Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 September 28

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 27 September	29 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Hassan Khan[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Subject is a college student who ran and lost in a 2019 election. Does not meet WP:NPOL nor is there enough independent sig coverage in RS for GNG. MB 23:18, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MB 23:18, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MB 23:18, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I was in the process of making a nomination, so I'll repeat the argument I was making: The only source mentioning him more than just by name is the Yorkregion.com source, which just put all the opinions of the candidates there, effectively making it a primary source. Bottom line: No sources exist that count toward GNG. Username⁶⁸⁹² 23:24, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:42, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. A candidate for office does not automatically get notability and there are no sources that show WP:N. A search of Google, JSTOR, and Academic OneFile and newspaper databases did not produce additional results. Z1720 (talk) 23:02, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not done yet, which is way it has been moved to UserSpace for now until it's completely done. Woodbridgenews (talk) 02:18, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Woodbridgenews, can you post the additional sources you are going to use in the article? I'm not sure this person has enough notability to warrant an article and I don't want editors to feel like we are deleting their hard work. After the sources are posted below, editors will give their opinion on recommending keeping the article or deleting it. Z1720 (talk) 03:12, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned earlier this person is not notable yet, but will become notable in the near future. I was going use his website as one of the source which states he's making a new provincial party in Ontario. That is why I moved the article back to draft from Userspace. Woodbridgenews (talk) 01:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Woodbridgenews Unfortunately, Wikipedia doesn't predict future events, and we usually do not keep articles if the person will be notable in the future. Instead, editors look at sources available now to decide if we should keep the article. Creating a political party doesn't guarantee the person will be notable, and I suggest looking at WP:NPOL and WP:GNG to understand Wikipedia's guidelines for a politician's notability. Also, none of the sources I found mention Khan's plans to start a political party. Are you part of this person's campaign team or know this politician personally? If so, I suggest reading WP:COI to understand Wikipedia's policies on editing people we personally know. Please message me on my talk page if you have any questions or concerns. Z1720 (talk) 20:17, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I read that if the person is going to be notable in near future, then we must move the article back to UserSpace or Draft. And yes I was one of the volunteer for his campaign. Woodbridgenews (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We need to firmly stop volunteers on campaigns from being able to contribute to articles on the person they are campaigning for. We also need to stop crystal balling, we have no idea what will happen in the near future, all we know is that Khan does not currently meet notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:48, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know he's not notable yet, and we don't know about what's written for the future. But I believe he's going to be notable soon with having the provincial political party. I am going to move to article back to draft page and will publish it when Khan is notable. Woodbridgenews (talk) 08:11, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also as per notability guidelines it states that we can have articles as draft for people who are going to become notable in near future. Woodbridgenews (talk) 08:13, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete oer nom --Devokewater (talk) 10:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify to allow the editor the time they wish to continue to develop this article. Note that the discussion here must conclude prior to either draftification or deletion, and it should reman where it is pending decision.
A deleted article is not lost. It may be refunded by undeletion with the correct arguments woven at the time it is requested Fiddle Faddle 13:11, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article as it stands cannot survive in main space Fiddle Faddle 13:24, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and oppose draftification. The subject does not meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG, and there is no indication that giving the author more time to work on the article will fix the fundamental problem which is that he is not notable. Spicy (talk) 14:33, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to go with the option draftification, as it will give me more time to edit. And the notability of Khan can change in near future. Which is I request this article to be moved to Draft. Woodbridgenews (talk) 07:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without draftification. Spam produced by a member of his campaign team, in its current form the article is written in a promotional tone. Zero independent reliable sources, no evidence of notability. 86.23.86.239 (talk) 01:39, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES and WP:TOOSOON. Far too soon. Bearian (talk) 00:08, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftification as per Wikipedia guidelines a article can be moved back to draft until the person is notable. It should be moved to draft instead till Khan becomes notable which he is going to become in near future. Woodbridgenews (talk) 01:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing how he is going to become notable in the near future, and per Per WP:CRYSTALBALL we don't create pages on people who might gain notability. His sole claim of notability is standing as a candidate in the 2019 Canadian federal election, where he received 165 votes, or 0.3%. His official campaign website has 6 pages and 3 policies, and hasn't been updated since the 2019 election. There's no secondary coverage in any reliable sources, and the only newspaper coverage is a direct quote from the subject. The next Canadian federal election is in 2023, and there's no evidence that he plans to stand in that election, let alone being a notable candidate. 86.23.86.239 (talk) 13:08, 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein ^talk 13:56, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rollin H. Person[edit]

