Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 September 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 19 September	21 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. Tone 08:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OmPuff[edit]

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

I'm not convinced that this person is notable, and I suspect the AfD in 2010 may have reached the wrong result. —S Marshall T/C 23:36, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 23:36, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 23:36, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neither keep in the 2010 nom actually talked about the subject, just that the nomination was malformed...which it wasn't. No WP:N met, hasn't attained new N since 2010. Nate • (chatter) 01:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:41, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:00, 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) 23:39, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Land Galt[edit]

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

Gets a few passing mentions as a Confederate here and there, and wrote an obscure book, so WP:BIO and WP:GNG aren't satisfied. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:35, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:38, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:38, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment fails WP:SOLDIER, not sure about WP:NAUTHOR. Mztourist (talk) 03:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not only does he not get close to meeting SOLDIER, but two of the main sources are SPS. Far short of the WP:SIGCOV needed to met the GNG. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even remotely close to being notable. The 19th-century is not so long ago that just because we have records someone exists does not mean they are default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG . Alex-h (talk) 09:13, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 21:39, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harry George Galt[edit]

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

WP:BIO is not satisfied for a lower-level British colonial official killed by a disgruntled local. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:29, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:31, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:31, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - needs more sources but the fact that it's still being written about a century later and that a street is named after him shows notability. Sowny (talk) 09:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:BASIC is satisfied per WP:NEXIST. See the Journal of African History, for example. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Seems to have been covered in British newspapers of the time - Daily Telegraph 31 May 1905, though details of death and job title differ (I haven't added this reference to the article because of the differences in detail and not wanting to make a judgement about accuracy). I'm leaning Keep based on the article found by Andrew Davidson and the info at the start of that about other coverage. Tacyarg (talk) 15:15, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article needs a serious copy-edit and overhaul. Keep !voters here might be interested in showing it some love. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:15, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have copyedited, thanks for the suggestion, but agree it needs a content overhaul and sourcing, which I don't feel competent to do. Tacyarg (talk) 09:10, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: it reads better now, and it is a interesting if blunt story about a cruel administrator. Notability is sufficient. -- Whiteguru (talk) 10:43, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sarabha (film)[edit]

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

No reliable reviews exist. TamilMirchi (talk) 21:53, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 21:53, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 21:53, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - concerns around WP:GNG and WP:NFILM Spiderone 08:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources for WP:GNG Spudlace (talk) 06:31, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. Expertwikiguy (talk) 07:58, 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 21:20, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal Udpidit Jatiya Mukti Samaj[edit]

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

The content of the article is misleading. Nepal Udpidit Jatiya Mukti Samaj is an organization linked with Nepalese Dalit movement. It is not significant, there is some passing mention about the organization in some documents about Dalit Movements at Nepal. It is not Notable. Chiro725 (talk) 21:02, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article moved now, and sources revised. Per references the organization is clearly notable, Benedikt (2003) explicitly mentions it as the most influential Dalit movement in Nepal as of the 1990s. See also https://pahar.in/mountains/Books%20and%20Articles/Nepal/2010%20Crime%20Related%20to%20Untouchability%20in%20Nepal%20by%20Mainali%20s.pdf . I'm a bit confused over the 1998/1999 split, it appears that the UML-linked group was the one dropping 'Dalit' from its name (leaving the other group to retain the original name?), but this needs to be explored more in-dept. Presumably the two organizations would have reunited once UML/ML reunited, but that needs a ref. --Soman (talk) 22:01, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:33, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:33, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:40, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Revised sourcing seems adequate to establish notability. --Spasemunki (talk) 09:34, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I was able to find some mentions in ProQuest, this along with the sources in the article make me think that someone with access to local sources with needed language skills would be able to find even more. // Timothy :: talk 02:38, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Subject-specific notability guidelines (SNG) do not override the general notability guideline (GNG). SNGs are simply shortcuts that say, "a topic will probably have enough sources to fulfill GNG if it satisfies the SNG criteria". In the end, it needs to be shown that a topic can satisfy GNG, period. So, while the count of votes here is roughly equal on each side, the argument to delete is far stronger. Reyk's comments at the bottom pretty much sum it up. ‑Scottywong | [confess] || 21:53, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Umar Draz[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) 19:07, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:07, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:07, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:04, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:04, 9 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. Only one solitary FC match played, contributing very little, so very unlikely to have generated any substantial coverage. No sources available beyond routine and indiscriminate statistics. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 22:31, 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. AFD is mess enough without trying to take over from the village pump and other talk pages. Change the guidelines first, then AFD will follow suit, not the other way around. Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:40, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets the notability requirements. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:46, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:CRIN. CreativeNorth (talk) 16:34, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the consensus at this RFC is that "meets SNG" assertions are insufficient arguments at AfD. As noted above, there is also consensus at NSPORT that NCRIC/CRIN is far too permissive with respect to domestic matches played, and match tally is not a reliable indicator (especially when that tally is low). As such, evidence is required (i.e. substantial reliable coverage outside of stats databases) to show that the subject meets GNG/BIO/SPORTBASIC. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of National Bank of Pakistan cricketers, which would need to be created. StickyWicket (talk) 19:32, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss above valid comments
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 21:01, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- since there is no list of national bank of Pakistan players to merge to. This article is a substub about a non-notable player with a short and unsuccessful career, thus for whom no actual biographical information is known. Lots of these non-articles have been deleted or merged over the years. Per Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Basic_criteria, we should not have standalone articles if the only coverage is database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion, which is exactly what this is. If the cricket sub-SNG conflicts with that, then too bad for the cricket sub-SNG. Reyk _YO! 12:40, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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] || 21:55, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Le Chat Noir (band)[edit]

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

They don't meet WP:GNG or WP:NBAND. A small amount of local coverage. Boleyn (talk) 06:57, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There may only be a small amount of local coverage cited in the article, but they have received coverage from Belgium ([1]) and the Netherlands ([2]), as well as other UK sources ([3]). Still probably not enough to establish notability. --Michig (talk) 09:33, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discuss above sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 20:56, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 20:56, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: notability is not established. -- Whiteguru (talk) 10:22, 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. ‑Scottywong | [soliloquize] || 21:58, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Golding Cay[edit]

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

The island and its name is not supported by any WP:RS, the place is not satisfying WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV and WP:GEOLAND. Any search as part of WP:BEFORE did not make it seem salvageable. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 11:14, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 11:14, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 11:14, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The island and its name is supported by multiple RS, and satisfies WP:GEOLAND, so is sufficiently notable even without the Mr Beast stunt.[4][5][6]. I guess the article could be merged/redirected to MrBeast until it is expanded out. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 11:30, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – From what I can tell the above sources are not about this island. This is a tiny skerry in the Spanish Wells, while there are at least two other Golding Cays in the Bahamas, one in Mangrove Cay and the other in Ragged Island District. One of the above sources appears to be about yet another island near Long Island with hills 120 ft high. This island is not notable (doesn't pass WP:NGEO as just coordinates are known and then there's some real estate promo about how close it is to other islands) and the stunt only has one mention in a gaming magazine. – Thjarkur (talk) 11:57, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of islands of The Bahamas. Agree with Thjarkur that there are multiple islands by this name. There are a lot of small islands in this country and 3-acres private islands are not notable. Reywas92^Talk 01:26, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 20:56, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. 1292simon (talk) 01:03, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At 3acres it is well below what you would expect to see an article and even it wasn't, it would be a geographic article, describing its features, not this PUFF. scope_creep^Talk 09:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. -- Whiteguru (talk) 10:28, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Though the content of the page could be moved to MrBeast. Kaffe42 (talk) 14:57, 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator with only keep !votes from others. (non-admin closure) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:56, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dhaka Prakash[edit]

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

There is no reliable source available in support of the claim made in the stub. The existence of the news paper is only mentioned in other wikis which are not reliable. There are no mention about this news paper anywhere else. Chiro725 (talk) 20:48, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator As perWorldbruce, I could not check other language sources. Also did not know that Banglapedia is not wiki. I think the nomination was not justified after getting the detailed explanation by him. Thank you --Chiro725 (talk) 21:28, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Chiro725 (talk) 20:48, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Chiro725 (talk) 20:48, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 21:19, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep Banglapedia, despite the similarity in name to Wikipedia and the fact that their most recent online version uses MediaWiki as its content management system, is not a wiki in the sense that the nomintator thinks. You and I can't edit it; it is not user-generated content. It's an online copy of the National Encyclopedia of Bangladesh, published by the Asiatic Society of Bangladesh. It has been through two print editions in the past two decades, edited by some of the country's top scholars. The particular article in question is written by Muntassir Mamoon, a historian and professor at the University of Dhaka who has won the country's second highest civilian award for his work. It is a reliable source.

It would be nice if the article were longer and cited more sources, but that can develop from natural expansion in main space. A Google Books search for the Bengali name of the paper, "ঢাকা প্রকাশ", returns plenty of results in Bengali, including Mamoon's multi-volume work, উনিশ শতকে বামলাদেশের সংবাদ-সাময়িকপত্র [Newspapers and periodicals of Bangladesh in the nineteenth century], the third and fourth volumes of which evidently have been compiled entirely from Dhaka Prakash. The nomination was made in good faith, but is flawed, and I recommend that the nominator withdraw it. --Worldbruce (talk) 21:20, 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 21:22, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CinemaSins[edit]

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

The article is a long article and have been written with much care and time. Though I found most of the references used are either youtube or twitter (mostly), there are some blogs. There are a bunch of huffington posts, but they have been mostly syndicated except one, and all of these posts have very limited information about the youtube channel itself. My main concern behind this nomination of Deletion Discussion is to ask the fellow editors if an article can be written based upon mostly on unreliable sources. Also, if the channel can be said notable from the references provided in the article. Also, the article was up here for AFD during 2014, where the two keep votes sounded very weak.Chiro725 (talk) 20:34, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Chiro725 (talk) 20:34, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Chiro725 (talk) 20:34, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Chiro725 (talk) 20:34, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article WP:INTROTODELETE. The cultural impact of CinemaSins is pretty much common knowledge at this point. The fact the article is not great quality doesn't discredit that. The existing sources may be bad, but did you attempt to find sources?

[7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]. hopefully that helps. JT_dale^Talk~ 17:22, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JTdale In my detailed nomination narration, I did mention that my intention was primarily to attract more attention to the article, not to delete it fiercely. I wanted to have valuable comments just like what you have marked. --Chiro725 (talk) 15:06, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As JTDale said, deletion should not be used to improve an article, and I agree. There are more sources that they listed to try to improve the article, and those should be at least proposed on the talk page, instead of having to be thrown in a deletion discussion. And due to the nature of the channel, I would not expect for there to be very much material (Wikipedia) content in the form of major sources, besides something here and there. CinemaSins makes its own content, and any more notable material would be the things that fans and critics write about it. --PolyversialMind (talk) 21:56, 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 21:32, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rostislav Dočekal[edit]

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

Subject certainly fails WP:NHOCKEY as a player as he mainly played in the Czech and Austrian lower leagues and never played in the Czechoslovak First Ice Hockey League or the Czech Extraliga. However, he has had an extensive post-playing career, including as sports manager for Orli Znojmo, a scout for Lev Poprad and then head coach at Orli but in the Austrian League. Should his non-playing career meet WP:NHOCKEY, I will withdraw the nomination and happily do the necessary edits it needs. Tay87 (talk) 19:55, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 19:55, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 19:55, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 19:55, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems clear that as a player he does not meet WP:NHOCKEY, and his career as a coach does not seem to meet either. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 02:51, 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. Per the result of the previous AfD, and since there are no objections to treating this content the same. – bradv🍁 02:13, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Hosari[edit]

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

It seems this was deleted at AfD in May as a company article and has been recreated as a bio. There is nothing about the subject that is notable and the article is really a promotional profile. Mccapra (talk) 19:35, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:35, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:35, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:35, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:35, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:- Previous AfD nom is referring to is here. Nightfury 20:37, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 20:38, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leah Coombes[edit]

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

Non notable actress, Other than BFI there's nothing confirming she's been in any of these shows and there's nothing on her in Google News at all,

I did manage to find her Family Affairs character/name mentioned on the Archived website Five(https://web.archive.org/web/20040831031151/http://www.five.tv/) however no page url is provided (you have to click 4-5 different links to get there!)

Fails NACTOR & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:24, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:46, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:46, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:46, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as A7. Trillfendi (talk) 15:32, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is long past time we stopped allowing these articles sourced only to a non-reliable source to stand.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:21, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- How did such a adysmally sourced article survive for 14 years?John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:21, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Very good question, I guess late's better than never!, Admittedly I would've liked to adequately source it and bring it up to standards however you cannot source an article if there's no sources on that subject. –Davey2010^Talk 17:35, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACTOR KidAd talk 06:07, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of significant independant coverage. -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources that cover her directly or in depth. Lausapwow (talk) 04:53, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:NACTOR.Expertwikiguy (talk) 08:05, 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 21:32, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deepak Acharya[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, all sources are self published, no significant coverage by independent sources. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 04:17, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 04:17, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:15, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 13:28, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete' personal Websites are not the valid reference links. And promoting his books by giving reference links. Author Sanju (talk) 01:45, 9 September 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Author Sanju (talk • contribs) 01:43, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Weak keep. The subject has a decent number of citations for his field, and he ~~has botanic species named after him~~ (I failed to confirm this). To me it seems he fulfills WP:NACADEMIC. Besides that, he does seem to be regarded as a notable person in Indian websites [25] [26]; someone that knows hindi could probably help here. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 02:23, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Walwal20, Sorry but the links you provided are of a blog, So I don't know how a blog is reliable? QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 05:23, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  
  QueerEcofeminist I'd say they are reliable if found in larger numbers. If more sources like that can be found, it would suffice to establish WP:GNG. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 16:52, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- A note for other editors: there exist another Deepak Acharya that is notable in the cardiology, so take care to distinguish between them. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 02:34, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Walwal20, those blogs are not independent. And self published sources are never reliable. Thanks QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 02:36, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  
  QueerEcofeminist Quite bold statements. See WP:NEXIST WP:NRV. Best, Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 03:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:PROF. Bearian (talk) 17:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Non-notable herbal entrepreneur with a veneer of academic respectability, but not a deep enough one. I found two reliably-published book reviews [27] [28] but they're only of a single edited volume he co-edited. I'd want to see multiple reviews of multiple authored (not edited) books before seeing notability that way. There are web-page reviews of other books but they look highly unreliable. And his citation record starts off high enough but tails off too quickly to convince me. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At least two of the books were self-published (see the "what we do" page from the company). XOR'easter (talk) 18:44, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:19, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not provide independent reliable sources , fails WP:GNG. Alex-h (talk) 09:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As same as earlier nomination and as realised in discussion, most of their books are self published. So definitely not notable enough. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 16:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Your nomination counts as stating your opinion; you don't need to do so again. XOR'easter (talk) 16:55, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think Bearian and David Eppstein's evaluation is pretty much on the mark. Such sources as exist aren't reliable, and so we don't have documentation that he passes the notability bar. (Blogs are seldom reliable and should not be used to substantiate claims about living people.) XOR'easter (talk) 17:00, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- XOR'easter, thanks. I will keep this mind 🤠 QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 17:14, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Quite a bit of referencing here is to self-piblished and non-reliable sources, which is already a significant red flag. When those are flitlered out, there's little covereage left. Nsk92 (talk) 11:34, 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 | [squeal] || 22:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael K. Obeng[edit]

