Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 September 27

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 26 September	28 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 no consensus. There is clear consensus here that the topic of the dominant tennis players in recent men's tennis is likely notable, and also that two articles should not exist simultaneously. Which article should exist is best resolved through a merge request. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Big Three (tennis)[edit]

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

This is just a wp:content fork of Big Four (tennis). There is nothing in this article that is not already covered in the Big Four article. Both concepts could be easily described in one article, this new article is not needed. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:35, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Big Four (tennis) per nom. BD2412 T 05:11, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article's creator. Did the nominator even do any checking WP:BEFORE? Big Four is much less notable and commonplace than Big Three; in fact, I'd never even heard the former term before stumbling upon that article, whereas Big Three comes up over and over again (almost ad nauseum). The Big Three are all considered worthy candidates for GOAT, unlike Andy Murray. Each of the Big Three has 17+ Grand Slam singles titles, more than any other male player, whereas Murray's three doesn't even get him a mention on the List of Grand Slam men's singles champions. If anything, Big Four should be up for deletion before Big Three. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:47, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Both the Big Three and the Big Four are probably worth an article. However, the articles only really need to be a few sentences long and it would be clearer if they were combined into just one article. Padding them out with meaningless stats is the issue here. Nigej (talk) 10:23, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This can go two ways - either merge content and redirect to Big Four, or cut off the Big Four article to the time period the Big Four no longer existed. Say from the time Murray got injured. It's a little silly that article is still going forward since there is no Big Four anymore. This article would continue where the Big Four left off. That article is ridiculously huge as it is. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:50, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:25, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Big Four (tennis). Surely the Big Four article can be rewritten to cover the Big Three. Both articles are excessively long and some trimming would be in order. Nigej (talk) 09:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's like the tail wagging the dog. Big Four was briefly(?) in vogue when it appeared that Murray might achieve the same stature as the others, but he didn't. The Big Three, on the other hand, are still dominating men's tennis, without any sign of letup. Big Four is ridiculously long (17K+ words), but Big Three has only 429 words. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:02, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it's more like the Big Two. We don't even know if Federer will come back from that knee surgery and his back and knees are rapidly breaking down. It was probably Federer-Nadal through 2010, the Big four from 2011-2015, and the Big Three from 2016-2019, and now back to a Big Two with Djokovic-Nadal. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:33, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if you count up to 2019 as Big Three, than calling 2020 alone Big Two is quite a stretch. Nadal has not won a major title yet in 2020. Moreover a non Big Four member won one of the three 2020 Majors.T v x1 17:29, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Big Four (tennis)#"Big Three" per nom. There's no clear delineation between the "Big Four" and "Big Three" eras, and it's too early to tell which term will be the more enduring after they've all retired, so we should avoid recentism and instead expand the Big Three section in the Big Four article for now. Somnifuguist (talk) 16:50, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to disagree. The Big Three are unquestionably all-time greats already, even if they all retired today, Murray, not so much, so the former is clearly more enduring. "Big Three tennis" has more than twice as many hits (1.39M) as "Big Four tennis" (0.69M). Also, WP:NOTPAPER. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:29, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Big Three are a subset of the Big Four, so this article about their combined achievements is entirely redundant to (i.e. a content fork of) the article on the Big Four's combined achievements. While it is true that 'Big Three' has become prevalent since Murray's injury/Djokovic's comeback (<3 years), 'Big Four' has been in common usage from mid-2008 [1] until present [2] (>12 years). Somnifuguist (talk) 09:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect. The current Big Three article is a loose copy and paste of some parts of the Big Four article, and is entirely statcruft (see WP:NOTSTATS and WP:LISTCRUFT) . A lot of the Big Four article is also just statcruft, but at least a decent amount of that article is prose. No part of the Big Three article is prose. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:29, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and redirect Big Four (tennis) to this article. It is high time that we finally make our articles accurately reflect the sources. Yes the Big Four term did indeed exist in sources years ago, but that was for a relativity short period. As the years progressed and performances evolved the sources changed their view and even those that claimed a Big Four admitted that there only ever was a Big Three. That is the true lasting term. The Big Four thesis can be dealt with in a due manner in the Big Three article.T v x1 16:52, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure where the evidence is that Big Three is "the true lasting term". Surely it's too early to tell. Anyway the real point is that we only need one article, not two. Nigej (talk) 17:48, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. To those who support "delete and redirect". That's just not possible. If you delete a title there is nothing left to be redirected. It's either delete OR redirect, not both.T v x1 17:32, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think we mean: delete the article by creating a redirect to (a suitably modified) Big Four (tennis). Nigej (talk) 17:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An outcome of 'delete and redirect' would mean delete the article (erasing the history) and recreate it as a redirect. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Big Four (tennis) (which is ultimately equivalent to deleting and redirecting I suppose since this article is quite short). I have no preference under which title they should be merged but I will point out that notability is not temporary, so if the term(s) is/are notable now, they must continue to be notable into the future regardless of whether Federer continues or whatever may happen, otherwise they are not notable topics now. A7V2 (talk) 10:04, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Deleted unnecessary dab page in order to complete move.– Gilliam (talk) 23:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rucker, Missouri[edit]

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

Busted dab page, with one entry. This sucker needs deleted so Rucker, Boone County, Missouri can be moved to this title, since Rucker, Bates County, Missouri was recently deleted as non-notable. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:33, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:33, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:33, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:33, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:39, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ramesh Pandit[edit]

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

Completely unsourced. Couldn't find any English/Kannada sources. TamilMirchi (talk) 21:24, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 21:24, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 21:24, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any significant coverage. Besides, all the roles are small supporting roles. So fails GNG and WP:ENT. - hako9 (talk) 01:58, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dearth of concrete references. Only a single reference cited. Demoticbullmat (talk) 08:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hasn't had a notable role and way below the coverage required to pass WP:GNG Spiderone 09:51, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per rationale by both Hako9 & Spiderone. Celestina007 (talk) 04:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete AGF that the nominator checked for Kannada sources Spudlace (talk) 20:04, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete acn'r find anything notable --Devokewater (talk) 10:32, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Ivanović. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 22:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ivanovich[edit]

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

Per consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexandrovna, we do not want pages that serve as navigational aids (whether you call them WP:Disambiguation pages or WP:Name pages) for non-surname patronymics.

Per my rationale in that discussion, 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 was pointed out in the previous discussion, is that these people would never be referred to as simply "Ivanovich", "the Elder", "the Third", or "Nikolaevich", respectively. Hence, it doesn't fulfil the purpose of a disambiguation page (nor a name page, as those deal with given names and surnames, and this is neither). An WP:Alternative to deletion could be to redirect this to Eastern Slavic naming customs, as is currently done for Alexandrovich. TompaDompa (talk) 21:12, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TompaDompa (talk) 21:12, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. TompaDompa (talk) 21:12, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. TompaDompa (talk) 21:12, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just redirect to Ivanović, of which Ivanovich is an alternative spelling. – Uanfala (talk) 21:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking into the page history, it seems like that's what we did between December 2007 and November 2015. TompaDompa (talk) 21:36, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ivanović. Any information currently unique to Ivanovich should be preserved. BD2412 T 05:13, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Ivanović. PamD 22:48, 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 delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:17, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

La Jeune femme et l'instit[edit]

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

Non notable short film, nothing found in a WP:BEFORE to help it pass WP:NFILM. Tagged for notability since May 2019. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG Spiderone 09:15, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a clearly non-notable film of less than 20 minutes with no significant coverage or reviews.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:58, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Did not find substantial coverage from reliable sources. No likely redirect target. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 21:04, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:36, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Luis J. Echarte[edit]

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

BLP of a subject who has had a successful career in which nothing makes him notable by Wikipedia standards as he lacks coverage in RIS. Mccapra (talk) 20:43, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:43, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:43, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:43, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:43, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:13, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:19, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paap Ki Aandhi[edit]

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

Non notable film, no independent reviews found in a WP:BEFORE to help it pass WP:NFILM. Has notable actors, but WP:NOTINHERITED. Tagged for notability since September 2011. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:39, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:39, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:39, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - concerns around WP:GNG and WP:NFILM Spiderone 06:28, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia needs to stop being an IMDb mirror. I am glad we have not gone as overboard in creating articles on books as we have on films.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jawani Ki Hawa (1959 film)[edit]

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

An article about a Bollywood film. The 3 references are to listings sites, IMDb, the external link, is not WP:RS. A WP:BEFORE search turned up some more listings sites, YouTube clips, and so on, but nothing RS. The best I could find is that the genre is "religious", but not even the plot. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 16:27, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 19:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 19:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 19:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Complete Index To World Film (CITWF) – a UK based internationally-recognised FILM database website and Cineplot.com are both Reliable Sources WP:RS and MuVyz.com website, the Deletion nominator mentions above is another reliable film website. In fact, one of the largest Indian film website being used and accepted by Wikipedia for years. In my view, the article already has enough reliable references. Ngrewal1 (talk) 18:19, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ngrewal1, Database sites do not establish notability. They may be RS for content, but they do not establish notability. // Timothy :: talk 20:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ngrewal1, can you go into detail about how CIWF and MuYyz are WP:RS. Both appear to be film databases, which, WP:RS states, A film's entry in the The Internet Movie Database, or similar databases, can provide valuable information including links to reviews, articles, and media references. A page in the database does not by itself establish the film's notability, however.. Also, neither are listed under WP:FILM/R, which outlines many sites that are reliable for films. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:46, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Let the Wikipedia community decide what has been acceptable for many years now! Have they already changed their acceptability criteria for films? It's getting to the point, where as an editor, I am so afraid to even use IMDb as an External link now or even mention its name on Wikipedia. I absolutely don't use it as a reference in the main article body. As far as I know, nobody ever has objected to CITWF and Cineplot.com being used as sources so far...and I have been regularly using them since 2012.Ngrewal1 (talk) 21:51, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to concerns around WP:NFILM and WP:GNG; needs reviews rather than just database listings to pass Spiderone 14:20, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added 2 new film reviews and references today, passes WP:NFILM now. Ngrewal1 (talk) 16:43, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ngrewal1, I'm looking for the film reviews you added, but can't find them. Are you referring to the two database sites you added? // Timothy :: talk 20:19, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable per WP:N and WP:NFILM, and now with added sources by Ngrewal1 and one by me now. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:NFILM.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: References do not establish notability.

