit]

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

A top-ten list of songs for the year rather than per each week during the year would make more sense. These lists cross the line of WP:IINFO, WP:TRIVIA, and is not a topic covered in reliable sources as required per WP:LISTN beyond the primary source. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 02:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:17, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:17, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:17, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Regardless of what does or doesn't "make more sense" to the nominator, these lists are no different from the lists we have for literally dozens of other countries — see, e.g. Category:2020 record charts, and the equivalent categories for every other year, which are all literally overflowing with "top single of each week" lists for numerous countries, none structured or sourced or substanced any differently than these. If the nominator wanted to get rid of all of them, that might be different — but deciding that Canada is somehow unique in not warranting these, when Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, the Netherlands, Panama, Poland, Portugal, Singapore, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain, Switzerland, Thailand, the United Kingdom and the United States all do have exactly the same thing, that's absolutely not on the table. Bearcat (talk) 02:24, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Striking and revoting from scratch, because I misinterpreted what was actually on the table. These are actually lists of all the songs that peaked inside the top ten in Canada — and that's not a thing we have for most other countries: what we normally have is lists of the number one, and only the number one, songs of each week. And while there are a couple of other countries (US, UK, Ireland) where people have started trying to obsessively document the entire top ten for posterity, that's much newer and much less developed, and should probably also be deleted as I have no idea where the consensus came from that they were ever warranted in the first place. So yeah, this actually is trivia that we don't need to keep. Apologies for the misread. Bearcat (talk) 02:31, 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 06:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Live 105: 10 Year Anniversary: 1986-1996[edit]

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

Compilation album that has received little to no coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:NALBUMS. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:31, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:31, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to KITS#Modern rock: Barely found anything about the compilation album. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 09:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- If there's no mention of the album at the target article, what makes redirecting this there helpful? Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 15:56, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, it can be briefly discussed in the section of the targeted article, perhaps on Live 105's 10th year. Hence, I vote to redirect it. I have explained enough. And I won't reply from hereon. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NALBUM. There's no point at all in redirecting and "having it briefly discussed" in the target article if there are no independent sources and nothing to discuss – the only source in the article appears to be confirmation of the year of release, which isn't notable, and it's not obvious how a book by a photographer relates to this album or provides any in-depth coverage. Richard3120 (talk) 14:58, 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. No response to the persuasive argument against the sole keep argument, so I am not inclined to give the keep much weight. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:02, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Xavier Jamaux[edit]

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

I have found no significant coverage on the subject. Fails WP:GNG and WP:COMPOSER, WP:MUSICBIO. Less Unless (talk) 12:25, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 12:25, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 12:25, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep plentiful French language sources on fr.wp page, and no evidence that the nominator has searched BangBang and the various pseudonyms under which this French film composer records. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:05, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You must be kidding...the French article has been tagged with 'more citation needed' for almost a year now. Do you really think that Discogs, AlMusic, MusicBrainz and IMDB are the sources required to show the notability? The subject has to be talked about in detail! in multiple reliable independent sources. Can you provide any of those? PS: In ictu oculi is the creator of the article. Less Unless (talk) 20:03, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable musician. Couldn't find anything besides databases, streaming service entries, social media, retail sites, WP mirrors, lyrics sites and blogs. The usual trash, in other words. Actually Allmusic is a reliable source - if there is a biography page on the artist. But there isn't on Jamaux so it's not reliable in this case. Discogs, Musicbrainz and IMDb are not reliable in any way, indeed. I haven't found anything reliable about him, even in French. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 04:41, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:54, 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 no consensus. ‑Scottywong | [talk] || 07:46, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kaimosi Friends Primary School[edit]