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

PR from an undeclared paid editor. Fails WP:PROF--just one publication; the references are basically press releases. The reason there are so many is they are copies of the same PR published in multiple papers. Most of the pr is because he has operated on some celebrities like most plastic surgeons in his geographic area. . Minor charitable work, man 1press release references to it. DGG ( talk ) 18:15, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is significant coverage and mentions in well know publications. I also feel that being the FIRST black surgeon in Beverly Hills is very significant. Expertwikiguy (talk) 09:08, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He isn't the only black surgeon in Beverly Hills and he isn't even the only black plastic surgeon in Beverly Hills. See here and here. Which really makes me wonder about the credibility of the single source stating this information as fact. Praxidicae (talk) 12:19, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Praxidicae I am sorry, I need to correct what I said. The article said that he is the "FIRST" black surgoen in BH, but the Wiki page has no such claims anyway. I have revised my statement I made earlier. Also the 2nd link you send is in LA, not BH, but very close to BH. Also i do feel there are some promotional statements in this article. I will see if I can revise them. Expertwikiguy (talk) 17:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete when an article is based on sources that make flase claims, the article becomes suspect. Even if he was the only black platic surgeon in Beverly Hills, I am unconvinced that would be a sign of notability. The fact that people are falsely claiming he is is a disturbing trend and probably shows signs such is overly promotionalist and maybe even deliberately false advertising.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:45, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep' I have read this article twice and I don't find any promotional content in it. This is 100% informative article which contains tons of information and 0 promotional content. And when it comes of it being paid editing I don't feel so as the depth of information given can only be given when it is written by the person himself. Author Sanju (talk) 18:40, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article does not claim he is only black plastic surgeon in Beverly Hills. Doesn't overhype the fact that he was included in the top 100 list of notable black persons in 2020. Was also noted in such credible sources as Variety, eonline, Black Enterprise, deadline, etc. He seems to be a well accomplished African American and should remain.TruthLover123 (talk) 22:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Accomplished African-American surgeon in Beverly Hills, and is on Variety, Black Enterprise, Deadline, Ebony, etc. Looks quite notable for a black surgeon. Batmanthe8th (talk) 04:26, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: the reason for deletion is primarily Promotional content by undeclared page editor. not notability, though I doubt that also. I however do question the meaning of "Looks quite notable for a black surgeon". [[User::Batmanthe8th|

Batmanthe8th]], are you sure that this wording is what you want to say? DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Is mentioned in some popular items, "Forehead reduction surgery"... but also noted in some titles for awards recieved and his charity efforts in Africa. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I am writing in tbe right section. I am trying to apologize as I am friends with an ex-patient of the doctor who did some amazing work for him. I did pay someone by mistake to help tbe article without knowing it was not allowed. I'm really sorry but why are there so many people online who say they do that? Anyway I guess they wrote stuff that was too promotional sounding but it looks like a lot of people who saw this helped fix it. The doctor did not know about it and should not have his page deleted which has been edited by a lot of people over many months.I really want to fix this please. If there is anything else that needs to be removed please let me know and I will get advice as to how to take it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewbieGuy1 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well then the article needs to be cleaned up and all the promotional fluff removed by the Wikipedia community, but my personal assessment is that this Obeng should notable enough regardless of whether there is a COI or not. Batmanthe8th (talk) 18:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nom. Fails WP:GNG due to a lack of sustained WP:SIGCOV in independent reliable sources. Just a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL doctor who does a little charity on the side, as do countless others, only he has repetitious press releases to. Newshunter12 (talk) 19:37, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:18, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I find it odd that three of the five "keep" votes so far are from editors who have only begun editing Wikipedia within the past few months. That is a very unusual pattern of participants in an AfD. BD2412 T 00:25, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment' his sources: Variety, Black Enterprise, Deadline, Ebony all have their own Wikipedia pages. Ebony has been in business 74 years, and nominated him this year as one of the top 100 most notable black people in the world. He was also covered by AOL, Inside Edition, and MSN. Aol, and MSN are also considered noteworthy enough to keep this Wikipedia article. Aol, Inside Edition and MSN are also considered noteworth enough to have their own wikipedia pages. A great portion of the medical community in Beverly Hills, especially for elective surgeries, was basically shut down for many months due to the Covid-19 threat. The virus would also significantly slow down any of the doctor's philanthropic work due to lack of funding and individual's fears about contracting it Author Sanju (talk) 13:21, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- You already voted. This isn't vote early, vote often. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not seeing sustained coverage of this WP:MILL figure. (t · c) buidhe 21:42, 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 keep. Tone 21:31, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Kingdon[edit]

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

If the gentleman is truly notable then there would be references easily available that are about him rather than by him. Blogposts by him do nothing to verify his notability. Nor do interviews with him or a shedload of press releases. WP:ADMASQ and fails WP:GNG Fiddle Faddle 19:09, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 19:09, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 19:09, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 19:09, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 19:09, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 19:09, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 19:09, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This page was completely reworked by a single-purpose editor just hours before the AfD. The page has been restored including all of the reliable sources and proper encyclopedic tone that was removed by that editor. The AfD was quick to be placed before checking the recent history of the page, (which raises some questions about the unusual timing) and its current state meets WP:GNG 50.24.119.73 (talk) 15:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are assessed on their merits, not on their history. Please do not cast aspersions on other editors. A major tenet here is to assume good faith. Please never fail to do so. It is sufficient to offer a policy based opinion to delete or keep. Fiddle Faddle 19:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As someone who edits from the local library, I appreciate the thoroughness Fiddle Faddle brings to this and I agree with above, but it looks like the poor promotional editing was limited to a single editor. Going through the history, I see other editors have removed promo edits and added pretty standard information for a BLP. The latest round of edits were very poorly executed no doubt but tone can be cleaned up, so the issue here is notability. The reverted version addresses the question of notability laid out here along with the issue with references. 47.218.244.74 (talk) 16:45, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article has been subject to a lot of poor promotional editing, I suggest people glance through the article history. —JBL (talk) 11:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I hate Jason Kingon. His AI is responsible for the continue devolution and soul crushing nature of the coding industry. The rise of AI, and the eliminatioin of by hand tracking of money laundering, has led to the trillions of dollars sloshing around the financial system by corrupt actors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.3.217 (talk) 15:15, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if you would clarify whether your opinion is to keep or delete the article, and the policy rationale you have for either opinion, pease? Fiddle Faddle 22:49, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability established by significant coverage in multiple reliable sources: [29], [30], [31]. ~Kvng (talk) 15:34, 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. ‑Scottywong | [speak] || 22:09, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

North Norfolk News[edit]

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

Prod was removed to AfD. I just don't see how this passes WP:NCORP, there is no significant coverage for this local newspaper. The citations provided are purely primary and not secondary sources which is really required. Govvy (talk) 18:48, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I have now improved the entry citing a number of secondary sources. I disagree that this organisation does not fit the criteria of WP:NCORP Notability. The subject is a well-established (since 1940) weekly newspaper covering an area with more than 100,000 inhabitants. Although there may be no “significant coverage” of this newspaper from other sources online, you have to consider that a major news source in its area, it is far more often providing coverage of other topics, rather than being the subject of coverage itself. There are also many entries about newspapers of a similar or smaller size with few secondary sources on Wikipedia, so for consistency, this entry should also be allowed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Weekly_newspapers_by_country. SCAnderson (talk) 07:28, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are using North Norfolk News own website in the article is a clear case of primary sourcing which should be avoid. Along with their twitter account and the parent company Archant are also primary sources. The circular is small, and the fact you work for North Norfolk News is a clear WP:Conflict of Interest. I still don't see this passing WP:NCORP in my opinion. However that is my opinion, need other people to weigh in. Govvy (talk) 10:47, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:41, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:41, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: sufficient secondary sources given to establish notability for a local press. -- Whiteguru (talk) 10:40, 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 redirect to Mountain Biking UK. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 21:41, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mint Sauce (cartoon strip)[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a non-notable fictional character or comic strip (or both; the article is pretty confusing) created by a non-notable writer who doesn't have a Wikipedia article. I considered instead redirecting the article to Mountain Biking UK, the magazine where this subject is apparently featured, but the subject isn't mentioned in that article. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 18:34, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mountain Biking UK - I am finding a couple of brief mentions in independent sources. However, these are all just a couple of sentences each, and are completely in the context of describing it as a feature of the magazine it is published in. Not enough to show independent notability, but probably enough that it should (and already is, in fact - its mentioned about halfway down in the "History and profile" section) mentioned in the magazine's main article. As none of the information currently in this article is sourced, merging would not really be appropriate, so a simple Redirect would suffice. Rorshacma (talk) 16:05, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly per Rorshacma, lacks notability, but a Redirect to Mountain Biking UK sounds reasonable. Foxnpichu (talk) 18:47, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect seems fine unless anyone cares to demonstrate stand-alone notability, which is not apparent from the article/sources present. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:15, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:58, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Missionary dating[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Guy Macon (talk) 18:17, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Guy Macon (talk) 18:17, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. It's clearly a recognized term, but most of the sources I'm finding are arguably primary or otherwise unreliable, so a non-stub version of this would run into SYNTH/OR issues. I found [32] and [33] (the latter in First Things), but these are still arguably primary. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:46, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Recognized term but covered only by the magazines and books who are not truly independent of the subject. Rustam Fan (talk) 06:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:01, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Interfaith marriage. The concept can be briefly covered there if WP:DUE allows.VR _talk 11:12, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is more often a false claim than a true one, and the sourcing does not support this is an actual practice.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:58, 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 08:13, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Brides[edit]

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

The series does not exist. ABC passed on the pilot three months ago[34] and no other network has shown any interest in picking it up to series. The article has no reason to be on Wikipedia whatsoever. Enough said! TheRedDomitor (talk) 18:15, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TheRedDomitor (talk) 18:15, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. TheRedDomitor (talk) 18:15, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Stop creating articles about pilots not picked up yet. Nate • (chatter) 01:26, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of the article has been notified. TheRedDomitor (talk) 02:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question Can pilots not be notable?★Trekker (talk) 08:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@★Trekker: There is no pilot. The series received a pilot order and casting took place but production was suspended in LA before filming could commence.[35] And even if the pilot had been filmed, any notability it had before substantial developments would have been derived from its cast and the Dracula brand name. Would have again failed under WP:NOTINHERITED. TheRedDomitor (talk) 08:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. As even the pilot has yet to be produced, the only available sources are basic casting/ordering announcements. If the show does wind up being produced and obtaining notability, this article can certainly be recreated, but for now it is too soon for it to have any real notability. It can possibly be sent back to Draft, as well, if the article creator wants to keep the draft around until then. Rorshacma (talk) 15:59, 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 08:13, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sasha Swire[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E: essentially, this is an article on someone 'notable' for writing a book (which has not even been published yet). She's not inherently notable by her marriage to an MP or her family connections. All the sources in the article relate to the book. As alternatives to deletion, I would propose retitling it as Diary of an MP's Wife and making it an article about the book (which is arguably notable); or merging into Hugo Swire. Robofish (talk) 18:09, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:40, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:40, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:40, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:40, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She's the author of a notable memoir, so it's hard to imagine she's less notable than her life story. Failing that, move to the title of her autobiography. pburka (talk) 19:05, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as she has had reliable source coverage as a result of her book. It is not true that every source relates to her book. Andysmith248 (talk) 22:05, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Anameofmyveryown (talk) 00:08, 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 no consensus. !voters generally agree that the subject is notable, but there is no consensus whether this is WP:TNT material or not (roughly equivalent headcounts of !deleting and !keeping). Since there is no consensus to delete the article, I suggest improving it based on the sources presented here. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 21:45, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Love Jihad[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable conspiracy theory. It does exist, but I am not seeing significant coverage in reliable sources. Guy Macon (talk) 18:08, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Guy Macon (talk) 18:08, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Guy Macon (talk) 18:08, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Guy Macon (talk) 18:08, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs some serious work to be compliant with WP:PROFRINGE, but I do see enough high-quality sources to meet the general notability guideline. Here is a sample:
1. Farokhi, Zeinab (3 September 2020). "Hindu Nationalism, News Channels, and "Post-Truth" Twitter: A Case Study of "Love Jihad"". In Boler, Megan; Davis, Elizabeth (eds.). Affective Politics of Digital Media: Propaganda by Other Means. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-000-16917-1 – via Google Books.
2. Sarkar, Tanika (July 2018). "Is love without borders possible?" (PDF). Feminist Review. 119 (1). SAGE Publishing: 7–19. doi:10.1057/s41305-018-0120-0 – via ResearchGate.
3. Gupta, Charu (19 December 2009). "Hindu women, Muslim men: Love Jihad and conversions" (PDF). Economic and Political Weekly. 44 (51): 13–15.