"Rajadhyaksha, Ashish; Willemen, Paul (2014). Encyclopedia of Indian Cinema." A brief entry in a tertiary source. Does not meet SIGCOV.
"Film Review of Jawani Ki Hawa (1959) on MuVyz.com website Retrieved 13 September 2020". A database site.
"(Alan Goble) Jawani Ki Hawa (1959 film) on Complete Index To World Film (CITWF) website" - A database site.
"Films released in 1959 on Cineplot.com website " a database site
"Original Film Poster of Jawani Ki Hawa (1959 film) on pinterest.com website" The film poster on a Pinterest account
"Complete cast and crew of film Jawani Ki Hawa (1959) Cinestaan.com website" A database site

Sum total: 1 brief entry in a tertiary source, 4 database sites, and a Pinterest site with the poster.

It's clear individuals have tried hard to find sources that establish notability, but they have failed to do so. This effort shows the film is not notable. // Timothy :: talk 20:15, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable tertiary sources are perfectly acceptable as per WP:Tertiary, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:35, 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) 23:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Going back 60 years or 70 years ago, if any in-depth film reviews were written for this film or many other films from the 1950s, they have been purged or deleted by the newspapers and film magazines by now to make room for other stuff as their priorities changed with time. It should not mean films from the 1950s or the 1960s are less important now. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and is supposed to preserve things from a historical perspective also. Realistically, if we absolutely insisted on having film reviews for each old film and kept having this dismissive attitude towards the existing film databases, then I am afraid in 2020, hardly any films currently on Wikipedia from the 1950s or 1960s would survive. Wikipedia community has to have a realistic attitude here and think things through before piling up unrealistic demands on 'contributing editors' that are trying to save some legitimate work that they or others have done. One needs to go back and count how many existing Wikipedia film articles hardly have just one or two database references and continue to survive on Wikipedia for so many years. Is Wikipedia community ready to DELETE them all in one big sweep, or give people chance to improve them as best as they can, given the available sources for those old films, under a realistic policy considering how much time has elapsed since they were first released. Ngrewal1 (talk) 17:46, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly and sincerely, I am asking all these regular critics on AfD, to try and add film reviews to some of these old films to move things forward. Their convenient attitude shouldn't be ... either you and others add film reviews or it gets deleted!!! In the meantime, we just sit back and watch you struggle with it. How about giving a chance to improve it as best as one can, considering the age of the film and available sources for it? Ngrewal1 (talk) 21:13, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Ngrewal1, while I understand where you are coming from, posting these pleas on AfDs isn't going to change policy. In order to get Wikipedia to make "exceptions" or "different rules" for older films, you need to present your case in a request. Try reading WP:PROPOSAL and follow the steps. You might get something to happen that way, but posting to AfD discussions you will get a lot of head nods of agreement, but since no policy has changed, that's all you will get. Thanks and good luck. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- The mere presence of sources does not necessarily establish notability. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia not a Database. IMDB (a database) does a terrific job at maintaining records of past films but more than just cast names and release dates are required to make films notable in encyclopedias. If the rules are to be bent for older films then they need to be discussed first at appropriate venues, but until then the film fails WP:NFILM. Sunshine1191 (talk) 08:02, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Donaldd23 Thanks for your above suggestion. Again and still my question is ... how did these thousands upon thousands of films were initially 'accepted', with film database references and ended up surviving for so many years on Wikipedia without having required accompanying authentic 'film reviews' while these same rules existed? It's possible that Wikipedia community allowed it to happen, hoping some future contributing editors would come along and add more references, expand and improve them. Happens all the time, we all know it, with even these rules being there. Ngrewal1 (talk) 17:07, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ngrewal1, Wikipedia's policies change over time. When Wikipedia first started it was a "lawless state" where anyone could post anything without proving it deserved an article. Over time the policies and guidance change and evolve. So, articles that survived many years are now just being looked at and judged based on current policies. Also, the focus of some editors have changed over time. I've been editing since 2006, but it was just this past summer (when I had more time due to the pandemic) that I started looking at film articles that were tagged with "notability" issues. When I started back in May, there were over 1,800 films tagged. Through my work, and many others, we have whittled it down to (currently) under 200. We've done this through looking at each article and searching for citations. If we found enough we added them and removed the notability tag. If we couldn't find enough citations we put them up for discussion (like the one here). Sometimes others find enough citations to save it, other times nothing is found and the article is deleted. But, to your point the fact that some articles survived "so many years" is not evidence of notability and all it takes is one person to add a notability tag to get an editor like me to look at the article for the first time in my life and discover that it fails the policies and guidance specified now by the Wikipedia community. Donaldd23 (talk) 17:45, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The discussion has clearly shown this does not meet WP:NFILM. Arguments have been made asking for an IAR keep, but the absence of sources by itself canot ever be a viable argument; if there are reasons to think this film may be notable despite the absence of available coverage, then those reasons need to be enumerated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 20:30, 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cai Mingchao[edit]

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

I think WP:BLP1E applies to this article. Mccapra (talk) 20:26, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:26, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:26, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:26, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:26, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have been unable to find any coverage of the subject that is not about his bogus bid for two looted sculptures. This seems to be the only thing he's known for. I don't speak Chinese, so that may be a perfectly good reason why I didn't find any other sources. If they exist, and satisfy the GNG, then the article can obviously be kept. The looting of the Old Summer Palace may deserve an expanded section there, and perhaps some of the content can be incorporated. Looted art could probably use a paragraph about China as well. Vexations (talk) 21:14, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the above, not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG, and looks like it could be a case of WP:BIO1E. As Vexations stated, if more, quality sourcing turns up by someone who can do the research in Chinese, than it might be salvageable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the cites from The Guardian, Wall Street Journal and Reuters seems enough to keep the page. His action at the auction was notable and maybe unique. Added to his work and affiliations, seems like a fine page. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the nom. I did not see any coverage outside the auction. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:15, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Looney Tunes Cartoons shorts. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 22:04, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marvin Flag[edit]

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

Non-notable collection of short films, none of the sources in article mention this collection, just the production of the series in general, does not have the coverage to meet WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 19:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:01, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:01, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:01, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Neither of the sources cited even mentions "Marvin Flag". As a second choice, redirect to the parent series, Looney Tunes Cartoons. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:17, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT to List of Looney Tunes Cartoons shorts, which lists them already. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:45, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT to List of Looney Tunes Cartoons shorts. Nika2020 (talk) 23:17, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:35, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Hildreth[edit]

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

Promotional article on an entrepreneur who fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO, article is currently sourced to primary sources, unreliable sources and one dead link. A search brought up a couple of passing mentions and one interview which is here, but nothing that would cause him to pass GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:47, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 13:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 13:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Delete Venture Beat (generally reliable per WP:RSPSOURCES) - [3], Forbes - [4], TheBusinessDesk (reliable?) - [5], Yorkshire Post - [6]. WP:SIGCOV is an issue though, if you exclude all the direct quotations from the sources. I'll reconsider my !vote after other comments. - hako9 (talk) 14:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable entrepreneur. A before search shows media coverage of the subject and if more thorough search was conducted it will yield more positive result. I will now add some few sources to save this article. Northern Escapee (talk) 7:36, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Of the sources you added that are actually worth considering, one of them is a Forbes piece with no author byline that is very clearly a promotional puff piece, and the other is a passing mention. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:40, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further input on the new sources added would assist in forming a clear consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ mazca ^talk 19:14, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. There's at least one additional very reliable source that was added. Bearian (talk) 23:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relative Silence[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBAND, non-notable JMHamo (talk) 19:04, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. JMHamo (talk) 19:04, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:05, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I couldn't find much except for a review on a prog-metal blog, which I don't think qualifies as a reliable source (per WP:A/S and WP:RS). No indication of notability other than this. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 11:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable underground progressive metal band. I did not found any reliable sources, just the usual junk like databases and some retail sites. They don't have an article on eswiki either. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 12:24, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Investment Corporation of Dubai[edit]

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

I could not find significant coverage of this entity to meet the GNG. There were plenty of mentions of it in PR wires about the things it was funding, but notability isn't inherited and the coverage was of the funded entity. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:06, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per Nom. zero evidence of notability.DMySon 11:46, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:21, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - routine, PR-type coverage. Bearian (talk) 23:58, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:49, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ric Heitzman[edit]

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

Notability concerns; the two references are trivial mentions that only verify he worked on Pee-wee's Playhouse; no substantial coverage found. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:41, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:41, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:07, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:07, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a total lack of substantive coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:56, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IN DUST[edit]

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

Does not satisfy WP:BAND. I couldn't find much on this band from third-party independent sources (such as reviews or news): only some blog posts and social media sites. I don't think the band's single Peel Session is enough to establish notability. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 18:26, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 18:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 18:31, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion:? While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2019-05 ✍️ create

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:32, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sectarianism in the Ottoman Empire[edit]

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

This article is an incomplete and not very coherent essay about a topic and it is hard to make a case for its deletion without writing another essay, but here goes:

Is there a valid encyclopaedic topic? Debatable. One of the sources used in the article says “sectarianism is far less an objective description of “real” fractures in a religiously diverse world, and far more a language about the nature of religious difference in the Middle East. Despite the well-documented history of religious violence in the United States... the term “sectarianism” is rarely used in scholarship about the United States. For most American academics... sectarianism remains a topic about other places and peoples. “Sectarianism” is a discourse that has been deployed... to create and justify political and ideological frameworks in the modern Middle East within which supposedly innate sectarian problems are contained, if not necessarily overcome.’ So even just with the title we are in sensitive territory.