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

Per WP:NSCHOOL this article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. WP:BEFORE revealed only WP:ROUTINE coverage and brief mentions, nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV which addresses the subject directly and in depth and is an WP:IS // Timothy :: talk 08:35, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 08:35, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 08:35, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 08:35, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If this is a school from 1903, then there are going to be more citations available. Keep and search for resources. Whiteguru (talk) 11:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A source that can act as a starting point As a Quaker school it would report to a yearly meeting and the minutes are normally preserved often not yet on line. Which? When we we go back to 1903, a the word primary can mean the first of many not a school for the under 13s. A cursory glance shows this school spawned three primary schools, two high schools and a teacher training college which is now a university college offering doctorates.We know the founders Clison Hopkins and Hole, and that they were spearheading vocational education. Clear WP:ORGSIG — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClemRutter (talk • contribs) 12:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete our longstanding understanding is that almost no primary schools are notable. we need truly exceptional coverage. There is no reason to think that all primary schools, even in 120 years, will receive that level of coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is why we are here, John. The flaw in your argument is that this is a article about a 5-11 'Primary School', I explained in the post above, this is a far bigger topic- one about the Quaker Missionary work and the growth, from this first school into secondary education and tertiary- and primary education. The documentation on-line is poor but [|this source gives a flavour]--ClemRutter (talk) 08:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: One of the largest and oldest primary schools in the country, sources exist, so rather than deleting sources should be looked for. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 07:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You could have at least found a sources yourself before voting keep instead of just basing it on a presumption that they are out there. Adamant1 (talk) 11:23, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adamant1, What do you think we’re doing? In Wikipedia we establish concensus not voting as far as i know. If a topic is notable i state my opinion (I haven’t stopped you from stating yours). Regards Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 13:31, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who's "we"? The question was pointed at you, not everyone that else who didn't vote the way you did. I know it's not a "vote", but your still suppose to support what your saying with some kind of evidence, and it's not just about sources existing. That's all. IMO you wait to comment, vote, or do whatever you feel like calling it until your sure there's actually sources out there that meet the notability guidelines. Otherwise, we could all just say whatever and that would be it. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1: In my experience and knowledge on kenyan articles and schools;especially missionary schools, i have found many sources from web archives especially in kenyan schools that have routine coverage from reliable sources based on things like national exam rankings, national non-academic competitions. The current sources have passive mentions of the school; point to existence of reliable sources from archives that can be found over time from things like books or archives of defunct news sites. Then again there are things like transition from a colonial government in kenya into a kenyan-only run government which points to sources from things like historical books of these activities including missionary work. @Synoman Barris: It is an accurate judgement call to look for sources on this mainly because its a missionary school from 100 years ago.--waweruboyWaweruboy (talk) 02:39, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This school doesn't seem notable enough to pass WP:GNG or WP:NORG due to the barely existing sourcing and the fact that what is available seems like primary and not in-depth enough. If there was sources out there like the hand waving keep voters have claimed there was they would have probably materialized by now, but they haven't. So, unless something drastically changes I see zero guideline based reason to keep this article. "The school is old" isn't guideline based. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and consider re-naming, perhaps to something that indicates the wider Friends' work in Kaimosi. There is an online source here discussing the setting up of the mission and the school. p46 describes the development of teacher training and the high school. In offline sources, it looks as if The Historical Dictionary of the Friends, The Southern Abaluyia, the Friends Africa Mission, and the Development of Education in Western Kenya, 1902-1965 and A History of the Quaker Movement in Africa all have info. Tacyarg (talk) 22:14, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the online and offline sources identified above that will enable the expansion of the article and its notability so that deletion is no longer necessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For anyone voting based on the sources provided by Tacyarg, none of them are usable for notability. The first one is a college research paper (which doesn't work), the second one Just mentions "Kaimosi" a bunch of times in passing and not this school in particular, same goes for the third one (which just says "Kaimosi Boy's Secondary School." Last time I checked the article isn't about that school), and the last source literally just says "school at Kaimosi" and that's it. Which could literally be any damn school in Kaimosi. It's completely ridiculous that Tacyarg even cited such obviously garbage sources. It's even more so that @Atlantic306: voted keep because of them. You should really know better @Atlantic306:. BTW, the other source provided in this discussion doesn't even talk about the school either. So there's zero valid justification at all for keeping this article. This whole thing is just yet another example of people not reviewing sources they are posting or voting because of. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have seen Google book snippets discussed with the concern that they are not an accurate reflection of the depth of coverage of the subject in question as they miss relevant passages, so those sources need to be studied in full not just a quick glance at google books, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Think the discussion was at WP:RSN but not positive, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just as much I'd say it's wrong to assume in-depth coverage of the subject from a Google book snippet "because Google book snippet." Which is what it seems like your doing. That said, I think it's rather unrealistic to expect people to read a whole book (or chapter) to determine in-depthness of the coverage. If that's the standard, and I highly doubt it is, then Google books shouldn't be used as a source. Personally, I think you can tell perfectly fine a "snippet" if the topic is covered properly or not. Especially in cases where it's not even mentioned and it would be completely ridiculous to claim otherwise. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:42, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adamant1 - yes, the Google books I linked to would need to be looked at offline (I specified these are offline sources). I don't have access to these, I'm afraid. Tacyarg (talk) 17:07, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If they need to be looked at offline and you don't have access to them then how do you know they even talk about the school in the first place? --Adamant1 (talk) 07:15, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 02:43, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The fact that the article makes an extraordinary claim "oldest formal school in Kenya" without any sourcing is not a good sign.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:38, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to the person that posted the book references they have be read offline and he doesn't have access to them. Which if that's the case then the person (and anyone else) would have no way of knowing if the books actually talk about the school or not. Therefore, they should be discarded as possible reliable sources. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have been editing kenyan articles and existing passive mentions of this school point to existence of sources from archives such as books and defunct news sites in kenya. Most current news sites in kenya whose coverage can be relied in articles to pass WP:GNG only existed within the last 30 years. Outside that time Kenya transitioned from a colonial government whose coverage can be reliably sourced from books, archives of defunct websites and the likes. The main reason why this article can pass WP:GNG is because it constitues missionary work from over 100 years. And edits and reads i have made on similar schools in kenya have reliably sourced entries from books.It makes sense to keep this article while continuously looking for reliably sourced entries for reference. --waweruboyWaweruboy (talk) 02:39, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting, because I didn't know there was a "missionary work" clause in WP:GNG. I must have missed it or something. So, do you mind pointing where it says that articles involving "missionary work" don't need to cite multiple in-depth reliable sources? Also, it's kind of a coupe out to say there won't be sources for this because it's more then 30 years old. It's been around since then, plenty of other Kenyan articles are well sourced (if they are 30 years old or not), there's zero reason (except for your personal opinion. Which isn't a guideline) that this school shouldn't be also. Claiming otherwise is the soft bigotry of low exceptions. Kenyan and other African countries shouldn't get a special pass from the guidelines just because you (or anyone else) has a false believe that their journalism is crappy. Also, I never said I had a problem with books. I said I have a problem with someone claiming a topic is discussed in books when it clearly isn't discussed in one of them and the themselves says the other ones can't be checked to see if the topic is actually discussed in them. So, don't miss quote me. It would be complete garbage for us to go with books we don't talk about the subject and can't be verified to "because Kenya, missionary work, and age brah." I swear the amount of obfuscation and railroading in AfDs lately is becoming completely ridiculous. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1: sources such as 1, 2 discuss the school specifically to make the article pass WP:GNG.Missionary work in africa is documented in things like gazettes of colonial governments in africa, books of historical accounts because they were led by institutions that have publicly accessible records of these activities.The agenda of this discussion is to prevent deletion based on existent sources from sourced material we do not have access to or haven't updated. (which is not my personal opinion or bigotry as you claim). All articles on Wikipedia must meet WP:N which does not constitute obfuscation or garbage ideas; this article is no exception. I am arguing give the benefit of doubt to alleviate all obfuscation. This discussion can always be revisited later, and if it still doesn't pass WP:GNG why insist further? There are actvities such as this and this which are new government regulations directing government-related instituitions to make public, records of government actions such as gazettes all which existed outside the 30 year period explained in my previous comment. There is no special pass for kenya of African countries on WP:N. I am arguing that just give the article the benefit of time. If in 5 years(or any reasonable amount of time) its not passed WP:GNG why argue?, i will gladly support deletion. Journalism in Africa is not crappy and there is no such belief i harbour (just relying on specific facts that are reliably sourced), its just new and does not have records going back very many years because of colonial government transitions and political activity surrounding the aftermath. --waweruboyWaweruboy (talk) 08:25, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I've already said and you seem to be ignoring those sources don't make the article pass WP:GNG because they are the Friends missionary work. Not Kaimosi Friends Primary School. Which is what this article is about. If you want to make an article about the Friends and their missionary work, cool. Do it, but this isn't the place for trying to pass off stuff about the missionary organization that has nothing to do with the school as proof that it's notable. Frankly, I'm sick of saying it. Also, if we were giving this the benefit of the doubt, it would be the benefit of the doubt that it's not notable. Since that's how things currently appears. It's completely ridiculous and 100% obfuscation to say we should all vote keep now even though it isn't currently notable because we can revisit it in 5 years when it might, but probably won't be. That's not how AfDs work. Not to mention the exact same argument could be made to delete it now. Since it can just as easily be recreated when, or if, it ever becomes notable. But saying we should keep it now just because and revisit it in 5 instead of deleting it is totally a garbage idea. It's not based on policy, guideline, standard, precedent, or even common sense. That's all I really have to say about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:06, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1: My point is that some of the sources such as those mentioned ;which i have a good reason to believe would make the article pass WP:GNG are not accessible; but from what i have mentioned they point to existence of notability that can be gotten specifically from books such as those mentioned over time. The 5 year thing is simple time allowance for sources to be got from such material. I am a firm believer in Inclusionism especially for arguments on articles that have lame assertions of lack of notability such as lack of sources which automatically does not invalidate article passing WP:GNG. if the word benefit of doubt is an issue, then just be tolerant of Inclusionism. Thats not obfuscation, a garbage idea, lack of policy, lack of standard or lack of common sense surely. Where is it written that in AFD we must insist on arguments until it works? Its a basic open ended argument that you don't have monopoly of knowledge on everything about this specific school. And when you can prove you do go ahead and delete.--waweruboyWaweruboy (talk) 09:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell are you talking about? You referenced two books that you claimed show the subject is notable. Both of which are searchable, every one can look at, and don't talk about the subject. Either there's sources out there and you can provide them or there isn't and you can't. Saying "here's some sources that don't discuss the subject, but these sources that don't talk about the subject show there might be sources about the subject." That's completely nonsensical and circular reasoning. Plus, the fact that there's sources that talk about the Friends missionary work disproves your whole claim that there's no sources that talk about stuff in Kenya. All that this school not being discussed in anything proves is that it's not notable, not that there's some long historical/whatever reason it isn't discussed in anything. Otherwise, the Friends missionary work wouldn't be either. You can't provide a bunch of sources on other things and then claim there's none on this because of some cultural/historical thing that kept stuff from being discussed though. 100% doing so is obfuscation. If you can't provide sources that discuss the subject right now, then the article should be deleted right now. Period. There is no amount of time to wait for some imagery sources to magically appear or not. The time for them to was the ten years this article has been in existence or during this AfD. Nothing stops someone from making the exact same argument in 5 years when no sources materialize either. And no this isn't open ended. There's a specific reason things go to AfD and specific guidelines that the article has to follow to be deleted. Someone can't just come along and be like "hey guys, I have a feeling there's sources out there. So why don't we just wait and do another AfD in 5 years for this." That's not how this works. I'm done with the conversation. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:57, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Waweruboy is a blocked sockpuppet of Radidoman. Graham87 16:12, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Figures. It makes sense. Thanks to whoever figured it out. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The refs in the article are three links to blog posts, two of which are dead links. None of the sources in the comments above meet WP:SIGCOV / WP:IS. I'm sure this is a wonderful school, doing good work, but there are not sources showing this meets the guidelines for an article. // Timothy :: talk 01:41, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If you have to start gambling on potential existence of source. Even when assuming that Google misses 90% of the possible african sources, there are still not enough reliable sources. The Banner talk 19:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Many information can be extracted from George Busolo, Quakerism and education in Vihiga County, which is partly based on 'Friends Schools in Kenya from 1902 to independence in 1963'. A shorter read is Douglas Kiereini, Quakers who set up schools in Kaimosi. Those who question the minimal information given anyway, may want to give a critical view on Education in Kenya also, because it reflects the basic information in this article (and of course in the sources given). Eissink (talk) 21:12, 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 06:34, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bharat Gaurav International Achievement Award[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The award is not notable and does not meet WP:GNG criteria. Its written in very WP:PROMO nature despite being cleaned up during a AfD just nine months ago. Repeatedly single purpose accounts or IP address have added PROMO material [100] [101] [102] [103].