If the article were rewritten to be primarily based on academic sources like the ones above, I don't think there would be any policy or guideline issues. — Newslinger talk 18:43, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, an NPOV article would be a good thing. "Indian police arrest suspect in brutal video murder". Agence France-Presse. December 7, 2017. Articles from The Wire [36]. The jstor link above is useless, but google site:jstor.org "love jihad" fiveby(zero) 20:43, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. The current state of the article (Special:Permalink/979504384), which portrays Love Jihad as a plausible theory rather than a conspiracy theory, is not acceptable because hoaxes do not belong on Wikipedia. See Talk:Love Jihad § Lead for excerpts from 12 reliable sources describing "Love Jihad" as a conspiracy theory or fabricated claim. Improving (or draftifying) the article would be preferable to deleting it, but it's a violation of WP:PROFRINGE to have a Wikipedia article present a discredited conspiracy theory like "Love Jihad" as a real phenomenon. — Newslinger talk 05:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Fiveby (below). The amount of reliable scholarship available far exceeds what is needed to establish that "Love Jihad" is a notable conspiracy theory under WP:GNG. In fact, there is more scholarship on the "Love Jihad" conspiracy theory than there is on the QAnon conspiracy theory—a subject for which Wikipedia also has an article. The article needs to be significantly rewritten to afford the scholarship its due weight, of course. As a second choice, I can support deleting the article under WP:TNT and then immediately recreating it with policy- and guideline-compliant content; salting is completely inappropriate here. — Newslinger talk 01:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:TNT. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:00, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy Keep Undoubtedly notable subject having received significant coverage by millions of reliable sources. Riddhidev BISWAS (talk) 22:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per discussion below. While it is notable and has received coverage, it is not something that requires separate page. Riddhidev BISWAS (talk) 18:33, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Blatantly notable.★Trekker (talk) 04:08, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree millions of sources have covered the subject but their motive to cover this subject is: 1) similar to covering any subject which is related to a popular political or religious POV, 2) to discuss political and religious agenda of a number of political parties, religious organizations and individuals. There hasn't been a dedicated research on this subject so far which would highlight all of the well-known events that have occurred related to the subject. Until there has been enough research, or treatment of this subject more than just a plausible theory or political/religious agenda, I think we should just delete the article. Rustam Fan (talk) 06:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing you claimed is a good reason for deletion.★Trekker (talk) 08:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because sourcing is inadequate for significance. "I've told you a million times, Don't exaggerate." -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 08:33, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- How? So far all the deltion votes seem to sum up to "I don't like it".★Trekker (talk) 08:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep riduculous to claim there are insufficient sources for a neutral presentation:
1. Cupta, Charu (2009). "Hindu Women, Muslim Men: Love Jihad and Conversions". Economic and Political Weekly. 44 (51): 13–15. JSTOR 25663907.
2. Punwani, Jyoti (2014). "Myths and Prejudices about 'Love Jihad'". Economic and Political Weekly. 49 (42): 12–15. JSTOR 24480870.
3. Ramachandran, Sudha (June 2020). "Hindutva Violence in India: Trends and Implications". Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses. 12 (4): 17. JSTOR 26918077.
4. Bhatnagar, Gaurav (October 5, 2015). "BJP, RSS Leaders Caught Using 'Love Jihad' Bogey to Fuel Communal Polarisation". The Wire.
5. Dhara, Tushar (July 26, 2019). "In Rajasthan, a case of "love jihad" cuts stereotypes of caste and party allegiances". The Caravan.
6. Ali, Mohammad (October 13, 2014). "U-turn by Meerut girl on 'love jihad'". The Hindu.
7. Sharma, Amit (October 14, 2014). "Their 'love jihad' centrepiece in tatters, Hindu outfits see plot in Meerut U-turn". The Indian Express.
8. Strohl, David James (2019). "Love jihad in India's moral imaginaries: religion, kinship, and citizenship in late liberalism". Contemporary South Asia. 27 (1): 27–39.
9. Tyagi, Aastha (2020). "Love-Jihad (Muslim Sexual Seduction) and ched-chad (sexual harassment): Hindu nationalist discourses and the Ideal/deviant urban citizen in India". Gender, Place & Culture. 27 (1): 104–125.
10. Saxena, Saumya (2018). "'Court'ing Hindu nationalism: law and the rise of modern Hindutva". Contemporary South Asia. 26 (4).
11. Waikar, Prashant (2018). "Reading Islamophobia in Hindutva: An Analysis of Narendra Modi's Political Discourse". Islamophobia Studies Journal. 4 (3). JSTOR 10.13169.
fiveby(zero) 13:29, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt It is indeed unclear how the subject should be treated and the jumbling of cases involving "interreligion marriage" and "fraud marriage" even by the reliable sources has made it even more difficult. I also note that Rape jihad was salted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rape jihad (5th nomination). We can wait until there is more notability and clarity about the subject and coverage independent from Indian political parties, Myanmar politics and religious groups that have made allegation of the existence of this concept per WP:NOTINHERITED. For that we will need much better sources than what we currently have. Azuredivay (talk) 17:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:TNT and start over due to the many issues at this article.VR _talk 11:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, because the government of India has also confirmed Love Jihad is not defined anywhere under law. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/love-jihad-not-defined-under-law-says-centre/article30736760.ece — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sz786 (talk • contribs)
Keep. The justification for deletion (as a not-notable conspiracy theory) is simply not valid. There is a significant number of RS on this subject, as one can see from the referencing on the page and references provided during this discussion (see above). Just not liking the subject (I do not like it too) is not a valid reason for deletion. My very best wishes (talk) 17:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG. Conspiracy theory or not, this has been in the news almost every week for the past 10 years, so there are adequate sources to meet the notability criteria. M4DU7 (talk) 02:13, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the topic definitely gets it due media coverage but the article is in bad shape. Its trying to push the POV that its possible rather than it being a conspiracy theory. Not surprisingly the idea as propagated by extreme right wing groups find its inspiration in Mein Kampf [37]. Probably the article fits WP:TNT case for a complete rewrite based solely on academic sourcing. Roller26 (talk) 14:07, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per Azuredivay. - ─ The Aafī (^talk) 17:19, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The issue has been largely ignored by English media, but has been significantly covered in reliable vernacular media. For e.g this article from Dainik Jagran Quartzd (talk) 20:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Newslinger and fiveby clearly passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:26, 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. Tone 08:13, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sikander vs Porus[edit]

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

Its very simple; The show does not exist! The article is a replica of Porus (TV series). Basically it is the same show, just re-run with a new title on a different channel.

~~PS: It is a sincere request, please do not vote for a redirect here as it will achieve absolutely nothing.~~TheRedDomitor (talk) 18:01, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TheRedDomitor (talk) 18:01, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TheRedDomitor (talk) 18:01, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm confused: What do you mean by please do not vote for a redirect here as it will achieve absolutely nothing? TompaDompa (talk) 22:39, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you have read the article you would have noticed that it states very clearly in the lede that this show is the retitled version of Porus (TV series). It has no link to any other page on Wikipedia other than its parent network and original series. It is never going to establish notability in the future either because again, the series by itself does not exist. This article went unnoticed for over four months and a redirect can easily be removed later on and will only add to the unnecessary articles on Wikipedia. But anyway, my point of focus here is about the article in itself. Deletion or Redirection is secondary. Cheers! TheRedDomitor (talk) 02:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously we shouldn't have two articles about the same series, I just figured that the title of this article would be a plausible search term (and hence a good redirect) precisely because it is a different title for the same show. TompaDompa (talk) 15:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of that actually. But then I checked the page viewership stats for this page and it is not more than 350-400 viewers per month on an average as compared to the original which averages about 15,000 per month. And a web search for the title Sikander vs Porus provides the link directly for the original series article. TheRedDomitor (talk) 16:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the reasons stated by the nom. As an Indian tv buff I can confirm that the series is a rerun of Porus. It is similar to the way shows in the US go into broadcast syndication once they have completed their run on the original network. Only here, the title has been slightly modified. Thus, No series No notability. Sunshine1191 (talk) 12:31, 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. Procedural keep as the consensus is not to delete. Rename/merge/rewrite are reasonable calls. Tone 08:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Project 921-3[edit]

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

This article is nothing but a synthesis of published materials with crystal balls. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 17:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 17:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This could be merged into one of the other articles on the Chinese space program, such as Shenzhou program. The argument for deletion is poor because Wikipedia is by policy largely a synthesis of published materials, and I don't see too much speculation. Anything that is WP:CBALL can simply be edited out, it is not an argument for deletion unless the entire article is WP:CBALL. Jack N. Stock (talk) 21:26, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge is a good outcome for now, I'm neutral if it comes down to keep or delete. Perhaps Draftify, userify, or delete without prejudice for un-deletion or re-creation is acceptable rather than a "no consensus" outcome or multiple re-listings. Note that there is a Swedish version of this article. Rationale: Topic probably passes WP:N but not everything that is "Wiki-notable" SHOULD have its own stand-alone article if the content is better placed in another article. Also, I have a personal bias for wanting to keep the edit history for technical articles like this that might someday be clearly worth having their own article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:31, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to merge, improve, draftify, or delete...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - We have an article on Project 921-2, namely Tiangong program. Searching for 'Chinese spaceplane program' yields several reliable sources for the existence of significant activity in the general area documented by the article, but it seems pretty patchy. I think the problem in need of solving is what organisation of the material related to China's space program best supports developing good articles, which is not necessarily the same as the categories the Chinese aerospace sector use to talk about it. — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:35, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to something broader, such as China's spaceplane program. With this change, the GNG threshold can easily be passed and the scope of the article does not depend on the unclear limits of Project 921-3. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:21, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:59, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Probably needs a new title but WP:GNG is met. Problems identified by the nom can be resolved by editing; deletion is not required. ~Kvng (talk) 15:49, 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 redirect to Lakeshore East. Feel free to merge any content from the revision history as appropriate. ‑Scottywong | [soliloquize] || 22:11, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Shoreham[edit]

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

Not notable (fails WP:GNG and WP:NBUILDING) . Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:17, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:22, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or very weak redirect to Lakeshore East per my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Chandler. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:56, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable 46 floors makes it a Skyscraper by every definition, and it is an award winning skyscraper passing WP:NBUILD. I believe a skyscraper is automatically notable as a geographic feature. Wm335td (talk) 19:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:30, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:55, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Lakeshore East. There isn't enough information here, nor are there enough sources cited, to justify a separate article. While a building this size might be the tallest building in many cities, the Shoreham isn't even one of the five tallest buildings in the Lakeshore East development. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:33, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect the Shoreham to Lakeshore East while stripping out its "coveted Paragon award" and the other promotional real-estate language. Not notable in itself. --Lockley (talk) 00:58, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lakeshore East. I am not seeing enough coverage to be independently notable, so it should be covered as part of the broader development. (t · c) buidhe 21:48, 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 redirect to University of Liberal Arts Bangladesh. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:56, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ULAB Television[edit]

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

Non-notable campus TV. Unable to find any significant coverage other then some promotional news. Fails GNG. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 17:07, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:11, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:11, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:11, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and possibly merge to University of Liberal Arts Bangladesh. Most campus TV are not notable for a standalone article, and the coverage I found in this instance does not suggest this is an exception. The only significant coverage I could find on the TV station is this, but this is at most local coverage, and I have doubts as to the publication's independence of its subject given the way the article is worded. A redirect and merge to the ULAB article though is preferrable over outright deletion per WP:ATD-R. --Dps04 (talk) 10:41, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to University of Liberal Arts Bangladesh as recommended by Dps04. I added a few sentences about the station to the university article. There isn't any other reliably sourced information to merge. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:01, 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 17:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ATN Islamic TV[edit]

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

Non-notable online tv. Unable to find any significant coverage. Fails GNG. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 17:05, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:11, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:11, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:11, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:11, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:BROADCAST doesn't apply and subject fails WP:GNG. All the sources I found are self-published. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:17, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about the online channel. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 05:20, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Fails GNG. // Timothy :: talk 17:01, 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 17:20, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NBR TV (Bangladesh)[edit]

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

This TV channel doesn't exist. Unable to find one single mention. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:59, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:12, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:12, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails verification, no source available. --Zayeem ^(talk) 18:07, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:44, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hannes F. Wagner[edit]

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

Was deprodded due to Google Scholar counts, but all of the articles which are all under 300 citations, are not solo articles of his, so not sure this meets WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It's not necessary to have solo articles to be notable as an academic. It looks like his papers have alphabetical authors, so we can't infer anything from author name ordering. There doesn't seem to be much more to say than his publication record, but I think six publications with over 100 citations each should be good enough for WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:19, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:56, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 18:37, 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 17:20, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-globalization filmography[edit]

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

Oddly titled list which seems to rely on some POV, descriptions of these films do not always describe the films as "anti-globalization film". ★Trekker (talk) 16:12, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ★Trekker (talk) 16:12, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★Trekker (talk) 16:12, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom. This list asks editors to categorize films as "anti-globalization". Without any objective criteria or exterior sources to base that decision on, the result is always going to be OR. --Lockley (talk) 00:05, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough sources to justify the existence. Tessaracter (talk) 07:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subjective criteria for a list therefore is WP:NOR. Ajf773 (talk) 00:57, 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 redirect to List of American Civil War Medal of Honor recipients: A–F#A. SNGs do not trump GNG. Every Wikipedia article needs to pass GNG. SNGs are simply a shortcut that presumes that sources exist to satisfy GNG when a topic satisfies the SNG. Therefore, since no Keep voter successfully refuted the argument that the subject fails GNG, this individual is not eligible for a standalone article. However, that doesn't mean that Wikipedia can't have information about this individual in other articles. Feel free to merge any info from the revision history of this article into the list article. ‑Scottywong | [confer] || 22:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James F. Adams[edit]

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

Given that WP:SOLDIER is a WP:ESSAY, not a WP:SNG, the article fails WP:GNG, in particular multiple reliable secondary sources. The article is currently only referenced by a link to the United States Army Center of Military History website. MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:01, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:31, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's worth noting that criteria for receiving the Medal of Honor has significantly changed since the Civil War. While it technically might meet the wording of the NSOLDIER essay, it does not fulfill its intended meaning. // Timothy :: talk 16:48, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I fixed the a broken link in refs so others can see what it says. // Timothy :: talk 16:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The MOH was given out to thousands of people who did little of note prior to the revision of the guidelines. He does not appear to pass GNG.★Trekker (talk) 17:20, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but when they revised the guidelines, they chose to strike almost 1/3 of the medals that had been awarded after considering all that had been awarded during the war. While most of those cancelled were mistakenly awarded to the 27th Maine Volunteer Infantry Regiment, the fact is that the board determined Adams' MOH to be worthy ([38]). Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:17, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article does not meet notability guidelines. I found sources such as this [39]. He is mentioned in one sentence in West Virginia and the Civil War: Mountaineers Are Always Free p.229 // Timothy :: talk 17:20, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while the MoH satisfies #1 of the WP:SOLDIER essay, he lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS so failing WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:17, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List_of_American_Civil_War_Medal_of_Honor_recipients:_A–F#A where the appropriate details belong. --Lockley (talk) 06:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List_of_American_Civil_War_Medal_of_Honor_recipients:_A–F#A. Nika2020 (talk) 21:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clear pass of WP:SOLDIER. I see that we're moving from trying to get generals deleted (failed) to trying to get recipients of the highest decoration for gallantry deleted. What fun! -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:49, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:SOLDIER references WP:GNG in the opening sentence where it reads "In general, an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources. It is presumed that individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify if they ... " WP:SOLDIER does not say an individual is notable, it only assumes it. In essence, if the criteria of WP:GNG are not met, the assumptions made in WP:SOLDIER are irrelevant and the article is to be deleted. Is that not the case? Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:22, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- A presumption of notability is not a presumption of non-notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MisterBee1966, You are completely correct; a presumption is merely an assumption, not a guarantee that an article is notable. This is true even for WP:GNG, per the lead of WP:N where it links to the definition WP uses for presumption, specifically that it is a Rebuttable presumption, that can be shown to be incorrect based on factors such as WP:V, WP:WWIN, WP:LASTING, WP:1E, and many others.

The best test for notability is does the subject meet WP:SIGCOV; are there multiple WP:RS, that address the subject directly and in depth and are the sources used impacted by something such as WP:V, WP:WWIN, WP:LASTING, or WP:1E.

It's also important to remember that Essays, such as WP:NSOLDIER are opinions, nothing more. Anyone can write an essay on notability. People can consider them, but they do not override guidelines or policies. Often editors confuse this or try and state that something is notable and must be kept because it meets an essay, when it is not notable based on guidelines. Essays are points to consider, not guidelines that should be followed.