Assuming there is a valid topic, is this a valid treatment? No it isn’t. It takes material already reasonably well covered in articles such as Millet (Ottoman Empire), Confessionalism (politics) and Tanzimat and presents them in a way that presupposes that religious differences and differences in rights equate to sectarianism. By this definition more or less every state in history has been ‘sectarian’, but the article does not really explain what was distinctive about intercommunal relations in the Ottoman Empire.

There is something to be written about religious communities in the Ottoman Empire, how they co-existed, and how conflicts arose between them, but this is a topic that requires careful treatment to ensure accuracy and neutrality. I can’t see how the current article is a basis for that. In my view it fails WP:SYNTH, cherry-picking from its sources, and it cannot be rewritten under this title to improve it. I think we should delete it and in time a better start will be made. Mccapra (talk) 18:13, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 18:13, 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) 18:23, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Hull (impressionist)[edit]

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

I was about to move the article to draft but I believe it should be deleted instead. The one source provided is the subject YouTube channel. Generally, the subject appears to be simply a YouTuber with a large number of subscribers. A Google search turns up lots of self-published sources but not much by way of reliable sources. This is why I think the article fails WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and WP:ENTERTAINER. Modussiccandi (talk) 17:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 17:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 18:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:10, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I actually believe this article merits speedy deletion. — motevets (talk) 18:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 20:12, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Decent writeup in a local-distribution paper. Another California new piece there. I've found a few pieces from Huffington Post, but they are very brief. This piece from a newspaper in Kansas isn't really sigcov. [7] from the Today Show. Another brief piece. Gizmodo gives him a short write-up. I'm finding some more similar short pieces (in fact, largely identical ones). With only two decent sources available, and everything else not resembly WP:SIGCOV, I'm gonna say that WP:GNG is not met. Since all the coverage seems related to one viral video, WP:BLP1E also likely applies. Leaning delete on this one, unless another good source can be found. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:50, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Above, Hog Farm found some fairly useful but brief news coverage, but Mr. Hull is a hobbyist who does impressions in his own self-uploaded YouTube videos and picked up some online fans. Good for him but that does not equate to notability here. While this has been sorted to the Bands/Musicians page, the true WP guideline of interest is WP:ENTERTAINER and he has not met the requirements there. ☆☆☆ DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:56, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nika2020 (talk) 23:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 12:23, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about him aside from his voice acting activities. Perhaps a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 09:18, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now, or put it back in the userspace. Per Hog Farm there has been coverage of one viral video and future notability is likely possible, but we will have to wait. Spudlace (talk) 20:15, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Groundwire Ministry[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Lacks WP:SIGCOV in independent, third party publications. Relies heavily on primary sources. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 17:32, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:51, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:52, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vanity church. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:AUD as it lacks serious coverage in traditional general audience media. Graywalls (talk) 01:45, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- If the statistics on usage are correct, this would seem to be a significnat ministry. However, I have never heard of it. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:57, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I emailed to the founder of the ministry and he told me his statistics.Core i3-4150 (talk) 05:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any personal or professional connection to the organization/business? If so, please disclose. Graywalls (talk) 05:27, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just saying you have a connection is enough as per WP:Outing, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Graywalls' inquiry was along the lines of a request for disclosure per WP:COI not an outing issue. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 15:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It needed to be made clear that the editor does not have to detail the particulars of a conflict of interest or reveal personal information Atlantic306 (talk) 19:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and also Salt. I had moved this to draftspace over a month ago as I can see in my draftify log (Groundwire Ministry moved to Draft:Groundwire Ministry at 11:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC)). The draft has been deleted with "history merged" reason on 1 October 2020, besides being deleted twice earlier on 29 July and 9 August 2020 as G11 and G12. That's just the draft, this mainspace article has been deleted thrice as G11, A7 and R2 (possibly the third time R2 on 7 September because I didn't had page mover rights then) ─ The Aafī (^talk) 19:18, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see any coverage in reliable sources. The extravagant claims are unverifiable. "I emailed [him] and he told me" is original research. In 2007, this would be excused, but it's 2020. Bearian (talk) 00:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:35, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KID (2015 film)[edit]

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

All sources are not about film except the first one. Couldn't find reviews. TamilMirchi (talk) 16:51, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 16:51, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 16:51, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Latest COMPLETE OVERHAUL Please read the latest version, I reformat the article into mainstream form and format styles // From no references to WITH references // I added 2 The Star article, 1 New Straits Times article, which are the very notable news websites that brings reliable information. // Remove other excessive external links --User:LoveFromBJM (User talk:LoveFromBJM)
Delete - does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NFILM, which are the agreed guidelines for films; if anyone finds any reviews (at least 2 from reliable sources), please let me know and I may change my vote Spiderone 16:06, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article from Star (RS) is an interview with the film's director where he speaks about many of his projects, Cinema.com is a database (reliability questionable) and not a single review is present. Fails WP:NFILM. TheRedDomitor (talk) 06:46, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agileswari[edit]

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

All of the sources are not mainly about the film. Cinema.com.my and Golden Screen Cinemas are equivalent to IMDB. TamilMirchi (talk) 16:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Latest COMPLETE OVERHAUL Please read the latest version, I reformat the article into mainstream form and format styles // From no references to WITH references // I added 2 The Star article, 1 New Straits Times article, which are the very notable news websites that brings reliable information. // Remove other excessive external links --User:LoveFromBJM (User talk:LoveFromBJM)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 16:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 16:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM. No independent reviews found in a search. Donaldd23 (talk) 19:05, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to total absence of any reviews and any significant coverage; the last 3 refs are passing mentions and the first 2 are short database entries Spiderone 15:48, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the assessments above. Fails WP:NFILM. Sunshine1191 (talk) 08:27, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vivek Singh (entrepreneur)[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

pr cruft, sourced to black hat seo paid for spam (ie. the Statesmen "inspiration hub" etc...) Praxidicae (talk) 16:40, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked sock - hako9 (talk) 17:10, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Not at all PR cruft. DD News is PR cruft? DD News, Forbes India, Deccan Herald, Decan Chronicle are reliable and independent sources. Please check with your information. There can definitely be a scope of improvement but deletion is not a right action. Gradually the page can be cited and supported by even more sources by other users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shubham Dhingra15s (talk • contribs) 16:56, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
article looks legit. what's the prob here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zandburners (talk • contribs)
- Note: This post is the first and only edit of this account. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:15, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant coverage has been found in reliable sources. Disagree with Praxidicae. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shubham Dhingra15s (talk • contribs) 17:31, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability: Verified Sources used. Please check ALL the references.
Original research: does not violates the policy.
Advertisement: No advertisement being entertained here, article is in a neutral shape.
Vanity: article not created by an editor for himself.
Hoax: article doesn't spread any hoax in any form.
Notability: Meets notability criteria, the said person discussed by Forbes, DD News, etc.. Shubham Dhingra15s (talk) 17:34, 27 September 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shubham Dhingra15s (talk • contribs) 17:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Neutral article. 1-2 links as mentioned above are doubtable yet the whole article is backed by strong reliable coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theshivabhar (talk • contribs) 17:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This keep recommendation is the first and only edit of this account. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment,@Þjarkur: @Dhpage: Why abstract reporting for advertising here? Can you please justify? Credible, independent sources have been cited here without any intent of promotion or spam. And you guys are using phrases like "same constellation of spam". Why intentionally neglect the sources with high reputation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shubham Dhingra15s (talk • contribs)
Keep Good citations are there, a few can be further worked upon. More content should be added with proper citations.Demoticbullmat (talk) 08:16, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This keep recommendation is the third edit of this account. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:50, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, same constellation of spam sources as always. – Thjarkur (talk) 19:24, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, spam advertising User:Dhpage (talk) Dhpage (talk) 19:54, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG, pure promo CV-like article about unnotable subject. All sources are either "branded" posts aka simply paid advertising. --Infogapp1 (talk) 10:37, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It appears there is an attempt to swing the balance of this discussion as if it were a vote (it's not) by the use of sockpuppets. Please be aware of WP:AFDSOCK. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 12:57, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 17:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 17:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and others' comments. No evidence of sufficient notability to pass WP:ANYBIO: Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 20:39, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not pass GNG at any level Spiderone 15:30, 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 delete. G7 - author requested deletion. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:11, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

L' Ospedale del delitto[edit]