The main issue stems from the name of the award itself "Bharat Gaurav" which loosely translates from Hindi to "Pride of India", and hence is a common name for awards given away by numerous organizations. The title of page itself is wrong, the award given by this organization is called "Bharat Gauarv Award". The other three awards mentioned in this page itself don't relate to the article (as if this page is a disambiguation page for all Bharat Gaurav awards). "Bharat Gaurav Achievement Award, Mumbai", "Bharat Gaurav International Achievement Award, Bahrain", "Bharat Gaurav Award, international, UN hall, New York" are different awards by different organizations. Indeed even in Wiki and on web, there are links for different prominent Bharat Gaurav awards, East Bengal F.C. Season Awards#Bharat Gaurav Award, India International Friendship Society, Bharat Gaurav Sanskruti Organization, Bharat Gaurav in Birtish Parliament

Hence the numerous links in the page itself are not about this award [104], [105], [106]. The only 2 articles in RS sources about this award are clear PR [107], [108]

I have taken all the information about this award from this official website [109] as it was confusing to navigate the myriad of such awards. Roller26 (talk) 11:06, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 11:06, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 11:06, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 11:06, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for others to be easy to decide whether the "Bharat Gaurav" award is from this organization, this award is only awarded in Delhi from 2014 to 2019 and in Hotel Taj Palace, Delhi from 2016 onwards. Bharat Guarav Award History Roller26 (talk) 11:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Observation just how much impact such a Promo page of a non-notable award can have. An experienced user Mccapra having 80K+ edits not from India (my assumption based on their userpage) can wonder if being conferred with such an award can make a person notable [110]. Roller26 (talk) 11:18, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obscure non-notable award. Graywalls (talk) 19:44, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure WP:ADMASK. -Hatchens (talk) 03:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting in light of the participation from the November 2019 no consensus AfD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete there is a practice to name your award similar to some notable award, or notable group. This fools other notable persons, and they end up attending. Regarding this particular award, this one fails WP:GNG. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:45, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Inclined to delete: I can't tell what organisation this article is actually about. In the article I see a lion logo and a website that points to bharatgauravaward.com, but there is zero information in the article about who founded the award, etc, and the website doesn't tell me who founded it. Then when I look at sources like this, I don't see any lion logo, instead I see a "hands cupped around the globe" logo, which makes me think that's an entirely different award. And the award that this guy receives, a large dish-sized medal in a frame, is not consistent with the four-lions trophy or the other lion-based trophy I found photos of. Further, as I look back through that website's Wayback Machine history, it looks like a very different organisation. Logos are different--instead of lions, I see multi-coloured dancing people in a circle. I see "All India Human Welfare Council", vs. the "Bharat Gaurav Award Foundation" that is currently listed at that website. While their About Us pages share some thematic similarities (old site vs current site) about this being an award to honour those who do good things for society, and both require letters of recommendation, I can't say for sure that these are the same organisation. Also, website ownership looks like it could have changed some time in mid-late-2017. And, since I can't find any in-depth coverage about the organisation(s) from reliable published sources, I have zero confidence that this is an article about a notable award. And yes, like the nominee suggests, the "Bharat Gaurav" name alone is very common, and it's not hard to get the press to send a photog to an award ceremony. That's public relations 101. So, in short, it feels like an article about a non-notable award mill. And to get a better understanding of the problem with Indian award mills, please see the trouble with the various Dadasaheb Phalke Awards. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:29, 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. ‑Scottywong | [comment] || 07:48, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RFP360[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. scope_creep^Talk 17:32, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 13:47, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep it seems to me that the news coverage sourced in the article (particularly the feature article in Forbes) is evidence of passing both WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Additionally, the sources in the article point toward passing WP:GNG and other sources online (like this one at insurance journal) support that position. A question for the nominator-please provide more than just a policy and give a little more detail why you believe the article fails those two points. --Paul McDonald (talk) 01:07, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes is non-RS. Meaning it not a reliable source and is not valid as a source. It cannot be used. The second references at insurance journal is a press-release and also can't be used to establish notability. It doesn't pass WP:GNG. RFP's and RFQ's have been used since the 1950's and there is plenty of software out that services that sector, making this company rather generic, meaning there is nothing special about it. scope_creep^Talk 11:40, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes has been publishing for over a century and is one of the most widely-read and peer-reviewed business magazines on the planet. I'll bite: how does it violate Wikipedia:Reliable sources?--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The WMF classified it a low-quality source as it produces a titanic amount of low-quality content, sometimes by contributors as self-published content and sometimes by real journalists publishing content, all in reaction to the age of social media, when publishing empires are being subsumed. More content I guess means more advertising money. I guess the WMF decided after a while it was impossible for an editor to discern whether it was good or bad content that was being sourced and decided to change the software to show it up as low-quality sources highlighted in red or yellow, depending how bad it is, with a tooltip saying telling you so. Now per policy if your part of the Afc/NPP group, the source must be removed as part of the review process. scope_creep^Talk 13:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This list notes that contributed Forbes articles may be considered if written by a subject matter expert. The author writes extensively about Midwestern tech companies, though I have no benchmark for what depth of background would make them a verifiable subject matter expert. When drafting, I used similar area software companies as a guide for whether this was notable (VeriShip, Inc and Blooom). A search also yielded this company, RFPIO, that appears to provide a similar RFP service and offers similar citations. With these in mind, I also understand that each article must be evaluated on its own merit. I know this context may not be enough to justify keeping the article, as perhaps the articles I based notability on have been incorrectly accepted? However, because I'm new to editing and still learning, I wanted to provide the logic I followed when I created it. Thanks for your time and attention.RayChrysler (talk) 14:38, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question for nominator: is there an actual link to this so-called discussion that we can evaluate, or do we just have to take your word for it? You "guess" the reasoning, you talk about some change in software to show red and yellow sources (which I don't see) and talk about something called the "Afc/NPP" group but you have no reference. I presume that WMF means Wikimedia Foundation--I've searched the site and found only this one result for "Forbes": Annette Campbell-White is joining the new Board as its second founding member after Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales. Just typing text doesn't make it true. Provide a link. Without that, the reference provided by RayChysler seems to support inclusion. This is starting to feel disruptive.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:48, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On "Forbes" as a source: over 12,500 Wikipedia articles link to the Forbes article. Please consider that information.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's is not really a thing and makes no sense. The appropriate page WP:FORBESCON. What purpose would it serve for me to lie on here. Really?? In NPP/AFC most of these types low-quality reference are pulled per policy. Looking at the other references:

Forbes. Non-RS
Naming of new CEO Fails WP:CORPDEPTH standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage
All under one roof. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage
Partnership. Fails WP:ORGIND Independence of the author (or functional independence): the author must be unrelated to the company, organization, or product. Related persons include organization's personnel, owners, investors, (sub)contractors, vendors, distributors, suppliers, other business partners and associates, customers, competitors, sponsors and sponsorees (including astroturfing), and other parties that have something, financially or otherwise, to gain or lose
RFP365 changes name. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage
Top 10 Company. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH brief or passing mentions, such as: of non-notable awards received by the organization, its people, or products
Best places to work. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH brief or passing mentions, such as: of non-notable awards received by the organization, its people, or products Fails WP:ORGIND
Lockton's buy-in has helped KC startup thrive. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as: Fails WP:ORGIND. Company interview.