Best wishes from Los Angeles, // Timothy :: talk 23:38, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you TimothyBlue for the thorough explanation. Leaving the fact that WP:SOLDIER is only an essay aside, the presumption of notability can be contested by a kind of litmus test (WP:SIGCOV; are there multiple WP:RS...) which means the burden of proof lies with editors opting for Wikipedia-inclusion. For my better understanding, is the reverse psychology applicable here? Meaning, do Wikipedia guidelines require evidence for non-notability? In essence, Wikipedia-inclusion has to be justified, Wikipedia-exclusion does not, if the litmus test fails. Cheers and more best wishes MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but RfC. In practice, we have always kept articles on Medal of Honor recipients as passing WP:SOLDIER with flying colors, as it were. However, I agree that most of these people really don't have enough coverage for a stand-alone article (and I've created several similar ones). 40% of MOHs were given out in the ACW, by the way. I don't think there's any way this AfD can generate consensus on its own to delete a recipient of the most prestigious personal military decoration in the United States. That's a clear pass of WP:ANYBIO #1 if you're looking for a guideline behind this. An RfC is the appropriate place to decide whether to merge/redirect these stubby articles to the list of ACW MOH recipients or keep them as is – Wikipedia is not paper and there's nothing wrong with a stub after all. In the absence of a clear consensus on the wider issue, this article should be kept. Deletion is clearly inappropriate. Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:07, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Supporting the views expressed by Eddie891. Northern Escapee (talk) 13:37, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NSOLDIER#1 Medal of Honor is America's highest military award. Wm335td (talk) 16:46, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As is stated above, the Medal of Honor during the Civil War is not the same as the Medal of Honor we know today. The criteria was completely changed. Keep votes based on this have a misunderstanding of the NSOLDIER essay and the history of the Medal of Honor. // Timothy :: talk 16:53, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to clarify when the MOH criteria was changed? AFAIK the only major time the criteria was changed was in 1917, and they reviewed all Medals of Honor to that point, so it's incorrect to state that an ACW MOH is not the same as one awarded after. Also, NSOLDIER says nothing about this so it's you misunderstanding the essay, which blanket-applies to all MOH recipients as is currently phrased. Further, WP:ANYBIO#1 (The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor) is met, something you have yet to address. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:44, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Eddie891, see below (bolding mine)
- re: ANYBIO#2, above these criteria it states: "A person who does not meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability. Editors may find these criteria helpful when deciding whether to tag an article as requiring additional citations (using BLP sources for example), or to instead initiate a deletion discussion." "May" does not mean "Is".
- re: NSOLDIER
  - A presumption is not a guarantee of notability, "It is presumed that individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage". In this case there is not sufficient coverage as there would be for later recipients because the award does not have the same meaning post-revision. This is obvious from the content of the article.
  - As you admit, the criteria for the Medal was completely revised and what it was during the Civil War is not what it is today. See Chapter 1, The Medal of Honor: The Evolution of America's Highest Military Decoration by Dwight S. Mears (available on JSTOR). It is clear from the description of the medal during the Civil War, it does not meet NSOLDIER.
// Timothy :: talk 18:25, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I want to second what Timothy is saying. WP:GNG supersedes WP:SOLDIER, which is only an essay. Additionally, WP:ANYBIO starts with saying "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." The basic criteria of WP:BIO starts with "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." The question is therefore all about significant coverage in multiple and reliable sources! Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:10, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SKCRIT #6. SKCRIT states that "Reasons for a speedy keep decision are:...6. The page/image is currently linked from the Main Page...".

This current Articles for Deletion discussion satisfies this criteria due to the fact that the article is currently linked from the first entry in the Main page's "In the news" section. I have no objection to this discussion being re-opened or relisted once the article is off of the main page, but at current this discussion should not be happening per policy. While the original close was not the best NAC, the end result was correct. If this article is so egregious as to require immediate discussion, this article's mention on the main page must be brought to WP:ERRORS and attain consensus there for its removal from the main page first. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:03, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg[edit]

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

Completely unnecessary. Nothing unusual about the death. Vast majority of comments on the talk page are in favor of removal/merging/not needed. MartinezMD (talk) 14:27, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – For the first time in the United States AFAIK, a public figure is expected to lie in repose outdoors.[40] There is still a lot the article has not covered. Her death as a subject clearly passes GNG. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:35, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Also Procedural close as this AfD is unlikely to close in delete. The only logical outcome, besides keep, would be merge and redirect. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:44, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with nominator. Nothing notable about her death. WP:NOTEVERYTHING applies. If we must - a redirect or merge with Ruth Bader Ginsburg would be appropriate. Lightburst (talk) 14:50, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That discussion is be held on the talk page. This deletion discussion is wholly inappropriate unless you are actually considering deleting the page. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:00, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. Please read WP:DISCUSSAFD. Additionally I stated that I favor deletion. Lightburst (talk) 15:23, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:50, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:50, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy procedural close - there is an ongoing merge discussion that preceded this AFD. The nominator !voted "delete" in the merge discussion and then posted this nom. This AFD is a fork of the merge discussion. It should be closed and discussion should be kept in one place. Otherwise, we're wasting editor time and risk arriving at two different results. Le v!v ich 15:01, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's nothing in particular that's especially unusual about her death. Maybe there could be an article about her funeral, but not her death. Rockin 15:12, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I plan to move the page to Death and funeral of Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Tuesday when she is expected to lie in repose out doors, a completely new thing I have never seen before. See also Death and funeral of Margaret Thatcher. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:23, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I support the proposed move to Death and funeral of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. With several delete votes, I don't think this is able to be procedurally closed, but I think that the closer should recognize that merge and/or changing the subject discussions are occurring. --Enos733 (talk) 16:59, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy procedural close Can we please wait until the merge discussion is completed? I actually think this article might be better titled Impact of the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, but let's at least discuss it in one place. —valereee (talk) 15:16, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Ginsburg’s death isn’t a normal death of a Supreme Court justice, it’s sparked massive controversy and is dominating the news cycle. With all due respect, I’m fervently opposed to the deletion of this article. R. J. Dockery (talk) 15:21, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. There's clearly disagreement as well as procedural requests. The article is a work in progress approaching 80 sources. I say keep discussing on article talk page(s) but close this for the time being. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:29, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close per C&C and Levivich. See Talk:Death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:38, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now; it seems like this has sparked an outpouring of grief and controversy. Maybe we can reassess when the dust settles. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 15:40, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep even if we don't want to have this as a standalone article then the logical thing to do would be to merge it somewhere else or to redirect it to Ruth Bader Ginsburg#Death. There is no reason to delete it and any discussions about merges etc should happen elsewhere. Hut 8.5 16:29, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear WP:CONTENTFORK does not need its own page. Celebrity deaths are rarely notable, even if they carry political ramification. Any notion that the article should be kept based on these political ramifications is WP:SYNTH. KidAd talk 17:25, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly in CONTENTFORK is this supposed to have violated? Per WP:SPINOFF, Articles where the expanding volume of an individual section creates an undue weight problem. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:36, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnecessary fork. Plenty of other places to have this content without needing a separate page. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:40, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I closed this as speedy keep, but per request have reverted my non-admin closure. My original reason was

The result was speedy keep. Separate from the merge discussion and the comments made below, and without prejudice to a future nomination, this nomination qualifies for Wikipedia:Speedy keep: The page/image is currently linked from the Main Page. In such cases, please wait until the link is no longer on the Main Page before nominating. If the problem is urgent, consensus should be gained at WP:ERRORS to remove the link before nominating for deletion. The article is currently featured in Template:In the news. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 19:21, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 22:26, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 22:34, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. This discussion has been re-opened for no good reason, as the merge discussion on the talk page is still ongoing. Davey2116 (talk) 22:35, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

^ WP:PERABOVE KidAd talk 22:39, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why was this re-opened? A consensus was already reached that this article shouldn't be deleted. R. J. Dockery (talk) 23:45, 20 September 2020 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: R. J. Dockery (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.[reply]
Speedy delete/merge Insta-creation was not warranted. Reywas92^Talk 00:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep The original close was correct; articles that are linked to the Main Page cannot be nominated for deletion. Not only that but there is a merge discussion taking place which should be allowed to run its course. P-K3 (talk) 00:46, 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 17:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uzair Merchant[edit]

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

Not yet notable per WP:CREATIVE or WP:BIO, can't see any evidence online of him having won any notable awards or made any significant contributions to the notable films the article claims he's worked on. WP:TOOSOON.

I am also nominating the following related page created by the same editor, as it fails WP:CORP with no significant coverage online in WP:Reliable sources:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 13:46, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I am the creator of this page as well as of bKreativ Productions!

I apologise as the article does not meet the standards set by Wikipedia yet. Other than citations proving the evidence of awards won, is there anything else that can be done to make this biography much more notable? Will try to get evidence of this as well as the coverage for bKreativ Productions ASAP!

In the mean time could we switch both articles to the drafting stage?

Thanks for understanding! — Preceding unsigned comment added by GurmeetKRi8 (talk • contribs)

Delete Not yet notable. Sources are imdb (no), an NYU Film School blog (no), and a brief article from the school he graduated from (could be used, if there were better coverage elsewhere). Searching further, I found only one brief mention in a Hollywood Reporter article and that's it. This is not "Significant coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail", so I have to agree with the nominator. JimKaatFan (talk) 14:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - neither seem to have enough coverage to pass WP:GNG currently. A case of WP:TOOSOON perhaps Spiderone 18:51, 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 08:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bittrex[edit]

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

No evidence nor claim of notability. A single RS mention given. WP:BEFORE shows crypto site coverage, but very little in RSes beyond passing mentions. Challenged PROD, but issues not addressed by challenger. David Gerard (talk) 12:57, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 12:57, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 12:57, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 12:57, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is more than just the one currently in the article.

November 29, 2017 "Crypto exchange Bittrex warns traders against 'pump and dump' scams" Business Insider

May 31, 2018 "Bittrex Gets Bank Agreement to Help You Buy Bitcoin With Dollars" Bloomberg

August 23, 2018 "Cryptocurrency exchange Bittrex teams with registered trading venue Rialto" Reuters

April 10, 2019 "Bittrex virtual currency license rejected by New York financial regulator" Reuters

May 9, 2019 "Government Enforcement in the Cryptocurrency Space The National Law Review

June 10, 2019 "Bittrex Blocks US-based Users From Trading in 32 Cryptocurrencies" International Business Times

January 10, 2020 "After hackers stole $1M in cryptocurrency, Bellevue venture capitalist launched PR blitz against local company he blames" The Seattle Times

January 14, 2020 "State reverses ruling on cryptocurrency exchange sued by Bellevue venture capitalist" The Seattle Times Ҥ (talk) 20:40, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These sources are churnalism, based entirely on information from Bittrex, so fail WP:NCORP:

BI 2017-11-29: info entirely from Bittrex

Bloomberg 2018-05-31: info entirely from Bittrex

Reuters 2018-08-23: info entirely from Bittrex

IBTimes 2019-06-10: literally just from a Bittrex blog post (and IBTimes is "generally unreliable" per WP:RSP, so not a source of notability)

These sources exist because they're about a local millionaire - they don't exist because of notability on Bittrex's part:

Seattle Times 2020-01-10: local coverage about a local millionaire buying ads, that happen to be against Bittrex

Seattle Times 2020-01-14: local coverage of the same local millionaire

These two might pass, but they're just about Bittrex's failure to be up to achieving a license:

Reuters 2019-04-10

NLR

So you've presented two sources that aren't churnalism and might plausibly connote notability, and they're both about Bittrex's inadequacy - David Gerard (talk) 09:20, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Gerard, how are you determining that info is entirely from Bittrex for these sources? Doesn't coverage of inadequacy in reliable sources contribute positively to a case for notability? ~Kvng (talk) 15:39, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By reading the actual articles - they say the info was from Bittrex.

It can do, if their incompetence is sufficiently notable. Two mentions of failing to get a license doesn't seem enough to swing an article on - David Gerard (talk) 16:57, 27 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⁺⁺ 20:08, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As nom highlighted, a lot of the coverages are mainly churnalism as they're mainly initiated by interviews with the execs of the article's subject. As the Nat Law Review pointed, the company has failed to secure license, which may also suggest that it fails GNG for WP:NCORP. At its current state and all the puff taken out from edits of account that may some form of COI from SPA (just look at histories of all the red accounts since 2018), the article barely even meets the GNG for WP:ORGCRIT. --Infogapp1 (talk) 22:06, 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 redirect to Robert Fripp#Soundscapes. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 21:50, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Soundscapes by Robert Fripp[edit]

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

No sources. No demonstration of notability. Information on Robert Fripp's recording techniques can be sufficiently covered on the Robert Fripp article. Popcornfud (talk) 12:34, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:53, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Frippertronics – One source says: "Frippertronics has evolved into its current form , dubbed 'Soundscapes'" [41] ili (talk) 10:37, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest I'm not convinced Frippertronics needs to exist either. It's definitely notable but I think it can be covered in a paragraph in the Robert Fripp article. But that's a different discussion. Popcornfud (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Robert Fripp#Soundscapes where it is already mentioned. This appears to just be an updated digital version of Frippertronics, and that article could probably be merged to the artist's article as well, seeing as much of it is unsourced or sourced to non-RS. Richard3120 (talk) 19:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:58, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Senge H Sering[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG – no in-depth coverage in independent sources; only mentioned in the media as an opinion source. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:05, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:05, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:05, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Non-notable. Ngrewal1 (talk) 18:16, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable activist per nom. Mar4d (talk) 06:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG with only passing mentions. - Nomad on Road (talk) 15:43, 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. Tone 17:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AC Ventures[edit]

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

This is a PR piece seeking to create a faux notability for a WP:ROTM venture capital firm. This is a well disguised advert. Many of the references are regurgitated press releases and PR material. Where that is not the case they are passing mentions. I have not been able to check the one behind the paywall. Fiddle Faddle 10:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:02, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:02, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:CORPDEPTH, the articles creator was blocked for advertising. --Devokewater (talk) 09:49, 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 17:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kraken (Marvel Comics)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a containment article for four non-notable characters. Aside from a singular minor casting announcement, all sources appear to either be primary or irrelevant. None of the individual characters establish notability, and there is nothing about the overall topic that establishes notability. The article does not meet WP:GNG, and it does not fulfill the standards of WP:WAF. It is an unnecessary plot summary. TTN (talk) 14:36, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:36, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:36, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep: Until better explanation is given. Per WP:DELREASON, WP:NEXIST, WP:ARTN, WP:ATD, WP:NNC, and WP:HANDLE, WP:GNG is determined only by the existence of sources, not by the quality of sourcing in the article. If the problem is that it merely "fails to establish notability", then this is not a concern for WP:AfD. Dark knight 2149 01:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only time I will respond to whatever bait this is supposed to be, but this is nonsensical wikilawyering that does absolutely nothing to actually invalidate or counter the nomination rationale. TTN (talk) 02:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Every deletion procedure, policy, and guideline explicitly says that WP:GNG is not determined by the sources in the article. They also say multiple times not to nominate articles on that basis:

Per WP:ARTN, "Article content does not determine notability. Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article."

Per WP:NEXIST, "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article."

Per WP:ATD, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page."

Per WP:GNG, "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles or lists. The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it. The notability guidelines do not apply to contents of articles or lists (with the exception of lists which restrict inclusion to notable items or people). Content coverage within a given article or list is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies."