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

Non notable short documentary with nothing found in a WP:BEFORE to help it pass WP:NFILM except sites that prove the film exists. However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not an IMdB mirror. Tagged since March 2019. Donaldd23 (talk) 16:05, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 16:05, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 16:05, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move to L'Ospedale del delitto (no space between apostrophe and O) and redirect to Luigi_Comencini#Filmography per WP:CHEAP. This film exists ([8], [9]), but I don't see enough coverage to justify an article. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:43, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ AleatoryPonderings, the page should be moved to L'ospedale del delitto, not just the space between apostrophe and O is wrong, the capital "O" does not make sense for the Italian standard (the same sources you linked here report the title as "L'ospedale del delitto", without any capital letter except the article). Probably who created the article is French. --151.54.141.47 (talk) 15:21, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IMDb is not a reliable source and as an attempted comprehensive source in no way can show anything included in it is at all notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have just noted the nominator Donaldd23 failed to report this AfD to the article's creator. He apparently did/does the same for all the Italian titles he nominated/nominates for deletion. --151.54.141.47 (talk) 02:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 151.54.141.47, I suggest you go to WP:MULTIAFD and scroll down to the section Notifying substantial contributors to the article. To quote it, "While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator." So, while it's true that I didn't notify the creator for this article, not notifying the creator is not against any policies, And, it has nothing to do with it being "Italian", but has to do with an issue that I will not go into here. But...thanks for playing. Donaldd23 (talk) 03:59, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Vietnam Airlines Flight 474. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Annette Herfkens[edit]

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

Obvious WP:BLP1E. There is nothing otherwise notable about this person. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:52, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:52, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:52, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:52, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:52, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable author. Her memoir was reviewed in Kirkus and others. pburka (talk) 15:29, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Selectively merge to Vietnam Airlines Flight 474. The Kirkus review was the only full-length one I could find; all the rest of the pieces are quasi-sensationalist descriptions of the plane crash. As this (I think?) is her only book, I don't think she passes WP:NAUTHOR. Alternatively, if someone finds another review or two, we could create a stub at Turbulence: A True Story of Survival and redirect there. It's been translated into at least French and Portuguese, which looks like a sign of notability for the book. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:58, 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:33, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Wii U games that use the Wii U Pro Controller[edit]

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

WP:NOTCATALOG. We've deleted most of the similar peripheral lists in recent years. This is a very incomplete list of Wii U games compatible with a particular controller peripheral, a detail rarely mentioned within their own articles. While LISTN doesn't really have guidance on "List of X of Y", there's zero sourcing discussing this grouping as a group. Almost the entirity of the list is sourced to "The eShop says it is compatible" which means we're literally duplicating a catalog. -- ferret (talk) 14:26, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. -- ferret (talk) 14:26, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Also I'm unsure the validity of a shop listing as a source in general. --Paul Carpenter (talk) 14:49, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:52, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and because there is no evidence that this topic has received significant coverage from secondary sources Spiderone 14:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it is a shame that this free content is being deleted from Wikipedia and will probably end up at some ad laden fandom.com wiki. Wikimedia definitely needs a wiki for things that aren't encyclopedic but still useful. 77.96.44.212 (talk) 15:41, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful." WP:NOTEVERYTING // Timothy :: talk 16:21, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NOTCATALOG and fails LISTN. // Timothy :: talk 16:22, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 22:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom but possibly userify and integrate into the main list of Wii U games at some point?_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:08, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Under ConTROLL[edit]

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

This film was tagged for notability in 2016, shortly after it's creation. It claims to have been released in 2019, but I cannot find anything to substantiate that. I did find trailers for the film, under the title "TROLLS WORLD", from earlier in 2020, but I couldn't find anything else...no reviews, etc., even with all the names attributed to this film. Maybe others can help? Donaldd23 (talk) 12:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - just doesn't seem to have any coverage; someone with more expertise than me in finding German film reviews might be able to dig something up but I can't see anything Spiderone 21:03, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 John Kennedy (radio broadcaster). (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 22:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tape Notes[edit]

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

not my field, and I do not know how strict the standards are for music podcasts, but every reference here seems either from the show itself, or a mere listing about an individual show. The contributor has worked almost entirely on this DJ and his shows. DGG ( talk ) 12:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to John Kennedy (radio broadcaster): Barely found anything about the podcast. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:15, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:34, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cplustv[edit]

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

Non-notable online tv. Unable to find any significant coverage. Article has two refs but they are press release. Fails GNG. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:55, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:13, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:13, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:13, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein ^talk 12:44, 27 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) 00:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2019-01 ✍️ create

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:34, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DoubleTree Suites by Hilton Orlando – Lake Buena Vista[edit]

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

This hotel is not notable and fails WP:NBUILD. Wikiwriter700 (talk) 23:14, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:37, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:38, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or at best, merge into the encompassing Disney property. The hotel is not notable by itself. BD2412 T 00:29, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein ^talk 12:43, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination's guise. Adog (Talk・Cont) 15:54, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages. There are zero indications of notability and I am unable to locate any references to establish notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:04, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:36, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge Spudlace (talk) 20:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Artist Republik[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. UPE. Native advertising for small private company. scope_creep^Talk 12:38, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:10, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:10, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Fails to satisfy WP:ORGCRIT. Celestina007 (talk) 13:18, 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 already speedily deleted by User:Fastily per article creator's request (WP:CSD#G7). Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kalyana Vaibhogam (TV series)[edit]

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

Non notable TV series referenced only by TV listings Fiddle Faddle 12:35, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 12:35, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 12:35, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 12:35, 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) 16:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Khaled Iskef[edit]

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

None of the criteria in WP:JOURNALIST are met, external sources are mostly just the articles he wrote, and current article reads like like a resume.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:08, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject did not involve in any significant case regarded by peers.--☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 14:32, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:12, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable, independent or secondary sources cited on the page or other evidence of noteworthiness. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Arpașu de Sus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dacian fortress of Arpașu de Sus[edit]

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

cannot find any non wiki refs Investigatory (talk) 11:45, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Keep and merge with Arpașu de Sus. The current version describes the town for which there is already an article.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:10, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, although a Romanian commune is the smallest administrative subdivision (on par with a shire?), that does not mean that a village within a commune is not entitled to a standalone article, what is confusing is the title - Dacian fortress of Arpașu de Sus, here is a book about it - Aşezarea dacicǎ de la Arpaşu de Sus, but it probably can be named Arpașu de Sus with information about the fortress in a "History" section. Anyway, this is a keep/rename as meeting WP:NGEO, being a legally recognized, populated place; this website of the commune gives a description of its three villages including, for Arpașu de Sus, that it has a population of 1285, was first recognised in 1589, and includes a church founded in 1799; here is a newspaper article that announces celebrations at the village; here is a listing of a Jewish cemetry in the village; this article from the Land Forces Academy Review in discussing the history of the 1st Romanian Border Regiment lists the location of the 8th company as, amongst other villages, Arpasu de Sus; the Romanian WP article can be used (with appropriate wikitranlsation attribution tags of course:)) to expand it. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I !voted for a redirect to the previously existing article Arpașu de Sus (created in 2008) which can be improved. Do you share that as a solution? --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

but that just redirects to the commune article, i am suggesting a separate village article. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are right! I missed that. The article Arpașu de Sus is a redirect, when I checked the history of the article I did not realize I was cheking Arpasu de Jos instead. Arpasu de Sus seems like the right title for the article so I changed my !vote to keep and merge. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:10, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and redirect Spudlace (talk) 20:23, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Deadpool. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative versions of Deadpool[edit]

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG and WP:BEFORE showed nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV (all fancruft, passing mentions, etc). Article itself is mostly (all) WP:OR based on primary sources. There are no sources that discuss this as a group WP:LISTN that might justify making this into a list. // Timothy :: talk 11:05, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 11:05, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - completely agree with Timothy on this one Spiderone 11:29, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - completely disagree with Timothy on this one. That's because the claim that there are no sources which discuss this as a group is blatantly false. Here's a selection:

15 Most INSANE Alternate Versions Of Deadpool
The Best Alternate Versions of Deadpool
8 Alternative Versions Of Deadpool Stronger Than Him (And 7 That Are Weaker)
10 Insane Alternate Versions Of Deadpool You Won’t Believe Exist
Just How Many Deadpools Are There?
Favorite Alternate Reality Version of Deadpool
The insane history of Deadpool
Chimichangas! A Brief History of Deadpool in Video Games
How many Deadpools are there?
The Craziest Alternate Deadpools In Marvel Comics

And, for a snappy retort, there's a must-have coming soon. That's been devised to create 150,000 different versions...

Andrew🐉(talk) 16:03, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Davidson, The Comeback Creator is a good snappy retort, you made me laugh. It's nice to experience the friendly version of Andrew :) But as for the list above, its all fancruft and this article would be great on Fandom. Best wishes from Los Angeles, // Timothy :: talk 16:43, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant coverage has been found in reliable sources. Dream Focus 18:16, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 19:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The above is a mostly a bunch of vapid clickbait, some of which comes from sites that have as much editorial oversight as WatchMojo. Even if it were all completely valid, it does not discuss the overall topic beyond "Deadpool is wacky." Most of these entries are for single comic characters, and the commentary they offer ranges from literal forum post, pretty much nothing, basic descriptions with no commentary, and some kind of user-ranked voting site. TTN (talk) 20:15, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Deadpool. BOZ (talk) 21:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't fit, so it'd just be deleted and replaced with a redirect. Dream Focus 22:00, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The 6th, 9th, and 10th sources from Andrew's list are not reliable, but the rest look fine to me. Some users may have issues with those websites as sources, but I don't. Rhino131 (talk) 22:35, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per TTN. WP:REFBOMBing with countless clickbait articles is not enough to turn trivial mentions into significant discussion of Deadpool's alternate versions. It's hard to imagine a circumstance in which alternate versions of a character merit an entirely separate article and cannot be mentioned in the article of that character._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:43, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Although several of the sources provided by Andrew Davidson are not reliable (a forum post? Why?), this topic is in fact getting coverage.

https://www.cbr.com/alternate-deadpool-versions/

https://screenrant.com/deadpool-crazy-alternate-versions/

https://www.cbr.com/xmen-deadpool-best-worst-versions/

https://comicbook.com/news/just-how-many-deadpools-are-there-/

https://www.pcgamer.com/deadpool-shorts-fortnite-x-force-salute-emote/

https://www.vulture.com/2018/05/deadpool-secret-history.html

https://www.ign.com/articles/2010/04/07/deadpool-corps-1-review

https://www.wired.com/2012/05/deadpool-corps-squirrelpool/

https://www.gamesradar.com/fortnite-marvel-xmen-storm-psylocke-mystique-gwenpool-domino-nexus-war/

https://www.cbr.com/gwenpool-things-didnt-know-trivia-gwen-poole/

https://comicsalliance.com/deadpool-corps-9-exclusive/

https://www.vulture.com/2018/05/deadpool-secret-history.html

And as much as you guys are looking through fictional character articles for the next big deletion spree, I hate to burst your bubble, but not every "Alternate versions" is fancruft. Comic book characters usually go through multiple iterations throughout their history, and so "Other versions" sections are standard. When there is too much to cover in the base article, it is branched off into a separate article similar to Joker in other media or Spider-Man in other media.