scope_creep^Talk 16:18, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

asking again what is "NPP/AFC" ??? --Paul McDonald (talk) 22:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol and Articles for creation. Mccapra (talk) 11:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

as to WP:FORBESCON, that standard has been met: "Editors show consensus for treating Forbes.com contributor articles as self-published sources, unless the article was written by a subject-matter expert" the article is not self-published but is indeed written by a freelance journalist with a significant online portfolio of news stories. She is a subject matter expert. What's going on here?--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:43, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes in deprecated. Even if was still the standard 5-10 years ago, the author is Forbes contributor and it would still be Non-RS. NPP is WP:NPP. AFC is WP:AFC. There is not a single decent reference amongst the lot of the them and the main reason the WP:NCORP notability policy came about. Any article on Wikipedia mainspace, needs secondary, independent, in-depth and reliable sources which is missing her. And it needs more than one source. scope_creep^Talk 23:34, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see no policy, guideline, or other methods at WP:NPP nor at WP:AFC. They appear to be workgroups, so there's no real deletion-issue that can be addressed. We disagree about the application of WP:FORBESCON--it seems you are taking the position that any "Forbes contributor... would still be Non-RS"; but that's not what WP:FORBESCON says. It specifically encourages exceptions for subject matter experts. I really believe you are grossly misapplying this guideline. I also notice you're ignoring the other sources or otherwise dismissing them as a claim of a "standard notice" but feature articles and in-depth coverage are not basic standard notices. The reasons you post to delete are the exact same reasons that the article should be kept. Arguments for deletion have to make sense and apply to the case at hand. What I'm seeing here is a collection of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions: WP:DOESNTBELONG; WP:VAGUEWAVE; WP:UNRS; and WP:TRIVIAL. But I come back to WP:GNG because the "topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." That's a pretty widely accepted standard and I'll hang my hat there.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:40, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep According to the guidelines here, the Forbes article is written by an independent reporter who is a subject matter expert, therefore, a valid source. In addition,American City Business Journal (ACBJ) sources are used extensively across Wikipedia as a reliable source. The ACBJ articles cited here speak specifically to notability and are not standard notices, brief announcements nor routine coverage according to the definitions provided here. RayChrysler (talk) 02:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The editor has updated the article in attempt to address WP:HEY. However the two sources similar run of the mill WP:MILL business news.

[111] other listings and mentions not accompanied by commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Fails WP:ORGIND. Interview style commentary.
[112] Assuming WP:AGF Likely fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. scope_creep^Talk 08:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[113] is an article about the company, not a listing. It is accompanied by commentary and discussion.
[114] Addresses a trend in the legal industry and discusses the company's role in the trend.
All in all, it seems we simply interpret the guidelines differently. The WP:MILL guide referenced, says that if there were a company exactly like this one in every city across the globe (like a local cafe) and if the references provided were simply passing mentions (like a list of new businesses) then it would be run of the mill. However, that's not the case. The articles referenced are exclusively about the business. While it appears there are other a couple companies that provide a similar service, the existence of a competitor doesn't negate notability. Regardless of the outcome, I appreciate your attention to this article. I've learned a ton and will continue to work to improve and contribute. RayChrysler (talk) 13:45, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No we don't. You interpret it wrongly. You have no idea what constitutes notability for company articles. If you had presented a single piece of evidence in the last couple of days of it being notable, I would have picked it up and ran with it, as I would have done any other Afd and do. But you haven't. scope_creep^Talk 14:15, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I was asked to drop my two cents here in a non-CANVAS-y way. I come as a neutral party who is concerned about some heated discussion here. I am a disinterested third party who has no vested interest or passion about startups, let alone this one. I think we all just need to remember this is a discussion and maybe hold off on all the acronyms, okay?.

From what I've gathered Paulmcdonald, Forbes contributors can be just about anyone and have limited oversight (See here). While I'm sure Liz Engel is knowledge about the topic she writes about, it is technically considered self-published. Therefore, Forbes doesn't count towards the notability of this company. Likewise, Bobby Burch of the non-profit Startland News considers himself first and foremost a "Nature and wildlife photographer." Again, while I am sure they all have knowledge about what they are writing about, it doesn't mean it should count towards notability. Another example would be how I am a contributor to a Leafs fan-run website and while I am knowledgeable on the subject, it absolutely cannot be used in articles. When I come across it during GA reviews, I have the editor immediately replace it. I hope this helps with the discussion. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 23:23, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, HickoryOughtShirt?4. As I mentioned above, I'm still new at this and learning. This was my first article attempt and I was not prepared for this reaction to it. Trying not to take it personally as I know everyone is just passionate about making Wikipedia as excellent as possible. This is certainly very helpful, thanks for taking the time to review and contribute to the discussion. RayChrysler (talk) 17:44, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also appreciate the calm comments and insight from HickoryOughtShirt?4.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:23, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. scope_creep above has explained why Forbes sites is not regarded as meeting WP:RS and I will add by saying that part of the website has no editorial oversight and falls into the same category as a blog, which is why is fails as a reliable source. Topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:33, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would be helpful to hear from new editors about whether the sources provided demonstrate notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:03, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per HighKing and scope creep's source analyses. We cannot retain an article for which there is no independent sourcing. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:59, 27 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 18:10, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Chu (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

Delete or redirect to the company. Unreliable sources. Press releases and fundraising coverage. Coriannakox (talk) 10:24, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:17, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haiti-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:17, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not clear on what exact issues the article has, I the editor of this article have no prior training on editing on Wikipedia and would appreciate layman pointers from the Wikipedia administrators to correct the errors — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiona Njaggi (talk • contribs) 8 September 2020 (UTC)
If the administrators so wish, you may correct the article on my behalf. I ask that the article not be deleted until I the editor is given a chance to correct it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiona Njaggi (talk • contribs) 8 September 2020 (UTC)
@Fiona Njaggi:: The concern is that not enough evidence is available that Jim Chu is notable. Stifle (talk) 09:45, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable --Devokewater (talk) 21:47, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Chu_(entrepreneur) was nominated for deletion. The article has since been edited to include citations and references for Jim Chu. Please advise if the discussion can now be closed or additional information needs to be provided. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiona Njaggi (talk • contribs) 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. ‑Scottywong | [babble] || 07:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne bus route 601[edit]