Do you have a reason for deletion? Because WP:AfD is not clean up. Dark knight 2149 02:27, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The very fact that I'm making the nomination means I am asserting that suitable sources do not exist. Your point, if you think it should be kept, is to prove me wrong by providing sources. This bunk is absolutely nonsensical badgering wikilawyering that ignores all common sense on how AfDs work. I don't need to formulate a big cookie-cutter rationale to appease whatever you have in your head makes a suitable nomination. If you think I'm being negligent in research on sources, then bring it up somewhere. Okay, last reply forever, going back to never responding to you because this just never works out. TTN (talk) 02:40, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Genuine question - If that is, in fact, what you are asserting, then why do nearly all of your rationales (which, at one point, totalled around 10-20 nominations per day within a single topic area) cite some variation of "The article fails to establish notablity" as the rationale? And why do some of your Delete votes outright say "The sources in the article do not establish notablity"? This terminology implies directly that your assessment is based largely (or solely) on the sourcing in the article. It's also incredibly difficult to assert Wikilawyering when someone is citing policy directly and responding to your exact words. Dark knight 2149 02:58, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The issue here appears to be whether TTN A) Conducted a WP:Before search to look for sources and then nominated the page for deletion after determining there likely were none, or B) just looked at the sources already on the page and nominated it for deletion after determining they were not enough. If it's A, that is fine, but if it's B, that's a problem. My understanding of policy is that the burden is on the nominator to conduct at least a basic search for sources for notability or alternatives to deletion, rather than place the burden on other editors to do that work after the fact. Rhino131 (talk) 03:55, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Rhino131: I should mention that even if we (for the sake of argument) disregard WP:BEFORE as procedural, we're still left with the fact that every other deletion policy and guideline (listed above) says point blank:

1. WP:GNG is not determined by the sources listed in the article, but the existence of sources period.

2. The state of sourcing in the article is not a legitimate reason to nominate something for deletion.

The aforementioned policies/guidelines aren't even vague about it. If an article fails to establish notablity, that's certainly a reason to improve an article, but is not a primary reason for deletion.

In the comment above, TTN claims that the nominations themselves are an indication that he is aware of a topic's coverage and is implying that the articles do not pass WP:GNG based on that. The only problem is that the vast majority of his nominations and votes say the exact opposite: [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65]. Dark knight 2149 06:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhino131: As you can see above, their point is some kind of nonsensical, vindictive, nitpicky tirade based on tense-usage that nobody looking to make a fair criticism would make. I have no particular idea what purposely muddling my words is supposed to accomplish. I assume this will lead to them being blocked again if they're going to return to their tunnel-vision campaign. As to your question, I gave it a basic look-over in the provided source links while modifying the search name as necessary, as well as a separate search for the TV character. Hydra codename/creature brings up absolutely nothing, and the TV character lacks substantial coverage in the news articles related to the show (though the character alone couldn't support keeping this particular version of the article). TTN (talk) 13:05, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TTN: Thanks for answering. I think if you has said that in the nomination, there would be no problem (or else Darkknight's claims would be less merited). That way it would read "I don't think this topic is notable and here is my proof", whereas before it read "I'm asserting this topic is not notable, now prove me wrong", and I do agree a reasonable argument could be made that is against policy and against the purpose of an AFD. Rhino131 (talk) 13:35, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhino131: I've found that no matter the expansiveness or brevity of my nominations, someone seeking to complain will complain regardless. I understand your point, but I feel it's just assumed at this point as well. If it's revealed there are an ungodly amount of easily uncovered sources, then I obviously failed on my end of things and someone can rightfully complain. Whether I state it or not, the sources or lack thereof will show that. If their response had been an off-the-cuff good faith recommendation, it would be one thing, but this is some kind of pre-formulated "gotcha" plan that fails in the face of the fact that hundreds of closers have ended my AfDs without a singe mention of this being an issue as far as I can recall. TTN (talk) 14:16, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has twisted anything you have said, unless you deny having used "Delete. The article fails to establish notability" or "Fails GNG, the sources in the article do not establish notability" in nearly all of your votes and proposals. As much as you are trying to walk that back, there are only minuscule ways to interpret that and none of them conform to GNG or DELREASON.

If what you are saying about understanding GNG or performing a source check is true, there is a rather simple solution to this conundrum - not saying the exact opposite of that and using a legitimate rationale in your nominations.

As for "If their response had been an off-the-cuff good faith recommendation, it would be one thing", you are proving right now that that's not the case. In fact, I don't believe that the spurious allegations are helping you make your case. Dark knight 2149 18:51, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The reason why this page was made was because its previous page (Kraken in popular culture) needed to be split. There hasn't been any problem prior, why should there be one now? Voicebox64 (talk) 05:21, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That article is an absolute mess, but it would be very easy to trim both Marvel and DC down to the two sentences the topics deserve. Regardless of that, splitting out an article over size concerns does not mean the child article is inherently viable. If it cannot meet WP:GNG, then it does not need to exist. TTN (talk) 13:05, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While I would strongly encourage TTN to add a statement confirming they had done a BEFORE to their future nominations, this technical advice aside, my BEFORE failed to turn out any sources, so since WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES is a pretty bad argument, and nobody procuded any to discuss here, well, there is little we can do. This apears to be the usual COMICCRUFT based on PRIMARY sources, mentions in passing and nothing more and so it fails WP:NFICTION/GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Skipping over the WP:NOTHERE crusade by DarkKnight, the article itself fails WP:GNG as concisely stated by TTN in the original nom. It's Wikia material without non-trivial real world reception and is solely WP:INUNIVERSE content._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:14, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- So far, everyone here has said the same thing I have. Likewise I have always cited legitimate policies, some (a vocal minority) just choose not to hear it. You cite WP:PERNOM, yet there is nothing in the rationale itself of substance, unless you are talking about the general GNG guideline, which was only brought up in the explosive bad faith responses above. The slew of "Article fails to establish notablity" nominations are a lot closer to NOTHERE than me pointing out the policy violations, especially when TTN was already sanctioned by ArbCom for doing the same thing with redirects. Dark knight 2149 07:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There appears to exist non-primary sources here, at least not without a reductive to take of "sources that are interested in X cover X" which would make anything non-notable. A minor topic, for sure, but seems on the keepable side of borderline notability with potential for long-term growth. SnowFire (talk) 02:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused as to what sources you think you're seeing, either in the article or in Google searches. There's really nothing relevant to establishing notability whatsoever. TTN (talk) 12:49, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:24, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- none of the sourcing either in the article or available elsewhere is sufficient to sustain this article. Furthermore, it's a confusing hodgepodge of four related but distinct topics, which is not the way things should be handled. On top of that, it's written in an in-universe style more suitable for Wiia than this encyclopedia. If this article was created because Kraken in popular culture was too big, then that was a mistake- it would have been better to just trim the cruft. Reyk _YO! 13:55, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - None of the versions of the character listed here appear to have enough coverage to pass the WP:GNG. As far as I can tell, there is only a single secondary source being used in the current article, and that is nothing but a casting announcement for Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., that only has a single sentence that isn't just copied straight from the Marvel Database. Searching for additional sources does not turn up much on any of the listed versions. Rorshacma (talk) 16:11, 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. Consensus keep. However, since most of sources in Russian seem to use his name, not the title, I am renaming the article to George Mikhailovich Romanov. Tone 17:26, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Duke George Mikhailovich of Russia[edit]

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

The supposed heir to a pretender is not notable, also not adequately sourced. PatGallacher (talk) 19:20, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:06, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna of Russia. His own article might be justified by coverage when he succeeds as pretender, but not yet. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:48, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Merge~~ I’m not sure for this one, however agree per User:Jonathan A Jones. VocalIndia (talk) 13:06, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my opinion to Keep per agree all below. VocalIndia (talk) 18:21, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Major royal descendant; arguably the primary Romanov claimant. Also nominator User talk:PatGallacher shows bias Plutonium27 (talk) 22:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- In what way? PatGallacher (talk) 09:31, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PatGallacher Are you an anti-monarchist per your talkpage? So You nominated many AfD on monarchy articles for WP:IDONTLIKE?. VocalIndia (talk) 10:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also some basic research off Wikipedia before deciding non reigning = not notable on all these AFD’s of Mr Gallacher’s wouldn’t be an unreasonable thing to ask. - dwc lr (talk) 10:51, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your WP:IDONTLIKE? For example: a comparison of your 'articles created' efforts with your AfD noms, shows ample evidence of a somewhat singular view of notability. (FWIW I am not a monarchist).Plutonium27 (talk) 07:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a Google News search for Георгий Михайлович Романов shows plenty of coverage. - dwc lr (talk) 10:51, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV, Plutonium27 and dwc lr, as well as the bias of the nominator WP:IDONTLIKE. --Richiepip (talk) 17:30, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is enough material to warrant an article in the mainspace per WP:SIGCOV. Also, these endless nominations of biographies only on the basis that they have a former royal title in front of their names (WP:IDONTLIKE) is getting tiring now. TheRedDomitor (talk) 04:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:23, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has been a regular subject for media coverage since his grandfather died in 1992 - that would be something like the last 28 years! Oleryhlolsson (talk) 19:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Maybe there's something I'm missing (maybe there are additional sources in Russian I haven't found?), but I'm not seeing the WP:Significant coverage other editors are apparently seeing. I see a bunch of genealogical sources that don't establish notability (see WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:INVALIDBIO, and also in general WP:NOTGENEALOGY), Wikipedia:Non-independent sources, and a bunch of trivial mentions and celebrity gossip (a car accident he was involved in, how he spent Palm Sunday, and so on), but no in-depth coverage that I have been able to find (basic biographical info is not in-depth). Even searching for "Георгий Михайлович Романов" as suggested above doesn't turn up much. There might be enough about his career to warrant a stand-alone article, but I'm not convinced based on what I have found so far (there's what I gather to be a food bank that he is involved with, but what coverage I have found there is not about him but rather about the food bank itself). There is no content currently on the article that I think is worth merging (the genealogy and claim to the Romanov throne is already at Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna of Russia), and of the possible redirect targets (Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna of Russia, House of Romanov#Pretenders, Pretender#Russian pretenders, maybe others) there is no particular one I would advocate. TompaDompa (talk) 21:46, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Like others have said, this person has been covered in Russian media and thus easily pass WP:GNG. While searching for Russian sources might be tedious, they are not hard to find: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. All these AFDs are tiresome. Royal status does not by itself confer notability, only coverage by reliable sources does. Whether or not his royal status is recognized by any government is irrelevant. How many times does this have to be said? StellarHalo (talk) 06:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I considered those sources, but I don't think any of them reach the level of significant coverage of the subject of this article. The first contains basic biographical and genealogical information and very briefly mentions his various places of employment over the years. The second constitutes significant coverage of Фонд продовольствия Русь, but not really of Георгий Михайлович Романов (this is what I was referring to when I said that what coverage I have found there is not about him but rather about the food bank itself). The third is run-of-the-mill celebrity gossip. The fourth is not WP:RELIABLE (see WP:RSP#RIA Novosti). The fifth is run-of-the-mill celebrity gossip. The sixth contains basic biographical and genealogical information, run-of-the-mill celebrity gossip, and a very brief mention (namedrop, really) of what in English seems to be called the "Russian Imperial Foundation for Cancer Research".
  I try to apply the same standard here as I would to someone who is otherwise a complete nobody. If, for instance, I found out that my hairdresser has been covered in as much depth as the subject of this article has (i.e. basic biographical and genealogical information and mentions of previous places of employment), I would not consider that to constitute significant coverage indicative of notability. As I said before, there might be enough about his career to warrant a stand-alone article, but I'm not convinced. TompaDompa (talk) 21:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - According to you, sources you don't like = run-of-the-mill celebrity gossip regardless of truthfulness. Where is the Wikipedia's policy or guideline that specifically says that this type of source cannot be used as citations or to establish notability which does not even require that he be the main subject of articles? These articles are not trivial mentions of his name but focus on him specifically. Also, a huge amount of articles typically of socialites and models (ex. this and this) currently rely on this type of sources extensively for the content of their pages. If you do not like them, why don't you try deprecating them, then? StellarHalo (talk) 02:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Maybe this is on me for not phrasing it more clearly, but you seem to have misunderstood what I meant by "run-of-the-mill celebrity gossip" – it's not a comment on the WP:RELIABILITY of the sources themselves, but rather a comment on the depth of coverage found within. That somebody wants to move to a different country, is an eligible bachelor, or enjoys playing sports is not in-depth, WP:Significant coverage. If an article in the local newspaper provided the same depth of information about the local baker, I wouldn't consider it indicative of the baker being a notable person suitable for a stand-alone Wikipedia article. I'm not saying that the sources are unusable (I am not familiar with them, so I don't know if they are reputable or more along the lines of WP:DAILYMAIL), I'm saying that the coverage in these articles does not confer notability. TompaDompa (talk) 05:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment TompaDompa Why so serious? I think you are an anti-monarchist and over the moon😂. I knew you at this AfD. You are very over and botched with long comments and opinion🙄. I read your comments and i think there are contain unnecessary material. According to Prince Constantine Alexios AfD, sources he don't like he always said that these are "run-of-the-mill celebrity gossip regardless of truthfulness". Pls don't overtine. Some your opinion are disgusting for me. I'm ashamed of you. Ok VocalIndia (talk) 08:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit harsh and unnecessary. I'm just trying to explain my line of thinking. I wish more editors would apply the "complete nobody" test to people who are mostly known for their relation to a notable person (such as being a notable person's child, parent, sibling, or spouse). The connection to monarchy here doesn't really matter; I find similar or slightly greater depth of coverage about Jasmine Jordan (daughter of Michael Jordan), and I don't think that's WP:Significant coverage indicative of WP:Notability and hence suitability for a stand-alone Wikipedia article, either. TompaDompa (talk) 12:23, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just as I thought, you are not basing your argument on any line of the Wikipedia policy and guideline. There is nothing that says that WP:Significant coverage has to reach that particular "depth" of the coverage you desire. The only thing that it says is that it has to be more than trivial mentions and has to be covered over multiple sources over a long period of time. In this case, we have multiple articles focusing on the article subject specifically providing abundant amount of information. Wikipedia does not by itself decide who is a "complete nobody". We rely on sources to decide that and if sources directly cover them, then they are notable. What they have accomplished in life by themselves, what they are primarily known for, or the reasons for why sources have decided to cover them to begin with are irrelevant. I don't know about Jasmine Jordan but if she has similar level of coverage, then she deserves her own article. I won't be the one to create one for her though since I have never been interested in her or her father. StellarHalo (talk) 21:11, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're mistaken; I'm basing it on the notability guideline WP:Notability (people), more specifically WP:BASIC, which says People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. and If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. Note the explicit focus on depth of coverage. WP:BASIC also says (in an explanatory footnote) that Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing ("John Smith at Big Company said..." or "Mary Jones was hired by My University") that does not discuss the subject in detail. Again, depth. Not breadth. Not duration. Not volume. Depth. The explanatory footnote in WP:ANYBIO likewise uses the exact phrase "in depth" no fewer than four times. Whether coverage of a person is WP:Significant coverage is determined by its depth.