You could argue that specific articles can be merged into the main article with less plot or that some of them aren't notable enough to pass WP:GNG, but nominating every single "Alternate versions" article you come across just reeks of overzealousness.

Case of point - TimothyBlue nominated several of them at once within the same post and one of them was Alternate versions of Batman (which passes WP:GNG pretty easily). Yeah... Dark knight 2149 01:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Listify. The main issue I see is that the above sources like [10] may be sufficient for a list, but not for an article. This might be salvagable, alongside few other alternative versions articles, if it is properly renamed, but frankly I don't see why this cannot be summarized and merged into the main article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:55, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Judging from the deletion rationales, it seems the nominators are already regarding these as lists. Dark knight 2149 02:46, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. Most of the sources here are not reliable sources that should be given legitimacy on Wikipedia. There are a few passing mentions, but not enough to create a stand-alone article, certainly not with this much unsourced/primary material. It's possible to clean up and summarize this, with a few WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS from sources, to merge into another article that meets the WP:GNG. But as is, there is not significant coverage to justify its own separate article. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:15, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Shooterwalker: There are 12 sources above that are from reliable third party news sources (and recognised as such by the community) and the majority of them certainly can't be construed as "trivial mentions". If you take issue with the reliability of sources vetted by the community, there is a noticeboard for that. Dark knight 2149 04:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To elicit further discussion about the sources provided and why they do or don't establish notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:19, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge, I looked through a lot of the sources provided by both Andrew and Darkknight2149. I just don't find any of them compelling for notability them though nice 99% (or all) of them are just top lists that very briefly mention the alternative versions. So, I don't think they or the subject passes the in-depth coverage clause to the notability guidelines. I'd be willing to change my opinion if there was a serious article about the alternatives though. It's highly possible one of the sources was, but that I just missed it. Although, it would take more then one to pass WP:GNG. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:04, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:15, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge I can see how this is redundant with the Deadpool article with not much to cover outside of various plot summaries and excerpts. But there has been a consistent practice to merge comic characters with similar non-notable spinouts. See the AFDs for: Gambit, Storm, Jean Grey, Venom, The Thing, and Rogue, all of which were merged or redirected. Daredevil was deleted, but that's an outlier. I'm sure I missed a few others. I think we should always strive to WP:PRESERVE and use alternatives to deletion. Archrogue (talk) 21:06, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if it helps close this discussion. Deleting or redirecting are also valid but merge seems to be the most conciliatory approach. Allow editors to use our usual editing processes to determine how much (or how little) content should be included in the main Deadpool article. Even after a review of the sources, there is nothing detailed or reliable enough to establish independent notability for this, distinct from Deadpool. Jontesta (talk) 16:16, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Green Party of Alberta. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Wilkie[edit]

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

Non-notable, fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. Poorly sourced, two of the sources are from his party's website and the third is from a blog. Leads a minor party that has never won a seat in the Alberta legislature and has never received more than 0.5% of the vote in a general election. Sowny (talk) 02:10, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Green_Party_of_Alberta#Leaders per WP:CHEAP. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 04:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 04:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Deletion alerts! at WikiProject Green Politics.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 04:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as he is the leader of a provincial political party in Alberta. Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:12, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice against the recreation of a redirect to the party afterward (but delete first because there's no need to retain the edit history). Being leader of a provincial political party without representation in the provincial legislature is not an inherent notability freebie that guarantees an article — it can get a person through the door if they can be properly sourced over WP:GNG, but does not confer an entitlement to have a Wikipedia article without regard to their sourceability or lack thereof. But of the three footnotes here, two are the party's own self-published content about itself and the third is from a blog, which means that exactly zero of them are reliable or notability-supporting sources. Bearcat (talk) 16:53, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I am not sure this articles' topic has obtained WP:GNG, but I will say our hypocrisy in these discussions is deafening. It is clear that there is one set of rules for Green leaders and another for Liberal and NDP leaders (who also lack representation in a provincial legislature). If those articles are a Keep, removing this one is simple hypocrisy. For examples, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naveed Anwar, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mackenzie Thomason, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darrin Lamoureux and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naomi Hunter.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:33, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of political party affiliation per se — regardless of what political party a person is or isn't leader of, their notability on that basis always comes down to whether they're the subject of enough reliable source coverage in media to clear WP:GNG or not. A person who does have sufficient sources can be notable despite their party's lack of electoral success, while a person who doesn't have sufficient sources cannot. You certainly have a right to question whether the media are being fair in their coverage of minor political parties or not, and to believe that they're favouring some parties more than others — but that has nothing to do with any hypocrisy on our parts, because it's not our job to decide that some people are exempted from having to have legitimate sources just because some editors think they might deserve more coverage than they actually have. Our job is to follow the media, not to be the media. Bearcat (talk) 21:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but in some cases one or two (or a few) WP:RS are deemed "significant coverage", and in others they are not. Either, based on claims the coverage is WP:ROUTINE or "interviews" etc. Those decisions seem to vary significantly based on party affiliation. Coverage of Green politicians tends to be regularly dismissed as "coverage of a losing campaign" (some idiot campaigning on a bike, or driving a bio-fuel vehicle etc), while coverage of similarly unsuccessful campaigns by Liberals or NDP leaders are suddenly "in depth" and amounting to "significant coverage". I am sorry, but I do not see these as decisions made divorced from editors own biases. Coverage alone does not explain the deletion of Naomi Hunter if Naveed Anwar, Mackenzie Thomason or Darrin Lamoureux. There was just as much (in some cases more) coverage of her. But that coverage was dismissed, with similar coverage of these Liberal and NDP politicians trumpeted as "significant".--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:39, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Green Party of Alberta: There are not sources that support a stand alone article. If someone can come up with sources, I'll gladly change my vote to Keep. They can make it with BASIC ("If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability") but the sources need to have something more than mentions. // Timothy :: talk 06:47, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:12, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested, with a merger of sources if needed. Bearian (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:40, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Hruz[edit]

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

Fails WP:JUDGE and and WP:USCJN. Note- Wisconsin Court of Appeals isn't a state wide position. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wisconsin Court of Appeals judges are not eligible per WP:JUDGE (there was at least one similar case before).Less Unless (talk) 15:10, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we have decided that the multiple district Wisconsin Court of Appeals is not a level of judgeship that grants automatic notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 September 11 requested a relist of the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:15, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the rationale for deletion is insufficient and there was not enough attention/discussion on this original deletion nomination. The rationale listed is referring to six previous AfDs which were all subsequently resolved in favor of Keep. The core logic was that the judge's office did not confer automatic notability, however, the process didn't go through necessary steps to search out evidence of actual notability and instead relied upon what was present in the (admittedly under-developed) article and the existence of other recent AfDs. It's understandable why these would have been nominated for deletion since there were others also in that process, but those AfDs have now all been resolved in favor of Keep. I will further develop this article to demonstrate notability, but as a general rule, people should understand that the judges of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, while elected in one of four regional districts, create statewide precedent with their rulings and are therefore statewide officers, the same way that members of the state legislature (elected in regional districts, but acting with statewide effect) are notable statewide officers. And each of the judges, with an honest research effort, can be found to be significantly notable in state law. --Asdasdasdff (talk) 16:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:08, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per my usual standards for lawyers/jurists. He's gotten coverage for his political activity as much as being a judge. Bearian (talk) 00:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I will restore the redirect. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Salam[edit]

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

fails to provide sufficient refs for GNG Shubhi89 (talk) 10:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shubhi89 (talk) 10:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shubhi89 (talk) 10:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shubhi89 (talk) 10:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A GoogleScholar profile gives him h-index of 22, with top cited publication of 107. For an Assistant Professor, that's quite qood, but not enough yet to satify WP:PROF#C1 in a high citation discipline like communication engineering. Also, the article was expanded from a redirect by User:Hdrsalam. The same user uploaded the photo to Commons, currently used in the article, with the source specified as "own work". It is likely that we are dealing with a WP:AUTO case here. So taken together, I believe that's a 'delete'. Nsk92 (talk) 11:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOLAR.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:41, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Google Scholar citations are borderline, but not quite enough to convince me of WP:PROF#C1, and the autobiography issues tip me from weak delete to full delete. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:41, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a platform to post ones autobiography.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:10, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm concerned about the WP:COI, and want to confirm whether the original ~~dab~~ redirect page--which was erased for the autobiography--will be restored. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:30, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nsk92 and David Eppstein; we should restore the redirect to Abd al- Salam (name) without keeping the COI-filled page history. XOR'easter (talk) 17:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sure, that'd be OK. Nsk92 (talk) 17:37, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as others have said. If it wasn't for likely WP:AUTO I'd be thinking more along the lines of WP:TOOSOON. -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:15, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — per rationale by Johnpacklambert + no auto can ever be written from a neutral point of view, this individual doesn’t meet the relevant SNG neither do they satisfy GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 18:34, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 21:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Schriner[edit]