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

Pardon my saying this - just another bus route in a big city. WP:ROTM. Does not have any notability, nor specific history, that makes this article relevant. Citations / references are either largely self referential (e.g. Public Transport Victoria), blogs (e.g. Daniel Bowen), or from Monash university (most of which are broken links with 404 errors). Incidentally, a similar article was AFDed in 2019, and this one might have been missed out. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melbourne bus route 509. Delete rationale remains consistent. Ktin (talk) 16:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ktin (talk) 16:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Ktin (talk) 16:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to List of bus routes in Melbourne#600–699 as per the other AfD. Most bus routes are non-notable and this one certainly fits that bill too. A lot of the sources are either self published or primary sources (such as the PTV website). Ajf773 (talk) 21:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of bus routes in Melbourne. If it's the busiest route in Melbourne (which is probably right) then there should be some mention of it (beyond one listing in a table) at that article. This would also enable the article to be recreated if further sources arise (there's currently not enough to establish notability in its own article). This is a good alternative to deletion, which is not warranted at this time.Weak keep - I'm satisfied that there is enough information to establish that the route is one of Melbourne's most important bus routes. The notability is pretty borderline, but I'm willing to change my !vote to a weak keep to allow the article to be improved to justify its notability. Deus et lex (talk) 00:35, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Did you target me on purpose just because I left a comment at WP:ITN/C you didn't like? Doesn't seem like a coincidence that I commented on a nomination there yesterday that you responded to, and then just a few hours later you find an article I wrote and try to get it deleted. – numbermaniac 01:52, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As for the 404 links, those are now resolved. Both were archived on web.archive.org when they were live, so I have added those links to the references as archive URLs. – numbermaniac 02:02, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is one of the more significant bus routes in suburban Melbourne as it takes the place of a railway stub to the University which was never constructed. If this bus service were dropped, there would be significant and noisy uproar and protests -- Whiteguru (talk) 09:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - @Whiteguru: - do you have any independently sourced material on the importance of this bus route? If you can show me some to demonstrate notability I might be inclined to reconsider my merge !vote. Deus et lex (talk) 11:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't think the delete rationale is consistent with the 509 article at all. That article was doomed from the start, because its "significance" was that it was the shortest bus route in Melbourne - if anything, that makes it one of the least useful or noteworthy bus routes in the city. It was also an extremely short stub, barely even 2 paragraphs long. This bus route, the 601, is much more significant than that one, for being the bus route with the highest number of passengers in the city (even though it's over 25 km away from the centre of Melbourne). I also disagree with the idea that this route has no "unique history" - as the article states, the queues of students at the Huntingdale station became so unbearably long to the point where the university actually had to pay up and fund their own bus route, just to alleviate the lines of students that were present every morning. That seems like a reasonably unique history to me. I don't think this article is "run of the mill" coverage at all. – numbermaniac 14:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this note numbermaniac. However, there are no notable secondary and independently sourced material that seems to justify the notability of this route. I am sure the bus serves an important function for the university students (as do most bus routes to any university). That the university funded the bus so that students didnt have to stand in long lines, speaks well of the university, but, that act in itself does not make it notable, and of significance to include in an encyclopedia. The best path here would be a delete and a redirect to List of bus routes in Melbourne#600–699. Ktin (talk) 17:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:52, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Whiteguru:, @Numbermaniac: - I'm still willing to reconsider my merge !vote if you can show me some sources on the importance of the bus route. Can you find anything? Deus et lex (talk) 22:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know if it counts, but here are some articles from state newspaper The Age that mention the high patronage and popularity of the route: [115] [116]. This article also mentioned the high number of people travelling to the campus and briefly mentioned that the route 601 was about to begin a month after the article was written. – numbermaniac 06:46, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks - the first one establishes it is the busiest route, and the others indicate it (along with the 401) is a notable bus route for Melbourne (albeit in the context of the proposed rail or tram extensions). I'm inclined to change to a weak keep to err on the side of caution, but the article is going to need to be properly sourced and enough information to demonstrate notability in the meantime. Deus et lex (talk) 08:36, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons already given Meterkinx (talk) 05:32, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Meterkinx, Sorry to say this. None of the above posts provide any reference(s) that establishes WP:NOTABILITY. If there are any a) independent b) significant (non trivial) and c) reliable sources that can be used to establish notability, I will be the first to withdraw this AfD. Unfortunately, none exists at this time. I also did search outside of the references given on this article page, and found nothing. Ktin (talk) 16:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a public transport directory. Also satisfied with merging/redirecting to a relevant list of bus routes. Stifle (talk) 09:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:52, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Stifle. We are not a directory of bus routes. Simply being busy does not indicate notability, and I don't think the sources are sufficiently in-depth to indicate encyclopedic notability. In terms of WP:GNG, multiple articles from the same source are generally regarded as one source for the purpose of establishing notability. And as well, The Age is a Melbourne newspaper, so it's local with respect to the route. There's no coverage outside the local area that would satisfy the portion of WP:N that calls for "sufficiently significant attention by the world at large". ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:56, 27 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 06:34, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Penrith Museum of Printing[edit]

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

No sources, no independent and reliable sources could be found from what I could see, and the article was likely created by a WP:UPE associated with the museum. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 01:48, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Comment: Local and specialist museums are a valuable part of the cultural environment, often sustained by the enthusiasm of volunteers, and I regard articles on them as part of the almanac/gazetteer functions here, but it can be awkward to find a suitable level of specific coverage which can independently reference the text and demonstrate notability. In this case, some coverage exists in External Links, though not sufficient for WP:ORGDEPTH; there is also a paywalled 2018 Daily Telegraph article on "Penrith Museum of Printing's Great Expansion", if someone can access and assess its depth? AllyD (talk) 07:13, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's a reasonable account of the place here. It seems to be low in conventional notability but note that WP:N is a guideline not a policy and so explicitly says that it is "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". Policies applicable include WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrew Davidson. A case where WP:NOTPAPER is applicable. Deus et lex (talk) 23:08, 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 no consensus. T. Canens (talk) 01:55, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lara Martin[edit]