The reason I say we should apply the "complete nobody" test is that we should start out with the assumption that somebody is not notable even if they are famous, and I think it's easier not to apply a double standard if we take the time and effort to consciously consider whether we would have considered the same coverage significant if it had been about somebody we had never heard about. It is indeed true that What they have accomplished in life by themselves, what they are primarily known for, or the reasons for why sources have decided to cover them to begin with are irrelevant., but do editors in general disregard those factors when assessing the notability of individual people or are they influenced/biased by prior knowledge (or lack thereof) of the subject? My impression is that the latter is way more likely. TompaDompa (talk) 21:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What I am trying so say is that there is nothing in that notability guideline that says that "significant coverage" or "substantial depth of content" must reach the specific standard you are seeking. If we are going by the few specifics that are included, multiple news articles addressing a specific person with various types of information about him in details are not mere mention in passing or simple directory entry. In addition, multiple sources could even be combined to establish notability if one does not suffice. Again, the guideline does not say that this type of information or coverage is trivial or lacking in depth and having multiple of them only add to this article's notability credential. StellarHalo (talk) 23:12, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, what constitutes significant coverage is ultimately a judgment call. I don't think the combined coverage from these sources adds up to substantial depth of coverage, but others may disagree (and evidently some do). TompaDompa (talk) 07:27, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Plenty of significant coverage both included in the article and per search. WP:GNG is met.BabbaQ (talk) 16:22, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:54, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mical[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NFILM or WP:GNG, I found no reliable reviews and barely any sourcing at all. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:53, 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: 2020-04 ✍️ create, 2007-10 ✗ CSD R1

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:36, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:22, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:46, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - with no reviews in place then I can only agree that this needs to be deleted as per NFILM and GNG Spiderone 15:46, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article was created by an editor whose activity focus is the production company and films of Darius Shu, though with no disclosed connection. In the case of this new film, searches are not finding better than routine listings and a brief user-submitted review. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON, but I am seeing no evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 22:08, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 21:01, 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. Tone 17:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Caryn Richman[edit]

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

Unremarkable person, minimally sourced, WP:BEFORE turns up nothing substantial. —S Marshall T/C 20:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 20:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:58, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:58, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Google, JSTOR, ProQuest, Gale and NYT searches did not yield WP:RS that showed WP:N. Z1720 (talk) 23:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Just barely passes WP:NACTOR#1 as she had starring roles in two marginally notable TV shows: The New Gidget (2 seasons, US broadcast) and Hollywood Safari (3 seasons, Animal Planet). pburka (talk) 23:26, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- According to which sources, please? If you've been able to find something independent, substantial and reliable then I will need to withdraw this AfD with apologies.—S Marshall T/C 12:57, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - "WP:V doesn't require "substantial" coverage. It doesn't even require independent coverage for certain things. Unless you're claiming that these shows were elaborate hoaxes, they're easily verified. i.e. I can demonstrate that she starred in two or three notable productions, but I can't demonstrate that she passes GNG. pburka (talk) 14:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - NACTOR isn't an alternative to the GNG. It says someone is "likely" to be notable if they've starred in notable productions: it doesn't say that they "are" notable if they have. In other words, I feel that the point of NACTOR is to allow time for sources to be produced. I emphasize that this article has existed for fifteen years and was first tagged as an unreferenced BLP ten years ago. In the circumstances, I feel that adequate time has been allowed, and I put it to you that this biography of a living person should now be either sourced properly or deleted.—S Marshall T/C 16:25, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that she clearly passes WP:NACTOR #1 based on the Brady Bunch sequels, the New Gidget series & TV movie, and 71 episodes of the TV show Texas. --Krelnik (talk) 14:47, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a lot of mentions meaning lots of details. Very long career. Passes WP:NACTOR, WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 21:24, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You seem very confident! Mysteriously, I still don't seem to see any sources in the article?—S Marshall T/C 21:26, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Pburka, passes WP:ENTERTAINER, so it can stay. --☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 20:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia requires actual sources, not IMBd which is not realible. We cannot keep an article on a living person without any reliable sources at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:49, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you change your !vote if we added some references to demonstrate the verifiability of her notable roles, e.g. Robertson Wojcik, Pamela (2020). Gidget: Origins of a Teen Girl Transmedia Franchise. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 9781351734035., Owen, Rob (1999). Gen X TV: The Brady Bunch to Melrose Place. Syracuse University Press. ISBN 9780815605850., and Hixon, Michael (Nov 12, 2013). "'Hallelujah Girls' comes to Hermosa". The Beach Reporter.? pburka (talk) 21:12, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the relevance of Pburka's sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:20, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It was very easy to find sources on Newspapers.com, which has lots of articles specifically about Richman and her work. "Gidget's giggly comeback" (Honolulu Star-Bulletin, 1987) is about her Gidget role, "Texas actress a singer, too?" (Rock Island Argus, 1982) is about her role on Texas, and "Caryn Richman enjoys her move from Tuxedo Junction to Texas" is about her singing career. I would recommend that everybody in this discussion register for the Wikipedia Library, where you can get access to Newspapers.com for free. It can solve a lot of heated AfD discussions. — Toughpigs (talk) 17:26, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Subject had a lead role in the portrayal of an iconic character. BD2412 T 20:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe she meets NACTOR for the roles mentioned above (as well as Grease since she was in the original on Broadway) 1 and the GNG for the sources referenced above. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 15:30, 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, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of New Zealand Test cricket victories[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Complete collection of WP:FANCRUFT/WP:NOTSTATS/WP:NOTESSAY. Almost all sourcing is form ESPNcricinfo scorecards and all the match summaries, with all the undue detail, are written in the point of view of users, not by independent secondary sources such as sports writers or journalists. No other country has articles like this for their cricket teams. The section about the 'Dream Team' is irrelevant trivia. This article has narrowly avoided deletion already. Ajf773 (talk) 10:19, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 10:19, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 10:19, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 10:19, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unnecessary and non-neutral. Harrias ^talk 10:37, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnecessarily detailed content fork from History of cricket in New Zealand. It reads like a personal blog rather than an encyclopedia article. I also removed the aforementioned dream team section. Spike 'em (talk) 11:26, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per all of the above. Has the feel of someone using WP to host their fansite. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:58, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is fluff, and there's no good reason for a list of test matches to only include victories. Having Template:International cricket tours of New Zealand in list-article form might be acceptable, but this article would be of no help to make such an article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, yeah no, delete for the reasons given above. StickyWicket (talk) 09:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete people can view actual test information on ESPNcricinfo and the rest of it is fan written. NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 02:07, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't believe it survived my PROD and the subsequent AFD 3.5 years ago... It's still pointless fancruft. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:45, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this isn't even close. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Please improve the article, though. Only two refs there right now. Tone 17:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nandita Mahtani[edit]

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

It does not written per notability guideline, specially WP:ANYBIO. ~AntanO4task (talk) 10:17, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~AntanO4task (talk) 10:17, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Found a few sources: ^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]

References

^ Alves, Glynda (10 October 2019). "Fashion tips for men: Nandita Mahtani's fashion essentials for men: Well-fitted suits, white sneakers, a good watch". The Economic Times. Retrieved 20 September 2020.
^ "Nandita Mahtani launches Cartoon Network-inspired collection - ET BrandEquity". ETBrandEquity.com. 7 April 2019. Retrieved 20 September 2020.
^ "Nandita Mahtani designs cartoon-inspired line, thrilled to face creative challenges". Hindustan Times. 10 December 2018. Retrieved 20 September 2020.
^ "Cartoon Network and designer Nandita Mahtani launch cartoon inspired clothing collection - Exchange4media". Indian Advertising Media & Marketing News – exchange4media. 9 April 2019. Retrieved 20 September 2020.
^ "Dino Morea & Nandita Mahtani's new venture: A social network for the rich & famous". The Economic Times. 20 January 2016. Retrieved 20 September 2020.
^ Alves, Glynda (31 May 2019). "Designer Nandita Mahtani offers a peek into Virat Kohli's wardrobe, says captain loves sunglasses". The Economic Times. Retrieved 20 September 2020.

So IMHO notability is most certainly there, It's also worth noting Indian subjects don't get a lot of attention compared to say US/UK subjects so leniency is generally given too, Anyway meets GNG by a bare minimum. –Davey2010^Talk 12:19, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep given Davey2010's sources.--Mvqr (talk) 13:30, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. Fails GNG. Priyanjali singh (talk) 14:41, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Priyanjali singh May I ask have you read any of the sources provided or have you simply !voted delete without even bothering to read them ?. –Davey2010^Talk 15:09, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:41, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:41, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:41, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Daveys sources. Within WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 18:53, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources meet GNG. Although it should be a speedy delete based just on the statement that Johnny Depp has style. // Timothy :: talk 07:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per @Davey2010 work on sourcing, it seems that the subject passes WP:GNG. Roller26 (talk) 14:16, 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) 15:06, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abhi Golhar[edit]

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

Article about a small business owner that seems to have been created by its subject -- almost all citations are to his own website or to articles that he wrote in other media. Removing all non-notable content, imo, would result in the article ceasing to exist. { $\mathbb {JPG}$ } 09:17, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:50, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:50, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom self promoting guy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.107.97.137 (talk)
Delete as nom. { $\mathbb {JPG}$ } 18:30, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT. References seem to be puff pieces from non-notable websites and the pieces that aren't such as Forbes and Huffpo (articles written by him not about him) don't equate to him meeting WP:AUTHOR. Glen (talk) 09:55, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject lacks reliable and in-depth significant coverage. Just another self written vanity page with horrendous sourcing. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 09:58, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable, fails WP:GNG --Devokewater (talk) 13:09, 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. This is a page with one surname and several partonyms. The arguments to delete appear stronger. Tone 17:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandrovna[edit]

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

This is not a given name but a patronymic. There is no reason to have a list of women with a Slavic name whose father was someone named Alexander; the list elements are all basically WP:Partial title matches that nobody (except for some close acquaintances, informally) would just call "Alexandrovna". 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 09:00, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 09:00, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Spiderone 14:53, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:44, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It seems to me to be a mildly helpful disambiguation page. I don't see the benefit in deleting it.★Trekker (talk) 08:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- To me it seems a mildly unhelpful waste of time if we start creating such pages for all possible patronymics. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 08:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't really see what makes patronymics different from any other type of name in this regard.★Trekker (talk) 10:53, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not what disambiguation pages are meant to be (per WP:DABPAGE: A disambiguation page is a non-article page that lists and links to encyclopedia articles covering topics that could have had the same title. The purpose of disambiguation pages is allowing navigation to the article on the topic being sought. The information on a disambiguation page should be focused on getting the reader to their desired article.). To my eye, this article is similar to if The Elder (disambiguation) listed everyone called "[Name] the Elder" (Cato the Elder, Seneca the Elder, Julia the Elder, Edward the Elder, Pliny the Elder, Lucas Cranach the Elder, Osorkon the Elder, Helmuth von Moltke the Elder and so on) or if The Third (disambiguation) listed everyone called "[Name] III" (Pedro III of Kongo, William III of England, Robert III of Scotland, Charles III of Spain, Gustav III, Nicholas III of Saint Omer, Albert III, Duke of Austria, Anna III, Abbess of Quedlinburg, Christian III of Denmark, Joan III, Countess of Burgundy, Margaret III, Countess of Flanders, and so on). It would be a similarly bad idea to have an article called Nikolaevich and list everyone from Alexei Nikolaevich, Tsarevich of Russia to Leo Tolstoy and Boris Yeltsin. The problem, as the nominator rightly points out, is that these people would never be referred to as simply "Alexandrovna", "the Elder", "the Third", or "Nikolaevich", respectively. Hence, it doesn't fulfil the purpose of a disambiguation page. An WP:Alternative to deletion could be to redirect this to Eastern Slavic naming customs, as is currently done for Alexandrovich. TompaDompa (talk) 22:40, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:06, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we don't need dab pages for Russian patronymics, but I'm seeing some borderline entries here. Larisa Alexandrovna for example is an American, and whatever the name "Alexandrovna" may have originally been, for her it appears to function as a surname and in the article she's referred to using this name alone. The dab page also lists several royalties, like Princess Irina Alexandrovna of Russia, and even though we've got clear patronymics there, it's possible that some readers of the encyclopedia may be under the impression that this is a surname and search for the person using just that. We could either keep some sort of trimmed-down dab page, or delete altogether and let readers use the search engine. Redirecting anywhere will prevent readers from getting the pages they're looking for. – Uanfala (talk) 10:33, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a name page, not a dab page, so different rules apply. The only alternative would be to redirect to Larisa Alexandrovna, because it is her surname. It is probably more helpful to more readers to have this name page, to help the odd reader who can only remember a mangled version of someone's name - and as "Alexandrovna" is included in most of these article titles we must assume that it forms part of the most common version of their names (a couple are redirects from full name to an article title without this name). There are plenty of pages for all holders of a given name, and I'm sure some of them include the name as middle name as well as first name. There is no reason to delete this one. I've tidied it up. PamD 10:56, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – This is not a disambiguation page, so many of the comments above do not apply. If this page were to be deleted, then should we delete all the Icelandic patronymic name pages too (see [66])? I think not. Hebrides (talk) 12:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not a particularly apt comparison. Icelandic names use patronymic surnames (i.e. the patronymic and the surname is the same name). Eastern Slavic naming customs use separate patronymics and surnames. TompaDompa (talk) 12:46, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, TompaDompa, for clarifying. However, does the position of the patronymic (as the final word in the person's full name or as an earlier word) really determine whether or not there is validity and usefulness in creating a name page? — Hebrides (talk) 18:28, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not the position, per se, but the fact that it is neither a given name nor a surname does. The thing I wrote above about "[Name] the Elder" and "[Name] III" applies (and the same thing could be said about "[Name] Jr." and so on). TompaDompa (talk) 19:08, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a misleading disambig. page. This is just a patronymic, nothing else really. My very best wishes (talk) 01:31, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – This is not a disambiguation page. All comments in this discussion that apply dab page criteria should be disregarded. There are different criteria for Wikipedia:Name pages, which themselves are a special case of the more general category of Wikipedia:Set index articles (SIA). The original justification for this AfD refers to the article as a "Partial title match" – this reasoning is invalid since the Partial Title match criterion applies only to disambiguation pages. — Hebrides (talk) 18:28, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- But this article only makes sense for its navigational function (whether you'd call the page a dab or a surname index). As a "name page" it doesn't have encyclopedic value: given names may be notable, surnames may be notable, patronymic surnames may also be notable, but patronymic middle names in Russian are not. – Uanfala (talk) 18:59, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) WP:Name pages deal with given names and surnames. Non-surname patronymics (such as this one) are neither. TompaDompa (talk) 19:09, 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 Flexible tanks. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flextank[edit]

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

Not notable, could not find sources as there are many products/brands with the name and not sure which one this article is referring to. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 08:10, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. The page name appears to be a brand name, whereas the article appears to be a DICDEF about flexitanks (note the extra "i"). Either way, no evidence of notability. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 08:36, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 13:11, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Flexible tanks, which already has the content. --Lockley (talk) 04:58, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my vote to redirect per Lockley's suggestion. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:17, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Lockley and Dom Kaos: There is also an article about Flexi-bag, so it seems that they should be merged, unless they are about different things. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 07:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Champion They look to be the same, or similar things. Flexi-bag could conceivably be WP:MERGED into Flexible tanks: if you want to propose that, I'd support it. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 08:13, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dom Kaos: I'd prefer not to take any action until this AfD is closed, though. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 08:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Flexible tanks as prefferred WP:ATD. ~Kvng (talk) 15:20, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Flexible tanks, as it is a viable search term for the main topic. Nothing should be merged, though, as this article is completely unsourced. Rorshacma (talk) 16:14, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Jones Hill[edit]