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

The subject of the article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Notability is supposed to be based on his perennial presidential candidacy, yet the article provides no actual electoral record or proof that the subject has ever been anything more than one of hundreds of write-in candidates. The article is sourced almost exclusively to first-hand sources (the subject's own web site and articles) and reads more like a promotional piece than an encyclopedia article; third party coverage is limited to a few local newspapers. A presidential candidate needs more widespread media coverage than this to be considered encyclopedically notable. Jah77 (talk) 10:04, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, (not that it matters given this nomination is malformed), subject has received SIGCOV in the Christian Science Monitor:[11], WALB: [12], and NPR:[13]. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:43, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Moved to Terrorist incidents in Iraq in 2020. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 21:57, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Iraq attacks[edit]

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

WP:SYNTH list of completely unnotable unrelated happenings (terrorist attacks, IED explosions, a tribal conflict, an accidental death from an errant mortar shell, a robbery, etc.) being presented as a string of linked events. Really the only common theme is that they caused deaths and happened between late August and now in Iraq. Almost all of the entries are sourced to National Iraqi News Agency, whose articles provide barely any more detail than is contained in this list. There is no way this passes any sort of WP:LISTN or WP:GNG, being basically routine news reporting. ansh.666 01:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: is this not supposed to be something like the pages in Category:Lists of terrorist incidents in Iraq by year? --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:15, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; a few years - including 2020 - are missing from that. Jim Michael (talk) 14:41, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Terrorist incidents in Iraq in 2020. Jim Michael (talk) 14:41, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Terrorist incidents in Iraq in 2020.BabbaQ (talk) 16:19, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. What is the rationale for grouping these by year over all else? —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:42, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:33, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale is the same as for Terrorist incidents in Iraq in 2003, Terrorist incidents in Iraq in 2004, Terrorist incidents in Iraq in 2005 etc. They form a chronicle of attacks in the Iraq wars & insurgencies. Jim Michael (talk) 17:38, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with making Terrorist incidents in Iraq in 2020 but I don't feel like the current page is useful as a starting point. Maybe half of the "attacks" listed are actually terrorist incidents, and all but maybe two or three need better sourcing to even be included in such a list. I think it would be better to start from scratch. ansh.666 03:16, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's no problem with the format/layout of the article. If some of the entries have inadequate sourcing &/or aren't terrorist attacks, the article can be altered accordingly. It's no reason to delete the article. This year should have an article like this, as most years from 2003 onwards should & do. Jim Michael (talk) 05:15, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:59, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22squared[edit]

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

This is an extremely trivial, run of the mill advertish article about a company that seems to be just as run of the mill. Nothing in the few sources contained in it about them hiring people and winning an award help establish the companies notability at all and I couldn't find anything that would in a WP:BEFORE. So, the article is both a WP:GNG and WP:NCORP failure. Adamant1 (talk) 09:23, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (talk) 09:45, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (talk) 09:45, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. The kind of coverage that does exist is routine and trivial in trade magazines; two new clients, a new office, an announcement of a new executive-level hire, that kind of thing. Winning "Best Agency for Social" at the iMedia Agency Awards 2011 is not a distinction that confers notability either. Vexations (talk) 15:37, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:14, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn’t meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. There are sources, but not a plentiful amount. The coverage is also trivial as Vexations mentioned. — Coastaline (talk) 00:20, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment so many buying/splitting/absorptions and it's hard to see if any of it came from the original company but the Tucker Wayne has some signs of notability https://www.nytimes.com/1972/01/17/archives/tucker-wayne-looking-afield.html https://www.nytimes.com/1987/12/30/business/advertising-tucker-wayne-to-join-with-luckie-forney.html I'm incline towards delete under the current company. Graywalls (talk) 00:59, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'76 Press[edit]

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

This publishing company doesn't seem to be notable. There's only three sources in the article and one of them might work for notability. Although it's questionable. While the other two are a blog entry and a link to one of their books. Neither of which establish the companies notability. I couldn't find multiple in-depth reliable sources about in a WP:BEFORE either. Outside of that, it seems like the main purpose of the article is to be a directory listing of archive.org links to what they have published and Wikipedia isn't a directory. So the article seems to fail WP:GNG, WP:NCORP, and also the standard of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Adamant1 (talk) 09:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (talk) 09:41, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (talk) 09:41, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:15, 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) 20:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Coffey[edit]

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

Not notable. Only a handful of sites—pretty much all from his work website and his own Twitter. Not third party sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:C300:1F3:C129:25EB:9937:9753 (talk) 06:20, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Message by the IP posted in the AfD log, deletion discussion page created for them – Thjarkur (talk) 08:26, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – There has been a slow moving edit war on that article since 2014 between various new accounts and IPs (including this IP editor), each accusing the other of an agenda. The subject has appeared to discuss geopolitics on TV, but there is very little coverage directly of him that I could find. – Thjarkur (talk) 08:33, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:04, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:04, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The subject is not notable. It appears this article only exists for its “Views” section which discusses this employee of a think tank’s tweets about the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia. It contains no other “views” information. It lacks many references for support. Perhaps he is better placed in a subcategory of the article on Nagorno-Karabakh, noting which organizations side with which side? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:C300:1F3:C129:25EB:9937:9753 (talk) 15:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, has been quoted as an expert but lacks coverage to demonstrate WP:GNG. – Thjarkur (talk) 11:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being the first non-brit to being a "senior advisor" is just not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:36, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:39, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Belleair Causeway[edit]

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

Article does not meet GNG or GEOFEAT. Single source in article is a blog entry and BEFORE showed nothing that provides SIGCOV discussing the subject directly and in depth.

Bridge is on County Road 416 which is a segment of and has an entry on Florida State Road 686, content was merged and redirected there as an ATD, but the this was objected to, so Deletion may be a better option. // Timothy :: talk 08:21, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 08:21, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 08:21, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only source cited appears to be a personal site about drawbridges, not necessarily a reliable source. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:36, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Author has removed AfD notice four times from article. // Timothy :: talk 16:41, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Ordinarily I would suggest a merge and redirect to the parent article on the route, but there is nothing here that is reliably sourced or worth noting in an encyclopedia article about that route. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:17, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lua (programming language)#Languages that compile to Lua. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 21:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MoonScript[edit]

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

The article does not meet GNG or NSOFTWARE. Sources in the article are not WP:IS. Before did not reveal any sources that provide SIGCOV directly and in-depth, even at the lower standard for open source. StackOverflow showed 122 results over 5.5 years most with one or no answers.

I was going to AfD the article but decided to try redirecting it to Lua (programming language), but the redirect was objected to and reverted. It could be considered an ambiguous search term, so it might be better to delete. // Timothy :: talk 07:58, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 07:58, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lua_(programming_language)#Languages_that_compile_to_Lua where it is mentioned. I was unable to find multiple in-depth, independent reliable sources discussing Moonscript, so agree it fails the notability threshold. But basic facts are verifiable and the brief mention in the Lua article seems of due weight. This is a plausible search term and I don't see ambiguity as a problem, as MoonScript is the programming language and Moon script is the Braille alternative. Hence, redirect. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 08:36, 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 Speedy delete WP:A7. Glen (talk) 08:26, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Kapdi[edit]

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

Fails GNG and SNG. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 07:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 07:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 07:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:CREATIVE, teenage film director with no notable works and no coverage online in reliable sources. Captain Calm (talk) 08:00, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:40, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Novel Construction Initiative[edit]

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

Not a notable industry initiative. No references independent from International Pipe Line & Offshore Contractors Association, and none found. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:51, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:51, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looking at the creator's comment in talk; and their single purpose pattern, this is obviously public relations article. I'm surprised it survived 9 years. Graywalls (talk) 01:26, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:41, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Kemble (actor)[edit]

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

Not a notable voiceover actor. The IMDb link appears to be a different person, and the reference doesn't mention him. I can't find any independent references to support notability; just industry bios such as [14] and book sellers that sell his book The VoiceOver Book. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:44, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:44, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:44, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:52, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to enough sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Cartier[edit]

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

Majority of sources found in a News source only discuss releases by this producer and are not significantly about the producer himself. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Jalen Folf (talk) 05:34, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 05:34, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 05:34, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Charitably it is too soon for a Wikipedia article, while it is also tough for DJ/producers to get specific media coverage. All that can be found on this guy are the usual streaming/retail links and self-created press releases. ☆☆☆ DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:51, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable DJ.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:54, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nintendo Switch games that use the Nintendo Switch Pro Controller[edit]

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

WP:NOTCATALOG. Similar peripheral lists have been deleted in the past. A list of Switch games that use a specific controller (when this is almost never mentioned within their own articles) doesn't deserve a standalone list. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 05:14, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Some manner of icon or column added to the main list would negate the point of this list, so I think that would be a good idea even if this list is removed, however._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence that this is a topic covered significantly in reliable sources Spiderone 09:05, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No need for a stand-alone list. Side note to any potential “but think of all the good info being deleted here” types that pop up for this type of thing - the article is also wildly incomplete. I imagine a good majority of games would be compatible with this controller. However, there’s about 20 games on the list, and about 3000 games on the List of Switch games. So there are likely hundreds (if not thousands) of missing entries. Sergecross73 msg me 13:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, not going to expound on this much. We've deleted nearly all of the similar lists for other consoles under NOTCATALOG grounds, and the list is woefully incomplete. If complete, it would be nearly a duplicate of the main list. -- ferret (talk) 14:21, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 22:58, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional vegetarian characters[edit]