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

Christian musician, with no real evidence of notability. References are not independent. Rathfelder (talk) 21:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 21:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 21:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:59, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:48, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:58, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per [117] and [118]. It's not transparently clear to me that these pieces, both published in Cross Rhythms, are independent, and they are certainly for a niche audience, but they're not nothing. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 22:11, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:36, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep oer AleatoryPonderings--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:21, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't really meet notability. MrAureliusR_Talk! 03:40, 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 no consensus. ~ mazca ^talk 19:15, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inhume (band)[edit]

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

Does not satisfy WP:BAND. There aren't any reliable second party sources to establish the notability of the band. The article has been tagged with notability and no sources maintenance tags since August 2015. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 13:09, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Just after some more digging, I've found two Allmusic pages that I did not see during my initial search. ([119],[120]) I'm still not sure about the notability though. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 13:19, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:16, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:16, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here are several sources:
Metal Music Archives Biography
An Interview with the Band
2010 Album Review in German
2007 Album Review in German
2018 Compilation Album Review
Another Interview with the Band
Inhume to Release 25th Anniversary Collection in December - Metal Jacket Magazine

With these and the Allmusic biography / album review, the page can be kept in my opinion. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:08, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per reliable sources coverage such as AllMusic staff written bio and album review as well as coverage in reliable German music sources such as metal.de and others that show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:45, 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. Sandstein 10:01, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Burrows[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Is borderline (hence last AfD as no consensus, although it had minimal participation) but doesn't cross the threshold of significant coverage. Has been in CAT:NN for 11 years. Boleyn (talk) 13:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:16, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:16, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The most likely route to notability is WP:NAUTHOR, I think. His book 3D Thinking in Design and Architecture: From Antiquity to the Future (ISBN 9780500519547) was named a "best tech book of 2018" by The Architect's Newspaper ([121]) and he was also interviewed about it on the radio ([122]), but I can't find much else, and I don't think one quasi-review and an interview is enough for NAUTHOR. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 01:26, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given previous AfD and longevity of article, not appropriate for SOFTDELETE.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:45, 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 06:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pietro Balbo[edit]

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

The article is very low on reliable references, and the ones that are there don't demonstrate notability. Balbo does not meet WP:CRIME, and an internet search brought up no sources on him. Noahfgodard (talk) 04:46, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:35, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:03, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion:? This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-08 ✍️ create

Weak keep, a search on newspapers.com and Proquest indicates that his criminal case (where he gets his notability) was widely covered for its time, across multiple months and in papers like The New York Times and The Boston Globe and The St. Louis Post-Dispatch. There's some coverage (cannot see to verify the depth) in modern scholarly publications as well, see this JSTOR search. Seems to meet GNG, if barely. There's another Pietro Balbo, who may be more notable. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:49, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:44, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Eddie891 and WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 19:01, 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:35, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Nelson[edit]

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

Although I am not too sure about notability criteria for persons, this architect does not seem particularly notable enough to deserve an encyclopedia entry. Tom (LT) (talk) 04:24, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tom (LT) (talk) 04:24, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only source I've found is 1 which shows he fails WP:GNG. Less Unless (talk) 08:46, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:35, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:35, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This entry should be maintained as accurate (and the source of any attempts to delete the page should be thoroughly investigated). It is truly appalling that people would try to delete objectively verifiable information because of unjustified personal animus, and in an attempt to harm others in the same field. Wikipedia needs carefully to vet and verify such attempts to harass: Ethan Nelson's education, career, and integrity are all readily verifiable through the most basic fact-checking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:644:200:60c0:444d:6ecf:c262:bdfe (talk) 18:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sourcing is a press release and a source from his employer. There are no 3rd-party, reliable secondary sources. The question is not if the information is accurate, but if Mr. Nelson is notable. Not all architects are notable just because they design things. If they were my friend Jeffrey Stebar who was the architect for the Philadelphia Pennsylvania Temple among other things would be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:36, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, that is more complex than I realized. I believe that my friend Mr. Stebar was with Perkin+Will, and thus his design was not ultimately used for the building per se, but was used for the interior, and many related exterior issues. Like many other endevors the rise in collaboration in architecture makes it a little harder to define notable architects in the post-WWII era than in earlier times. Philadelphia Temple was often cited in the media as a "$70 million" project, but with 2 sites involved, the first abandoned, and 2 whole architectural designs contracted, and other factors, I have to wonder if that figure significantly underestimates the amount of money ultimately spent on the project.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:44, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I am sure that Mr. Nelson does exist, 7.5 billion other people on Earth also exist, but we don't have an article on every single one of them. Only one source has been found, a press release, which means he fails GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:36, 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. ‑Scottywong | [converse] || 07:50, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ili River Treaty[edit]