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

Non-notable musician per WP:MUSICBIO and WP:SIGCOV. No coverage. scope_creep^Talk 07:48, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The Grammy nomination demonstrates a degree of notability per WP:MUSICBIO criterion 8, but the guidelines make it clear that such a nomination only means that a nominee may be notable. The fact that he was the producer rather than the album's named artist, combined with the absence of any other significant coverage, add up to a lack of notability. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 08:27, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:48, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:48, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:MUSICBIO. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability not established, for the reasons stated by Dom Kaos above. 1292simon (talk) 08:29, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Okay, this one is a real puzzler. The only decent source, The Houston Chronicle, shows a picture of this person and identifies him as John Hill, a Houston Native. The other sources--which are junk, but I checked some social media links--are for an entirely different person based in Chicago who goes by the brand TeamJohnHill. Both claim the same accomplishment. Something fishy is going on. As for the Grammy, I agree any old grammy nomination--and many are conferred to the point of being ridiculous--should not automatically merit a pass. However, John Hill, which ever of these two people it really is, was nominated for producer of the year, a pretty hefty accomplishment. My suspicion is the self-promoting Chicago John Hill ("TeamJohnHill") is a fabulist, claiming an accomplishment by someone with his same name. But i could be wrong. it's worth investigating. Or maybe it's worth blowing up this article and starting over with better sources. ShelbyMarion (talk) 20:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Like Shelby above, I am also a bit confused on the connection between John Jones Hill and TeamJohnHill. The latter has the Grammy nomination as one member of a production team, and a few other minor accomplishments, so it would make more sense for this article be called TeamJohnHill. In any case, the Grammy nomination may help with notability, but like the other voters above I will conclude that much more is needed. This article may also be an attempted promotion for the guy's management business and his tiny stable of hot singers. ––DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:41, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fosun RZ Capital[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Generic. scope_creep^Talk 07:37, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:41, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:41, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NCORP not established, coverage is routine. 1292simon (talk) 09:32, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. DMySon 03:58, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH, based on significant non-routine coverage from the Economic Times and elsewhere. It's one of the largest venture capital investment companies in the world. Somepiggy (talk) 13:08, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to administrator This editor is the article creator. They have little understanding of what constitutes good references are they're other article was deleted. scope_creep^Talk 15:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will examine the references later on when I wake up. scope_creep^Talk 15:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ref review. Doing the first 6 refs:

[67] Fosun RZ Capital leads $17 million funding round in IRP Systems Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. of a capital transaction, such as raised capital

[68] https://www.dealstreetasia.com/stories/fosun-rz-capital-sci-tech-fund-198454/ of a product or a product line launch, sale, change, or discontinuance Fails WP:CORPDEPTH

Crunchbase. Non-RS.

[69]] Announcement of statistical data Fails WP:CORPDEPTH

[70] Press-release. Passing mention.

[71]] Investment report. Fails WP:ORGIND.

The other 12 references that are very poor are monies raised and funding news. scope_creep^Talk 20:10, 23 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⁺⁺ 15:02, 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 17:31, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rad (musician)[edit]

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

Fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:SINGER. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:45, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Her name makes it difficult to carry out a meaningful search for coverage, but I haven't found anything which would pass MUSICBIO. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 07:50, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:46, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Del Delker[edit]

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

This vocalist doesn't seem notable enough to pass WP:NMUSIC since all the references in the article are primary EXCEPT FOR TWO (WHICH ARE NOT ABOUT THE PERSON AND LIKELY TRIVIAL COVERAGE) and I was unable to find any in-depth reliable secondary sources in a WP:BEFORE specifically about them that would help with notability, just more of the same mentions in Seventh-day Adventist material that are already referenced in the article. I couldn't find anything to indicate she has any importance outside of that though. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:37, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:33, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:33, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:34, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 02:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I don't understand the nominator's argument to delete a well-sourced article like this. Delker was a well-known gospel singer associated with the Seventh-Day Adventist church. That doesn't mean that sources related to Seventh-Day Adventism are "primary"; it means that's where you're likely to find information about her. Independent published books like Light Bearers: A History of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and The A to Z of the Seventh-Day Adventists are perfectly reliable sources; you can't discount sources that are on-topic as "Seventh-day Adventist material". That's like saying that books about the United States aren't reliable sources for George Washington. If you need a non-Seventh-Day Adventist source, though, then here's one from the Oakland Tribune: "Gospel Singer Comes Home; Offers Two Eastbay Recitals". — Toughpigs (talk) 02:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I say sources "related" the church are primary sources? The ones that are from the church are primary and 90% of the in the article are. If you want to argue about the two that aren't are enough to make her notable your free to, don't miss quote me though. Personally, I don't think the couple in the article that aren't primary (and probably extremely trivial coverage) or the one you cited of a local newspaper's coverage of her singing at a local church recital are enough to make her notable, but that's my prerogative. I fully expect the other standard less inclusionists like you to vote keep because she did a recital at her local church once though. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"all the references in the article are primary" — Toughpigs (talk) 05:33, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I accidently left out a few words. So sue me. I updated it. BTW, I love it how nominators have to be 100% perfect in how they phrase and do things, but then none of the keep voters do. Apparently that whole "assume good faith" thing that you where spouting in the other AfD doesn't apply when I'm the one making a mistake. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:39, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: According to WP:NMUSIC, a singer is notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician. Independence is defined at WP:INDEPENDENT as having independence ("advertisers do not dictate content") and no conflicts of interest ("no potential for personal, financial, or political gain"). Evaluating the sources:

IAMA is independent of Del Delker, non-trivial, and published; it is frequently used as a secondary source on Adventist musicians.
Adventist Today is independent of Del Delker (it is not owned by the church and is frequently critical of the church), non-trivial, and published.
Adventist Review is independent of Del Delker, non-trivial, and published. There are a number of quotes from Del Delker in the article, but quotes don't prevent a New York Times article from being independent, nor are the quotes the majority of the article.
Adventist Book Centre and Morning Song eStore are not independent of Del Delker because they profit off of her books and CDs.
Light Bearers is independent of Del Delker. The coverage could be argued as "trivial," but I'd argue otherwise. It is obviously a published source, nor was the book self-published.
Del Delker's autobiography is obviously not independent.

Overall, it would appear that there are four published, non-trivial, independent sources for Del Delker, which satisfies WP:NMUSIC, therefore I vote keep. NorthernFalcon (talk) 15:03, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think your analysis was otherwise fair, I take issue with your statement that Adventist Review and Adventist Today are independent of the subject. The Adventist Review is the official news magazine and TV ministry of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and she worked for the Seventh-day Adventist Church. So 100% they aren't a neutral, independent source. Just like any source who is talking about someone they are connected to wouldn't be. WP:INDEPENDENT says the source can't be affiliated with the subject. The same goes for Adventist Review. Their website says they are a "journalism ministry serving the global Adventist community." So it's not just not a random music review site like AllMusic or similar ones. More so is that particular article not independent though because it was written by Michele Stotz, who is the public relations director of Voice of Prophecy, where she worked. In no way is an "article" by the public relations director where she worked independent. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see that I missed Michelle Stotz being the PR person for Voice of Prophecy, so I accept that is not independent. I still think the Adventist Review passes WP:Independent, because while Del Delker and the Adventist Review author may have both "worked for the church," they worked for different organizations within the church, with significant organizational distance. A similar comparison would be to ask whether a random professor at St. Xavier University, Cincinnati could be considered an independent source on Mother Teresa. While you could argue they both "work for the church", there is obviously no financial relationship between them; and the examples listed under "third-party" would seem to back up that interpretation: "self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, and promotional materials," none of which includes the Adventist Review article. Likewise, from earlier in the WP:Independent article: "A "third-party" source is one that is not directly involved in any transaction related to the subject, but may still have a financial or other vested interest in the outcome." Given the above, I still believe that the Adventist Review and its author are considered third-party to Del Delker, given that the Adventist Review and its author had no financial or vested interest in the outcome; and according to WP:Independent, it is sufficient to be merely third-party (the paragraph directly before the section heading "wikipedia's requirements"). This leaves three independent sources, one more than the minimum requirement according to WP:NMUSIC. NorthernFalcon (talk) 13:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Minor correction to the previous comment: the Adventist Review would be fully independent, because the meaning of "vested interest" is "a personal stake or involvement in an undertaking, especially with an expectation of financial gain." Likewise, from the caption under the picture in WP:Independent: "If you aren't selling it, you're probably an independent source about it." The Adventist Review does not see financial gain from the Voice of Prophecy, nor do they sell the Voice of Prophecy, so I believe the Adventist Review is sufficiently independent. But even if they're not, there's still two other independent sources, which satisfies WP:NMUSIC. NorthernFalcon (talk) 13:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One problem with your analysis is that independence isn't just confined to the outlet that is publishing the article. It also includes the writer of the article. There's zero reason that the PR person for Voice of Prophecy would write an article about someone who worked for them unless there was something to be gained from it on Voice of Prophecies end. It doesn't have to just be a financial gain either. It could also include increased listenership, etc etc. Just like someone from Apples press department wouldn't be an independent source of information about Tim Cook even if Apple isn't being directly being handed cash as a result of the article. They, and Michele Stotz, are being paid by the company both parties work for to write it though. It's immaterial that a one to one correlation of financial gain isn't involved. It is for the writers in both cases though. Since it's their jobs. As far as the random professor thing goes, I'd agree with if we were talking about "who" write the article, but we aren't. The issue where the article was printed. If Debbonnaire Kovacs had of written the article on her/his own or in some "random" magazine, fine. I wouldn't have an issue with it, but it's not a random magazine. A more appropriate analogy would be if the Vatican is an independent source about Mother Teresa's canonization and I'd argue not. Even if it was written by the janitor of the Apostolic Palace. Remember, "editorial oversight" or lack thereof is a thing. It's almost guaranteed that a church printing information about said church or people involved in it (she's not a random singer) will not have editorial oversight or any other journalistic/ethical standards about what they are publishing. Especially a PR person. You could maybe argue that Mother Teresa didn't "work" for the papacy in the traditional sense of an employee/boss relationship, but then you'd just be arguing about semantics. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:09, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I got thrown a little by a minor error in your first comment--I replied assuming that the PR person for the Voice of Prophecy was writing for Adventist Today, when they were actually writing for the Adventist Review. I should have checked that myself, so I'll take the blame there. At any rate, I accept that the article written by Michele Stotz for the Adventist Review is not independent, and thank you for catching that. The Adventist Today journal, however, qualifies as independent, because the Adventist Today journal is not owned by the Adventist church and do not have a financial relationship with the Adventist church. Debbonnaire Kovacs is not employed by the Adventist church, has no known association with the Voice of Prophecy, could therefore expect no financial benefits from any increased attention to Del Delker, and therefore is independent of the subject. As such, we're still at three independent sources. NorthernFalcon (talk) 02:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine. People make mistakes. Personally, I'd say two that are likely usable since independence isn't the only metric to notability and the one about her singing at a church where she lives is pretty trivial and run of the mill. Outside of that though, there's likely just two sources. Which is extremely borderline, but really id be fine if it went either way at this point. Although, I still wish there were at least some reviews of her albums or something similar. Since that's usually the bar of notability for musicians. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as is notable and sources confirm this. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 02:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oughtn't this be added to the radio deletion sorting list? DiamondRemley39 (talk) 02:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DiamondRemley39, Toughpigs did :) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:41, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AleatoryPonderings, isn't that just typical behavior from Toughpigs? Thanks for the update. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:52, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:44, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Darwood Kaye[edit]

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

This actor doesn't seem notable. He doesn't seem to have had any major roles in anything or won any awards for his acting. In fact, apparently he just had a minor recurring role in a single TV show. Also, the article only cites a single source and all I could find about him when I liked was name drops in lists of credits for the show and a few brief mentions in things that weren't about him. Plus, a couple of articles about his death. None of which pass WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamant1 (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:33, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:33, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep: Kaye appeared in the popular Our Gang shorts in the late 1930s. There are two pages about him in the 1986 edition of Whatever Become Of...? (Crown Publishers). There is also coverage in Leonard Maltin's book The Little Rascals: The Life and Times of Our Gang (Crown Publishers, 1992). Examples of Kaye's press coverage include "'Our Gang' Arrives Here for Appearance at Palace" (Fort Worth Star-Telegram, 1940) and "Hit-Run Kills 'Our Gang' Child Actor" (Los Angeles Times, 2002). I believe that this demonstrates notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:19, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is mentioned in several OUR GANG books, with more than a passing mention. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:25, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones? --Adamant1 (talk) 06:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The ones mentioned by Toughpigs,imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Innovative International Multi-purpose Vehicle"? Anyway, I figured those were the ones Donaldd23 was talking about. I just wondering how he/she know the books contained more then passing mentions when only one of them is accessible. All ToughPigs said about them was that they contained "coverage." Which could really mean anything. Especially since one of his examples of "coverage" is an obituary and we all know how useful those are for determining notability (hint: not that much). --Adamant1 (talk) 09:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A book as common/popular as the Maltin one is accessible on the bookshelves of many a classic film fan. There was a time before the WWW when we would go to bookstores and buy these things in order to be informed. $5 says Toughpigs has it on the shelf. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 20:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has reliable book coverage as identified in this discussion so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it's sourced well and "Waldo" meets notability requirements. Most of the Our Gang members will as so many books, articles, documentaries, etc. are still happening, even 90+ years on. The "obituary" I saw was a biographical piece about a notable person, not a paid thing listing dates, survivors, charities, etc. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 21:08, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I checked an obituary is just a news article about someone's death and it doesn't have to be a "paid thing" that lists charities to qualify as one. The problem for me is, that obituaries (and the article is one) are extremely common for actors. Even low level non-notable ones. So I don't think it helps for notability. Especially since it was printing by the Los Angeles Times and he lived in the Los Angeles area. Maybe if it was a national news outlet or something similar, but at that point it might as well be a short piece on Access Hollywood. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:44, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've missed my point that some obituaries, such as this one, cover notable lives and their moments. Moments that, in this case, reached some of the people commenting here, and yours truly many years ago. The notability is that he started in over two dozen films in a highly regarded and still popular series. An article in the Los Angeles Times, which yes covers a lot of film-related stuff, about the life and death of a former child film actor who played in classic movies may be a problem for you, but so far it's only for you. It's all very well for you to nominate many 7th day adventist topics, but you'll have better results if you are choosier. This one was a poor nom and it'll stay in the encyclopedia. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 02:29, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of those articles have absolutely nothing to do with 7th-Adventism. Anyway, "AfDs are a place for rational discussion of whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia's article guidelines and policies." So, maybe get the hell off my craw about it and WP:AGF. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:25, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kaye's obituary appeared in papers nationwide; the article already has a reference to the obit in The Des Moines Register. But honestly, you can criticize every possible reference that you want, because I have this: two pages about Kaye in the 1986 edition of Whatever Became Of...? Click on that link, and then tell me that Darwood Kaye is not notable. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:34, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF --Adamant1 (talk) 03:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that word means what you think it means. — Toughpigs (talk) 03:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was in relation to your comment that me discussing why a source is an obituary was somehow me criticize it. Which totally wasn't assuming good faith about why I was discussing it. Since it had nothing to do with being "critical" about anything. If you were assuming good faith you would not have read negative intent into it. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting WP:AGF to Toughpigs here is practically inconceivable. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 16:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe its practically inconceivable because your perspective on this whole thing is to overly miopic and focused on your "inclusionist comrades" being the virtuous, persecuted ones in everything. ARS people at least seem like a cult and that's how cults act when the behavior of one if their own is questioned. "Oh golly me, ToughPigs doing something wrong? Why I do declare, that's inconceivable!!" All you people need is a fainting couch. Anyway, id appreciate it if you either stuck to commenting about the AfD or stayed out of it. At this point all the bloviating and personal attacks everywhere is becoming disruptive. So it should really end. Adamant1 (talk) 23:25, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. I am withdrawing this nomination, because given the below and [72], it seems much better to deal with the issues in this article through ordinary editing than deletion. (non-admin closure) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wahre und Falsche "Fauen-Emanzipation"[edit]