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

Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vegetarians (4th nomination) Virtually no one on this is list is notable for being a vegetarian. It's almost never a WP:DEFINING characteristic of a person (although there are undoubtedly occasional exceptions). The inclusion criteria are currently non-existent, Listed characters are either recurring characters, cameos, guest stars, or one-off characters. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:08, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:08, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:08, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; if there can be a list of vegetarians, why not a list of fictional vegetarians? It's well-sourced, as well. I personally couldn't give less of a crap about this subject, but it's perfectly encyclopedic as far as I can tell. jp×g 05:22, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It would be unfortunate if this list was deleted, serving as a detriment to Wikipedia itself. The information on the page is put "in context with explanations referenced to independent sources" as per WP:IINFO. In terms of WP:DEFINING, that rule mainly focuses on "biographical articles" and this is clearly not a biographical article. Additionally, there are "reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having" something notable, and the defining characteristic is that the characters are vegetarian. I agree with @jp completely. The rationale for deleting the page is ridiculous. It would be better to discuss limiting the page, if necessary, on the talk page rather than going through this deletion process. The only reason that all characters are included is that I believed that keeping it open to all characters would allow for the addition of secondary and one-off characters, but I am willing to revise that in a discussion on the article's talk page. A deletion discussion like this is not the proper way to make such changes to the page. While there is an ongoing discussion to delete the List of vegetarians page, it has been kept times in the past, specifically in 2005, 2008, and vocal opposition to the deletion in 2006. Similarly, in 2006 and in 2019, people voted to keep List of vegans. Additionally, WP:LISTN shows that the rationale of the OP is unfounded:

Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles. There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists.

As a further comment, I don't get why this is listed in the "list of People-related deletion discussions" because the page lists fictional characters, not people. Historyday01 (talk) 05:42, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very informative comment. Thank you, Historyday01. Jmill1806 (talk) 13:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, its my pleasure.Historyday01 (talk) 13:33, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That other nomination is a trainwreck and this one is no better as WP:BEFORE has not been observed. The topic clearly passes WP:LISTN – see the Literary Hub, Guardian or American Taboo, for example. Applicable policies therefore include: WP:ATD; WP:NEXIST; WP:NOTPAPER; WP:PRESERVE; WP:SOFIXIT; &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:21, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Vegetarianism is a social movement and as such representative characters in fictional portrayals is relevant information and context for those interested in this social movement. This is yet once again appearing to be but another attack on this minority group to make vegetarianism seem like a diet and downgrade its social movement significance. There are these lists included in Wikipedia: List of fictional robots and androids, List of fictional swords, List of fictional scientists and engineers, List of fictional plants, and List of fictional pirates. Hence there is much basis and grounds for a comprehensive List of fictional vegetarians to be included. Being a vegetarian character in a fictional context or piece of fiction is a notable part of the social movement and the individual characters do not need to be notable just for their inclusion in the vegetarian social movement to be relevant for research and reference purposes and therefore to be included in such a list. I have seen universities do now offer courses in vegetarian and vegan studies, which they didn't in my day, and this list would have very much valuable resources to offer and be therefore a useful tool to such students enrolled in those courses. BrikDuk (talk) 10:31, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep everything that could be said already has been, no sense repeating it. Dream Focus 16:26, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or move to Vegetarianism in fiction. A list like this is even more worthless than a list of actual people who are vegetarians.★Trekker (talk) 13:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But to many people its worth its weight in cyber-gold, and nicely augments the notable topic "vegetarianism". Randy Kryn (talk) 13:38, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other people liking something doesn't make it good for Wikipedia. In the end anyone could call themselves vegetarian/pescetarian/etc for a week if they wish, its not a good thing to list people based on their diet in my opinion.★Trekker (talk) 14:00, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Kryn is right. Basically you are opposing it because you just don't like it? Yikes. This list has merit as the above arguments have stated. Whether the other pages the OP wants to delete get deleted ultimately is up to those making those discussions. I hope they don't, but even if they do, this page still should remain. So, @★Trekker, I would be willing to make an additional "Vegetarianism in fiction" page, perhaps like the Intersex characters in fiction, which would be titled something like Vegetarian characters in fiction. In the case of the Intersex characters in fiction page, the page originally had a list like this page, but then I split it off, so that one gave a general history, and another focused on intersex characters, leading to the creation of the List of fictional intersex characters. In closing, there are so, so many lists on this site, as you probably know, so why is one focused on vegetarians not acceptable? It makes no sense to me. Historyday01 (talk) 15:20, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Historyday01: No I want it deleted because its ridiculus to list people after a diet. Should we also have List of people who don't eat gluten or List of fictional cannibals? Its not a defining feature of pretty much any actual person or character. Its ridiculous.★Trekker (talk) 15:24, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, as the arguments above have stated, the page has merit. And you are showing that you just don't like the page. Vegetarianism is more than just a diet, as a reading of the Vegetarianism page will show. The proposed pages you list would be undoubtedly indiscriminate collections of information if they were created, but this page is relatively small in terms of the entries and limited in scope. I count 52 entries in all. That's a lot less than the List of anarchist musicians, the List of American conservatives, or List of conservationists to name three lists. As I've said elsewhere in this discussion, I'd be willing to further limit the entries on the page, but that discussion should happen on the talk page, not in this AFD. Historyday01 (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems obvious. I would emphasize that vegetarianism in fiction has been an important social trend. Lisa Simpson being vegetarian in 1995 was a huge event. Jmill1806 (talk) 13:27, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I mean, Lisa the Vegetarian episode was watched by over 14 million people and even received two awards. That sounds pretty prominent to me.Historyday01 (talk) 17:32, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the discussion above. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:13, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Per WP:LISTOUTCOMES, lists are likely to be "kept if they are limited in scope, are based upon concrete criteria for inclusion, have verifiable content, and have a logical reason for their construction." In this case, this list has concrete criteria (characters who are vegetarian), has verifiable content (58 references at the present time), and was created on September 7, 2020 in an effort to cover the topic in some depth, including vegetarian and vegan characters, although it not comprehensive. This page is not an ephemeral listing or violates any other rule that would support its deletion. Additionally, this article has valid sourced information, which can (and should) be assembled in this list, having a potential in the future, following what is laid out in WP:HASPOT.Historyday01 (talk) 22:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, reluctantly. No valid reason for deletion has been advanced. WP:DEFINING is irrelevant as this is not CfD and I have no trouble imagining that a reasonable inclusion criteria could be established. I have concerns about the notability of the subject as established by coverage as a group, but not quite concerned enough to start scrutinizing that at the end of a snowing AfD. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I disagree with your "concerns about the notability of the subject," as I've said before in this discussion, I'd be willing to limit the list as needed, in a discussion after this AFD has closed. The other entries can move to a page titled something like Vegetarian characters in fiction.Historyday01 (talk) 21:35, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 19:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Ribacoff[edit]

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

promotional article by an apparently connected contributor, who wrote this in 2012, and nothing before or since. Performs as a polygraph examiner on television, and the references are just notes about his appearances there. No substantial sources about him that I can identify. DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Holy moley -- of the nine references cited by this article, three are direct links to YouTube videos, one is a direct link to a Hulu video, one is a transcript of a talk show... the reference from the bar association is just an invitation to a golf event, one isn't in English, and the Connecticut Mag reference literally mentions him once in passing. The only remotely acceptable reference is the ABC News one, which quotes him on a few things, but none of the stuff in this article. I can't even fathom how an article could be written from just this source, let alone an article that would pass WP:N. jp×g 05:12, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:56, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:56, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:56, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is no where near adequate sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:50, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:42, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Partners REIT[edit]

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

This is a Canadian real estate investment trust that owns commercial (retail) properties. It was incorporated in 2005 and listed on the TSX Venture Exchange as Charter Realty Holdings Ltd., but converted to a REIT in 2007 and changed names Partners REIT in 2010. It graduated to the Toronto Stock Exchange in 2012 and at its peak it owned numerous shopping malls and Shoppers Drug Mart and Rona properties (or at least the buildings and lots where they were located) across Canada. It sold off its Western Canada holdings in 2018 and then its Quebec holdings in 2019 before going private with its dominant shareholder purchasing all remaining shares and being delisted from the TSX. All this info is from press releases; the company has just been a shopping mall (or big box) landlord and I have been unable to find any secondary sources to establish WP:Notability. maclean (talk) 04:22, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:58, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 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 delete. czar 02:39, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Cline[edit]

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

This guy doesn't seem notable. Both the references in the article are primary and I couldn't find anything in a WP:BEFORE about him that would be usable. There's only basic credit listings for the movies he worked on. Which I don't think his role in as a production designer qualifies him to notable. Especially on it's own and without multiple in-depth reliable sources that discuss him. Adamant1 (talk) 06:11, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:40, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:40, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:40, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:07, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the blog does not contribute to establishing notability and the other reference points to a broken link. fails WP:GNG. The only sources I could find refer to a different person.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:51, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an independent search found no WP:SIGCOV.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:46, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request undeletion of these articles. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:41, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One (Written) Language[edit]

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

While I read the discussion here, it hit me that Norway has had many even less notable parties. Wikipedia got rid of one of them in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beer Unity Party, and while One (Written) Language was not a joke party per se, it fared as badly as one, with 103 votes and no independent in-depth coverage. Also nominating:

Delete all It's baffling that anyone would think a party getting so few votes is notable. Reywas92^Talk 04:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:48, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:48, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:48, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A total of four articles are nominated for deletion herein.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 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. In the absence of any interest from a WikiProject, I don't see the point in shoving it off into some subpage somewhere that no one will use. If anyone actually wants to make some use of this, I am happy to undelete upon request. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:52, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Virus Information Table[edit]