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

WP:V fail~~; possibly a hoax.~~ The ISBNs of the books cited are not valid. Only hits in English on Google Books for the article title are WP mirrors. Nothing on Scholar, nothing on JSTOR. There is one additional source in the Turkish Wikipedia besides the one listed here (ISBN 9789758839056), but it doesn't appear to be available online. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:25, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:25, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:25, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FWIW I don't think it's a hoax. But it does seem to be largely based on a single source, the veracity of which has been questioned before (see the article talk page). The editor who created this article has also added similar content to one or two others, so if this gets deleted then probably those edits should also go. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:16, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found this source talking about the treaty. They give a Wikizero and a Wikiwand source. The treaty has besides English also a Turkish and an Azerbaijani page. Pages exist since 2007 (en), 2012 (az) and 2016 (tr). Multiple languages of Ishbara Tolis say that he has been dethroned with this treaty, so definitely NOT a hoax, but simply a not widely known treaty. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 14:28, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe both Wikizero and Wikiwand are Wikipedia mirrors, and a Call of War forum isn't particularly reliable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I found both books online. The first book is here [link removed] and is translated to English and we can see a clear mention in page 56: "The war ended in 638 with a conclusion of Ili treaty. According to the treaty terms, conflicting sides were becoming independent states, their border now passed by the r. Ili, Ükuk-shad received a throne name Ilbi-Turuk-Kagan". The second book is here [link removed] Scrolling down will lead to 12 PDF files. According to the Wikipedia article, the treaty is mentioned in page 207, 209 and 239, so we need file number 8 and 9. The thing is, the pages are in Russian, and I don't speak Russian. Also the website triggered the filter, so add http:// infront of the links. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 13:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've asked the unblocking of the website here, but my request was denied per WP:COPYVIOEL. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 13:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep treaty has been proven to not be a hoax, not sure about notability requirements but this debate seems pretty pointless now Yvzcvtp (talk) 02:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. It may or may not be a hoax (and I don't think anything has been 'proven' one way or the other), but it has issues. Not sure if this can even be a treaty, based on the description, or whether that's a misunderstanding or -translation, or just someone's speculation or OR. Interesting to note that the main Western Turkic Khaganate article makes no mention of this. The few sources seem dubious, which has been highlighted before. If this really happened, and was a major thing, it would have been covered much more widely by multiple historians; as it stands, I can't see it passing notability muster. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems that users generally agree at this point that this article is not a hoax. If that's the case, then there would be no point in deleting it. It could remain so that other interested users who have knowledge on the subject can work on it. Keivan.f^Talk 22:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- We are dealing here with a very remote period. It concerns the history of Turkic polities, derived from Chinese, Syriac, and Greek sources. This is obviously an obscure aspect of history, which few people will have studied. The result is that there are few published sources. There is probably a good case for heavily tagging this for more verification, but not one for deleting it. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question. @Styyx: Is it your good faith belief that the books cited above are reliable? (Any indication about their publisher, for instance?) I am reluctant to rely for verifiability on books that are only hosted on a pirate website … AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. First, we need reliable 3rd-party sources to consider keeping this. The "Turkic World" URLs provided above are not convincing as sources. --Lockley (talk) 02:23, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I've not been able to find enough (any?) coverage to justify an article. If there were any mentions in clearly reliable books, I'd !vote to keep, given that this is already an era with poor coverage, but that doesn't seem to be the case right now. Best Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per WP:COPYVIOEL I am also suppressing the copyvio links above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:24, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No vote either way, because this looks like just the sort of difficult case that can all too easily crop up in subjects like the more obscure corners of Central Asian history. I am almost certain that the article is not a hoax (though I suspect that the article creator was significantly over-estimating the importance of the subject) - while we are badly lacking in valid bibliographical information for the two cited sources (though the Russian original of the second one, at least does seem to have an entry on Google Books), the author, Yury Zuev, was apparently a respected academic in an appropriate subject, it has already been mentioned that Turkish Wikipedia provides another source (and even if Lev Gumilyov seems to have held some distinctly WP:FRINGEy views, I am currently not seeing how they would have affeted his reliability on this specific subject), and yet another potential source is mentioned, though not fully specified, on the article's talk page (@Nedim Ardoğa:, I know it was a long time ago, but do you remember the details? or anything else that might help here?).

Having said that, though, I would really need either to read these sources, or have someone else do so and report back here, before I would want to vote to keep - in each case, I'd like reassurance that the sources do confirm relevant points in the article, and in a way that does not depend on the author's POV. And there are a few more points where I would like (but not necessarily insist on) reassurance. I am not at all sure that this was what we would consider a treaty today (and would possibly have been considered as just an agreement even then), but it would be good to know what early sources suggest was agreed - because, even as a treaty, this might turn out to be better contextualised in another article (the Western Turkic Khaganate was already disintegrating, even if the Chinese wouldn't conquer its pieces for another 20 years) but, even otherwise, should at least be mentioned in context (because it was confirmation of that disintegration). Basically, this looks like a footnote in history - but we would be almost automatically be recording equivalent footnotes in a European context and, provided we find suitably reliable sources in any language, should also be doing so in a central Asian context. PWilkinson (talk) 15:19, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article has lot of problems, but it can be fixed. Thus keep. Beshogur (talk) 09:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:13, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find no reference to a treaty in sources that discuss the Dulu–Nushibi split, and it seems highly doubtful there are sufficient RS to make it notable for a standalone article in any case. Srnec (talk) 03:06, 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) 01:14, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Lake (Alaska)[edit]

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

Ok, so I created this four years ago. I honestly cannot remember why. I've never been there and don't recall what might have brought it to my attention. There are literally millions of lakes in Alaska. I've written about quite a few of them, but they aren't usually small and virtually unreachable, and I'm usually able to come up with more than one sentence to say about them. This one just doesn't seem notable. Others have edited it enough that it probably doesn't qualify for WP:CSD#G7. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:57, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:57, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Thanks for bringing your own article up ;) Yes there are a lot of unremarkable lakes in this state. Reywas92^Talk 01:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. FWIW, my searching on "Albert Lake" Alaska -wikipedia doesn't yield anything related, as far as I can tell. There is this source which confidently asserts the number of lakes in Alaska is 381, though (and there is apparently no need to define what counts as a lake, or qualify that assertion in any way). So, User:Beeblebrox and User:Reywas92, please consider yourself officially updated! I am glad to be able to educate you on this matter. :) --Doncram (talk) 21:43, 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 delete. Discounted the sockpuppetry. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GLOBAL[edit]

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

Not a notable programming language. Only sourced to two research papers which are primary sources. The name is difficult to search, but I haven't found anything. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable subject. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 20:25, 04:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article does not meet the general notability guideline. I tried to search the subject but it’s very difficult to get references. ThePediaGeek (talk) 13:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This programming did not rate significant notability when it was active.TH1980 (talk) 22:35, 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) 01:11, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Better New Zealand[edit]

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

Article appears to not be notable, as it fails WP:SUSTAINED. Notable topics must attract attention over a sufficiently significant period of time. This organisation received some coverage in mid-October 2018 but has not appeared in any independent sources since. HenryCrun15 (talk) 00:29, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. HenryCrun15 (talk) 00:29, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. HenryCrun15 (talk) 00:29, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cautious delete Never registered, doesn't look like its going to run candidates, so fails notability. But we'll know for certain at 2pm tomorrow when the candidate lists go up here. --IdiotSavant (talk) 00:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate info has confirmed they are not running anyone, so I support deletion.--IdiotSavant (talk) 02:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be a fringe group. Graywalls (talk) 06:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. -Hatchens (talk) 07:13, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fringe political party with little or no in-depth coverage of them as a political party. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:38, 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.