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

Apparently quite obscure treatise on women's rights and Catholicism that fails WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. The author has a short article in dewiki, but the only hits for the book I can find are in bibliographical entries. Rösler's entry in Deutsche Biographie ([73]) only mentions the book in passing. I would happily be proven wrong about this, but I don't think there's coverage to support an article. Rösler's most famous work, incidentally, is Die Frauenfrage vom Standpunkte der Natur, which does look notable. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:27, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:27, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:27, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:27, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:27, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note Appears to have been created as part of a student course: see Wikipedia:Benelux Education Program/Maastricht University/FPN Historical Book Review Spring 2018. PamD 11:01, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Romaine: and have left a note on their nl.wiki talk page. PamD 11:05, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem a bit obscure. WP:OLDBOOK makes some allowances for older books, but even under the correct title "Frauen-Emanzipation" I haven't been able to find much discussion of the book. (If this is kept, it needs to be moved.) —Kusma (t·c) 09:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If we now have a merge target, move to non-misspelled title, then redirect that (with a slight merge) to Augustin Rösler. Thank you AleatoryPonderings for providing this possibility of an ATD. —Kusma (t·c) 15:16, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @Kusma and PamD: A now-possible ATD is a (delete or merge) and redirect to Augustin Rösler, which I just created. Wahre und Falsche "Fauen-Emanzipation" seems to have a fair number of WP:NOTESSAY/WP:OR issues at the moment, but perhaps we could find some content to merge. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:38, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Merging to the author page is a great solution. This article is obscure but the best part of Wikipedia is finding fascinating bits of nerdy and obscure information, especially history. The only thing I would add is that since the sources are so specialized, maybe there is an Admin or Bureaucrat with subject matter expertise that could take a look at it for accuracy/perspective? SJTatsu (talk) 16:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's well over 40 years since I took German at school, but I remember enough to think that the title should have an extra "r" in it. If so, doesn't that invalidate all the opinions above which seem to be based on the title as given? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:26, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Phil Bridger, I did my searches with the "R" included and I believe Kusma did as well. Sadly, we really couldn't find much … AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reaching out! The article about the book was written as part of the Wikipedia Education Program by a student from Maastricht University in the Netherlands. In the past the university was able to acquire a very old and special collection of old rare books, called the Jesuit Collection. This collection contains rare books that are considered to be important for the involved subject(s), and have played a significant role in how the subject developed over time. The students have received an introduction to Wikipedia, including about encyclopedic relevance, and the university provided them access to the special collection in what the students could choose for themselves which book they would like to write about. If I remember well, this particular book was chosen because the student considered it to be important in line with the Me Too developments, showing how the wish for equality and respect for women has a long history. As the writing takes place during a university course, students only have limited time to find sources. The sources need for a subject like this is because of the age often limited to physical sources, which are spread over many locations and hard to retrieve in the time given by the course. During the writing the student has received feedback on how to improve the article further, by both me (looking from the Wikipedia perspective) as well as by other students and the teacher (looking at it content/academic wise). As I am not so much into the subject, I will ask an expert in the field for his thoughts on the book, hopefully he can explain more what the notability is of the book. Romaine (talk) 15:06, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW. Considering all comments here and precedent per Category:Nominations to the United States Supreme Court, consensus to delete will not develop. Sandstein 07:37, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 United States Supreme Court vacancy[edit]

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

Glaring and embarrassing violation of WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. There should surely be a page dedicated to the nomination of whoever is nominated, but that has not happened yet. KidAd talk 04:39, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ Strong keep Unquestionably meets WP:EVENT. WP:RECENTISM doesn't apply because while yes, this is a recent event, it will have long-term lasting notability. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER disallows original reporting as well as articles whose subject does not have lasting notability. Neither apply here. This article will change rapidly over the coming months, but that is just the nature of articles about current events. For precedent to this article see Merrick Garland Supreme Court nomination. Precedent is not an argument for notability, but it does give a good idea of how this page is likely to evolve and demonstrates the clear sticking power of this event. Paisarepa 04:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:EVENTCRIT, "...not an indiscriminate collection of information or a news service. Wikinews offers a place where editors can document current news events, but not every incident that gains media coverage will have or should have a Wikipedia article" and "Editors should bear in mind recentism, the tendency for new and current matters to seem more important than they might seem in a few years time. Many events receive coverage in the news and yet are not of historic or lasting importance." KidAd talk 04:59, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All due respect, but I think it is glaringly obvious this event will have historic and lasting importance, and will seem just as important later as it does now. PrairieKid (talk) 05:01, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: This is a widely-covered event which we are certain will have historic implications, as well as an immediate impact on the presidential election. The two policies you cite are about day-to-day events which are not of long-term consequence--they certainly do not state that anything in the news is unworthy of an article. Just as there ought to be articles for elections which have not taken place (and as there was with the 2020 VP selection long before Biden was even nominated, much less Harris selected), there should be an article for this selection which has not taken place. I would be alright with later moving the article to "[Nominee's name here] Supreme Court Nomination," to remain consistent with others. But I would not wait for a nominee to make the article. Very, very strong keep. PrairieKid (talk) 04:56, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: This event has worldwide coverage and significance, in addition to significance in relation to the forthcoming presidential election. -- Whiteguru (talk) 05:07, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is similar to more than four years ago when the Merrick Garland Supreme Court nomination page was originally created with the similar title 2016 United States Supreme Court vacancy.[74] Like before, this is still historically notable even though someone has not been actually nominated yet. Both back then and now there is controversy with the major U.S. political parties are debating whether to fill the vacancy ASAP or wait until after the upcoming election. Only this time, the vacancy has happened within weeks before the election instead of months, and therefore becoming a major election issue. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:30, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per above - definitely notable --DannyS712 (talk) 05:40, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Category:Nominations to the United States Supreme Court has 13 members, including all recent nominations. This page lacks only the name of the nominee to be another one, at least as notable as the Garland nomination. Perhaps the article was started too early, but that doesn't change the long-term notability of the eventual nomination of the eventual nominee. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 05:46, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, with a forecast of snow and a suggestion that the snowball clause be invoked before the deletion tag sits on the page for too much longer. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:33, 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. Tone 17:31, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ruby Nealon[edit]

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

This looks like WP:ONEEVENT, with an event that isn't too significant itself. I couldn't find anymore reliable coverage that shows why the goofy incident with Steam is more meaningful than just a minor security breach. – Aranya (talk) 03:47, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Aranya (talk) 03:47, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. – Aranya (talk) 03:47, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. – Aranya (talk) 03:47, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep - I think this just about goes past 1E here - as there's a bit more than just "they released a game on steam". There is a fascinating bit around the subject leaving for university (or how I read this) four years earlier than normal in the UK and also how the game, which has no gameplay sold for over £40 in cases. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:03, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreeing with the nominator that this is an example of WP:ONEEVENT. He managed to hack Steam, the end. It doesn't indicate lasting notability on the part of the hacker._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:01, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a one-time hack as this individual pulled off does not add up to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:28, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - piling on WP:ONEEVENT with the others above. ~Kvng (talk) 15:15, 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. Tone 17:32, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wharf Rats (web series)[edit]

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

Article about a web series, not properly sourced as passing either WP:WEB or WP:TVSHOW. The only notability claim on offer here is that it exists, and five of the eight footnotes are its own self-published primary source content about itself on social networking and streaming platforms, which is not notability-supporting sourcing. And of the three footnotes that are real media, one is just redundant repetition of one of the other two, so there are only two real sources -- but both of those sources are "local guys do stuff" coverage in the creators' hometown media, which is not enough coverage to secure passage of WP:GNG all by itself if it's all this has. To qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia, it requires either a much stronger notability claim (e.g. getting Canadian Screen Award nominations next year), or considerably more and wider media coverage than this. Also conflict of interest, as the creator's username was "WharfRatsPEI". As always, notability is a thing that other people have to confer on the topic by independently deeming it significant, not a thing topics get to give themselves just because their existence is technically verified by a Facebook profile or a YouTube channel. Bearcat (talk) 02:03, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:03, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:03, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - without prejudice against recreation if additional independent sources emerge over time. Sowny (talk) 02:08, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - Of the sources provided in the article, only two are independent. And both are from the same news source, both are very local coverage, and both are pretty much just saying "this is a thing that is being made". Searching for additional coverage turned up a few more mentions, but these were also from that same source from around the same time. It does not look like this web series every gained anything but very local notability. Rorshacma (talk) 17:11, 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 17:32, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lady of Hell (1949 film)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Article about a movie that does not seem to meet the criteria of WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. The references are that of simple synopsis of the movie and cast listings with no additional info about the movie to prove any notability. One is a wiki which holds no value at all. I can't find any other info on the movie to help prove notability. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 01:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 01:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 01:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It looks like the film is actually better known as Lady From Hell. I added content from Inventing Japan: The Making of a Postwar Civilization (Prentice Hall Press, 1991) and The Japanese Film: Art and Industry (Princeton University Press, 2018). The script was written by the famous director Akira Kurosawa, and it shows up as a minor film in works about Kurosawa. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:27, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Motoyoshi Oda (the director). Toughpigs' sources look just shy of SIGCOV to me, and I couldn't find much better myself. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:57, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to pass GNG.★Trekker (talk) 07:57, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Toughpigs's reasoning. --Lockley (talk) 23:36, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Toughpig's reasoning. For a film that is 70 years old, the coverage looks significant enough. TheRedDomitor (talk) 13:16, 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 17:31, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bonanas for Bonanza[edit]

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

Podcast doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG. Coverage is mostly routine. 1292simon (talk) 01:12, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:51, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:51, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reviews as far as I can see and current references are announcements. Not much else to replace them. scope_creep^Talk 07:02, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about the podcast aside from a listicle. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 05:20, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:43, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Becamex IDC[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:NCORP. Subsidiaries may be notable, but this holding company lacks coverage. 1292simon (talk) 01:03, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:53, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm unable to locate any references that discuss this company, only mentions. Fails NCORP/GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:06, 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 08:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rituraj Suresh Jain[edit]

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

Originally a deleted CSD A7 article, recreated, denied another A7 listing, and now I'm putting it here for community input. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:50, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:55, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:55, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a former town councillor and community leader - falls far short of WP:POLITICIAN. Wikipedia is not the place to host an individual's rësumé. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 08:08, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Rituraj Suresh Jain is renowned politician and member of Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP) which is ruling party in India.^[1] GauravJain21041983 talk 16:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.bhartiyajainmilan.com/bhartiyajainmilan/index.php/memberDetails/executiveProfile/id/12.html

Comment. GauravJain21041983 you have commented on the subject's talk page that he has asked you to create the page for him. Please can you clarify whether this is indeed the case? ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:35, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The image also needs to be 86'd, it is most decidedly NOT free, its a screen capture from youtube which makes it copyright by default. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:37, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Suresh Jain Rituraj is prominent politician in BJP party in Meerut and public figure. Thus i have created this page after taking his consent and agreement. I shall update the photograph to 86'd . GauravJain21041983 (Talk) 11:40 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Comment I do not have close connection with subject. Suresh Jain Rituraj is prominent politician in BJP party in Meerut, Minority commission member from Meerut, UP, India appointed by UP Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, held post of BJP President, Meerut Mahanagar (2012-2016) . GauravJain21041983 (Talk) 14:57 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Delete. Does not qualify under WP:NPOL; all the available coverage is routine in nature, and not substantive enough to meet WP:GNG. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:42, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:36, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kasethan Kadavulada (2011 film)[edit]

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

Couldn't find any reliable sources and reviews for the film. TamilMirchi (talk) 00:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 00:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 00:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - plenty of sources on the subject, including direct coverage here [75] [76] and reviews here [77], [78] and here [79]. Confirmation of release here:[80] Feel free to add these and remove nomination. Neutral Fan (talk) 01:34, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete There does seem to be a few reviews, but they are of questionable quality. Especially the third one. Which isn't even a review from what I can tell. Outside of that, confirmations of releases don't count for notability. Since it's already obvious this movie exists or we wouldn't be discussing it. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with Neutral Fan's observations. Sources are credible. Article meets WP:NFILM requirements. Ktin (talk) 05:56, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Neutral Fan demonstrates notability with sources.--Hippeus (talk) 11:02, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My bad, can I close the nomination? TamilMirchi (talk) 22:36, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there is a weak delete vote so it cannot be speedy closed, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:37, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has reliable sources reviews and other coverage identified in this discussion so that WP:GNG and WP:NFILM are passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:37, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Also meets WP:NFILM WP:GNG -- Padavalam🌂 ► 07:52, 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.

[1] Alves, Glynda (10 October 2019). "Fashion tips for men: Nandita Mahtani's fashion essentials for men: Well-fitted suits, white sneakers, a good watch". The Economic Times. Retrieved 20 September 2020.

[2] "Nandita Mahtani launches Cartoon Network-inspired collection - ET BrandEquity". ETBrandEquity.com. 7 April 2019. Retrieved 20 September 2020.

[3] "Nandita Mahtani designs cartoon-inspired line, thrilled to face creative challenges". Hindustan Times. 10 December 2018. Retrieved 20 September 2020.

[4] "Cartoon Network and designer Nandita Mahtani launch cartoon inspired clothing collection - Exchange4media". Indian Advertising Media & Marketing News – exchange4media. 9 April 2019. Retrieved 20 September 2020.

[5] "Dino Morea & Nandita Mahtani's new venture: A social network for the rich & famous". The Economic Times. 20 January 2016. Retrieved 20 September 2020.

[6] Alves, Glynda (31 May 2019). "Designer Nandita Mahtani offers a peek into Virat Kohli's wardrobe, says captain loves sunglasses". The Economic Times. Retrieved 20 September 2020.

[7] ttp://www.bhartiyajainmilan.com/bhartiyajainmilan/index.php/memberDetails/executiveProfile/id/12.html

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[1]