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

This article was seemingly created by a bot or script run by someone who is no longer active on Wikipedia. The article is outdated in multiple ways, including old taxonomic names and missing taxa, and because of its length, it is not feasible to update it manually, so it is stuck in a state of chronic outdatedness. Velayinosu (talk) 02:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Spicy (talk) 02:45, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Spicy (talk) 02:45, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move to a project page. This raw information could certainly be useful, but holy crap this page is huge and unmaintained. It doesn't clearly have a subject that isn't covered by other virology-related articles (list of viruses, virus, etc) jp×g 05:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Make a Sub-page of project page, IF they want it. Otherwise, Delete. Looks like an abandoned class project or paper, but now dated and getting more so every year. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 18:22, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move This shouldn't be in article space. Possibly, it could be a template. Does anyone really find it useful though? Natureium (talk) 20:56, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is used for anything but some of the information may be usable if this article were rewritten in some way. Velayinosu (talk) 01:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no benefit to readers to retain this completely disorganized page with almost no real information. I don't think moving it to the Microbiology Wikiproject (which seems moribund in any event) would provide any benefit since the information does not appear useful except as an overly-long list of every virus the original author could find. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:44, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JEHT Foundation[edit]

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

This was a foundation that was bankrupted and forced to close by its involvement in the Madoff scandal. No evidence of notability prior to or any coverage that isn't about its closure. I don't see anything worth merging into the scandal that isn't already covered here or Participants_in_the_Madoff_investment_scandal#Norman_F._Levy here and no obvious re-direct target. StarM 02:14, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. StarM 02:14, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. StarM 02:14, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. StarM 02:14, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 21:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Navi Lubana[edit]

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

A bunch of sources with non-neutral coverage, certain I believe are fine (like the one from Tribune India, that too is recently published, just two days ago). I don't see if other sources are helpful for GNG. I suspect MILL. Comments please. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 15:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 15:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:48, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He certainly has some newspaper articles describing his place in his industry, but I don't think that's enough for personal notability at this point. Otherwise the article looks like an attempted resume or Linkedin page. ––DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 22:12, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has significant reliable sources coverage such as The Tribune and The New Indian Express articles already referenced on the page so deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:57, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 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. No prejudice against redirecting to the author if that article is kept. czar 19:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moonflower, Nightshade, All the Hours of the Day[edit]

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

non notable book of stories by minor writer. So significant critical attention. Part of a promotional campaign DGG ( talk ) 01:29, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability not established, promotional article. 1292simon (talk) 07:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Uttam Bandu Tupe. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zulva[edit]

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

Zulva is said in the article as book, where it has 'plot' and 'cast'. Anyway, the book does not meet WP:BKCRIT and we do not see its listing in any national library so it does not meet WP:BKTS also. In general does not meet WP:GNG. Chiro725 (talk) 20:53, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:43, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It has a 'cast' because the novel was adapted as a successful play. This is explained in the lead. pburka (talk) 00:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation. But possibly there is no reliable source from where we can assume the fact of its dramatic adaptation as verifiable. --Chiro725 (talk) 08:15, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you claiming the play is a hoax? It's easily verified. pburka (talk) 13:57, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

pburka, not at all. Possibly I could not convey. What I meant is, this is undoubtedly a book, but its dramatic adaptation and the book itself are not sufficiently differentiated. My rationale for nomination was we can not have an article on a book for its merely being book. I could not find any reliable source to verify the fact 'The book Zulwa was adapted into a play written by Chetan Datar for Marathi theatre'. --Chiro725 (talk) 15:02, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you simply search Google Books for "Zulva Tupe", you'll find the play was presented by the Indian National Theatre (I think) and debated by the Lok Sabha. See [15] and [16]. It's certainly verifiable. pburka (talk) 15:34, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:01, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Uttam Bandu Tupe, which mentions this topic by name. In general, if a title would make for a useful search phrase, please pursue such alternatives to deletion before nominating an article for deletion. The sourcing here is on the cusp. We're likely looking in the wrong language, but all that's been unearthed thus far is not sufficient for a dedicated encyclopedia article. Note that mr:झुलवा, a stub, doesn't have additional sources either. Makes sense to redirect to the author and expand summary style. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 00:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested and per WP:NOTINHERITED. Bearian (talk) 00:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested by Czar. No indication the actual subject of the article is notable. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:43, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Westin Washington, D.C. City Center[edit]

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

This hotel is not notable and fails WP:NBUILD. It is not notable just because someone was arrested there. Wikiwriter700 (talk) 23:07, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is not a special hotel location. BD2412 T 00:27, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages. I agree with nom. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:35, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lean keep. I just try to search some information about the building and I found–other than a bunch of reviews–these ~~interesting~~ articles:

https://edspace.american.edu/ak9303b/2016/12/15/the-hidden-history-what-the-westin-washington-d-c-city-center-teaches-us-about-thomas-circle/
https://wsvn.com/news/us-world/the-first-known-person-to-be-cured-of-hiv-has-died-of-cancer/
https://www.johnnyjet.com/the-westin-d-c-city-centers-multi-million-dollar-renovation/

I think someone who might have access to the old news, like Washington Post articles or anything there (D.C.) that related to this subject can help to expand it. ~~There are some interesting stories there.~~ Samuelsp15 (talk) 12:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some other sources that might can be considered to support the building's notability, besides that arrest of the D.C. Mayor.

https://edspace.american.edu/bc8016a/2016/12/15/the-transformative-effects-of-the-city-on-the-westin-city-center/
https://www.bizjournals.com/chicago/news/2016/08/15/chicago-hotel-among-20-u-s-properties-hacked.html
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/diamondrock-closes-on-the-495-million-hotel-portfolio-from-blackstone-162626726.html
https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/roadwarriorvoices/2017/10/17/20-most-popular-hotels-washington-d-c/770874001/
https://www.bisnow.com/washington-dc/news/hotel/dc-hotels-experience-rough-first-quarter-slowed-by-government-shutdown-98659#ath

I think that the unique thing about this hotel–beside that arrest–is its impact on the surrounding community, especially about the hotel's influence on the gentrification of its neighbourhood. ~~I am also looking forward to expand the article (at least a little bit) if this discussion resulted in keep.~~ Samuelsp15 (talk) 15:00, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After reconsidering this for a while, I decided that this article can be deleted. The reason is the subject received a lack of sufficient coverage as per sources above, which only gave a few statements about the hotel (for at least now, 2020), except for those two academic papers (which unfortunately cited some unreliable primary sources), a press release from the PR Newswire (which gave some coverage about the hotel, but this still needs better source(s) to support the claim), and a coverage by JohnnyJet.com that reported the renovation of the hotel (good coverage, but may need additional reliable source(s) to clarify this if possible). This article may be recreated by providing more information–other than the arrest of the D.C. mayor–that received significant coverage from reliable sources, which can support the notability of the building (hotel). Any merge or redirect are also recommended. Samuelsp15 (talk) 15:33, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete . I think a whole bunch of the hotels in Westin Hotels & Resorts along with this one should be merged into one. A re-direct is cheap. It can always be made later. Graywalls (talk) 07:47, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 02:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Walkers Corner, Missouri[edit]

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

GNIS calls this a "populated place", but I'm questioning that this is a real community. The topos never show more than one residence at the site. The rather comprehensive state historical society handbook doesn't mention it. I'm not finding any meaningful Google books hits. Appears to be the location of an isolated farm. Whatever this is, it fails WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG. Hog Farm _Bacon 01:17, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 01:17, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 01:17, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I created this article, but looking into it I think it was a mistake. The only mention of this community I could find was the obituary of the owner of a grocery store there, so I'm thinking it's a named crossroads rather than an actual community. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into county entry per my post on Sagrada: there's no reason why a suitably-motivated person wouldn't be capable of finding out more about the place, the GNIS entry and historical records pretty reliably establish that the place does/did exist, obviously not a hoax or contentious in any way -- nobody's going to get misled by this article existing whether it's an article unto itself or a subsection of another page. jp×g 05:25, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think it would probably have been better to BUNDLE these nominations, since they all proceed from the same general premises, and arguments that are valid for one will be valid similarly for the others. jp×g 05:25, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This was likely a corner of the road where a Mr. Walker lived, no evidence it was a community, less a notable one. The county article need not mention every non-notable name that has been on a map within it. Yes, someone is going to be misled because this is not a community, the article is downright false with its mass-produced present tense. Reywas92^Talk 06:44, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, articles on counties are not the place to randomly list every single road in an area. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:40, 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 delete. czar 02:34, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adavi Kaachina Vennela[edit]

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

Completely unsourced. No reliable reviews. The only source found was [17]. TamilMirchi (talk) 00:42, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 00:42, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 00:42, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 19:07, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - concerns around WP:GNG and WP:NFILM Spiderone 06:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:19, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hermione Johnson[edit]

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

I'm not seeing sufficient notability for this composer and musician. Provided sources are self-promotion (# 1, 2, 4) and passing mentions (#3,5). There's a few more in the latter category that are detectable by searching, but that seems to be it. Possibly WP:TOOSOON. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:15, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:15, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the nominator. This composer is certainly visible online but almost entirely in industry directories and promotional announcements. Not enough reliable and significant coverage for notability, despite some respectable accomplishments in her field. ––DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:15, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per what User:doomsdayer520 and Elmidae had said.Person may be a little notable but not enough for a WP article.Acidic Carbon (Corrode) (Corrosive liquid) 13:35, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, think it maybe too soon and maybe at a later date when more is written about them. Not that it should affect the deletion to much but I also note that the page creator has been banned as a sockpuppet. NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 20:24, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 12:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:13, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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