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

Fails WP:USJUDGE. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:16, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep; "served on the Michigan Supreme Court from 1915 to 1917". Supreme Court service is easily confirmed. Please review more carefully in the future. BD2412 T 23:37, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep State Supreme Court justice ae notable-thank you-RFD (talk) 23:46, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:44, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep State Supreme Court justice. Passes WP:NPOL --Enos733 (talk) 07:07, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination. State Supreme Court wasn't mentioned before (but yes, I should have checked). Clarityfiend (talk) 09:33, 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 keep. Fenix down (talk) 21:48, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1997–98 Kent Football League[edit]

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

This follows a discussion here about the notability of season articles for leagues at this level of the English football pyramid. Points for consideration:

Is the topic covered enough in reliable sources?
Does this violate WP:NOTSTATS?
Is there potential for passing WP:GNG? Spiderone 21:10, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:10, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:10, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:11, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 21:13, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Season articles at this level have existed for ten years or so, as clubs at this level are already considered notable. One or two editors have recently created articles for seasons going back further. Bearing in mind the season's fixtures and events are covered by all the clubs involved, and the relevant local press, I think they would easily satisfy WP:GNG if they were properly developed, if they don't already. The issue is that a lot of these, especially the recent creations, don't include many sources. I did mention that to the editor involved, but he hasn't really taken it on board. The rationale for the creation of season (and club) articles was always that the league in question should operate within the top ten levels of English football, and satisfy WP:GNG. Today, this league does operate within those parameters. Whether it did in 1997–98, as the pyramid system was different then, I don't know. Whether that matters here, I am not sure. The article could and should be developed. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:33, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note – Those editors who regularly create articles of this exact type should also be informed of this discussion, as if this one is deleted, then presumably the other few hundred season articles at these levels will also go. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:35, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified everyone that took part in the initial discussion on the project talk page. I've now invited three other major contributors to the discussion. Please let me know if any others have been missed. Spiderone 22:05, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Drawoh46 and User:Kivo regularly work on this type of article. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:07, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted, thanks Spiderone 22:59, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here you can see the previous AfD on topic. The general consensus is that the season articles are limited to those leagues whose clubs are notable, i.e. down to Step 6, which is cut-off line to enter FA Cup. As you can see here all the similar (look 9-10 levels line) articles are creating each year. So I cant see why we shouldnt have the previous seasons articles. Martinklavier (talk) 21:43, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As both the league and clubs are deemed notable, I think it follows that league seasons are also notable. Although it's going to be a bit difficult to find online due to the age of this particular season, there would have been regular media coverage of the league's games in the regional press, plus some by the BBC (the Kent League is part of regular BBC Football reports like this or this), so I think it would pass GNG. There was also quite clear consensus from a couple of previous AfDs that seasons at this level are notable, i.e. this and this Number 5 7 21:43, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While there may be prior consensus that these divisions are notable, consensus can change. I feel like there is such limited and sporadic coverage of these leagues that the content is limited to results, league tables and changes from the previous season, which is surely the definition of violating WP:NOTSTATS. The ones I've looked at have nothing that would indicate that they are notable as anything other than "something that happened". A sports league existing and its results being recorded is hardly out of the ordinary, and beyond bare results, very few stats are recorded by anyone other than the clubs themselves. I'm sorry, but I don't see anything particularly notable about a league table and a results grid, especially this low down the football pyramid. – Pee Jay 22:42, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I support the arguments of Martinklavier. Matilda Maniac (talk) 05:27, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep League is now deemed Step 5&6, which is notable enough for a season article, and even back then it was a feeder to the Southern League. Plus, member clubs were competing in the FA Cup that season, so more than notable enough in my opinion. Kivo (talk) 09:06, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Bretonbanquet and Number 57. I'd prefer to see some sourced prose as well as a league table, and whatever's in these creations must be sourced. But that issue isn't unique to league seasons at this level or of this age: if we're talking NOTSTATS, 2018–19 EFL League One has screensful of largely unsourced tables and four lines of prose. As to coverage, while it doesn't go back as far as this particular season, the Kentish Football website covers this area's football at a level way above bare results. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:42, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - even though I !voted 'delete' last time around; there is more coverage of the lower leagues now and consensus (at both sets of AFDs) is clear. Giant Snowman 10:50, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments I find it somewhat odd that people are forgetting how important WP:GNG is to an article. At current, this article completely fails GNG. There is one link, that's it. I strongly suggest this be moved to draft space for the issues to be addressed. I am not against if the article was properly source. But I find the keep votes strangely floored in my opinion. Govvy (talk) 13:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added a few lines of prose and a few references, at least as a start. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:52, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm still failing to see anything that makes this particular season of the Kent Football League notable. The content you added is certainly part of the history of the clubs in question, and no one is doubting the notability of the clubs, but what exactly is the encyclopaedic value of this article? – PeeJay 22:35, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not sure I really understand the question. What's the exact encyclopedic value of any other article, which this one may lack? Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:45, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Some indication that this season is memorable for anything other than simply happening would be nice. – Pee Jay 22:50, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        If we are to delete every article which just recounts something that happened or something that exists or once existed, then that'll run into the hundreds of thousands. I'm not sure subjects of articles are required to be 'memorable' beyond the general notability guideline. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:57, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        I would like to raise the question according to current season articles. What should we do under this approach? Should we wait till something memorable happen and then create an article and if not, then article shouldnt exist? Martinklavier (talk) 06:34, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        As an example, is 1890–91 Football League memorable for anything other than happening...? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, it was the first time Everton won the top division of English football. I'm just curious as to how we decided that this level of football was notable enough to be automatically eligible for an article. At least with the Football League, there has been coverage in national newspapers since the year dot, and it's a professional level of the game. What's so special about the Kent Football League or the North West Counties Football League? They've never been anything other than regional leagues, and if they had any professional status in the past, that is long since no longer the case. – Pee Jay 13:21, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Okay, so how does this subject meet the general notability guidelines? – Pee Jay 13:21, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't think anyone is suggesting that it does Spiderone 14:51, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        That's literally the argument that User:Bretonbanquet is using. If they're saying that these subjects don't need to be particularly memorable beyond the GNG, then obviously they're saying they meet the GNG, and I don't see how that's the case. – Pee Jay 15:56, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Who says they have to be professional? What has professionalism got to do with anything? A topic does not have to be covered in the national press to be eligible for an article, and as I said originally, and others have said, these leagues are heavily covered in the regional press. If your issue is that non-professional football does not belong on Wikipedia then that's a much wider issue than can be tackled here. As for GNG, then yes I do think this article satisfies it. Significant coverage in reliable sources / non-trivial mentions (FCHD and NLM), plus official club websites, all independent of the subject. Is it the back page of the tabloids? No, but it doesn't need to be. This coverage creates an assumption of notability, to my mind, backed up by the clear consensus here and at the other AfDs which people keep throwing up. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:56, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        I have never said that non-league football doesn't belong on Wikipedia, so I would appreciate it if you wouldn't put words in my mouth. I totally agree that articles about the teams and the leagues themselves should be included, but I think articles on the individual seasons of each league shouldn't. Articles should not be created if the GNG cannot be satisfied, and in this case, the GNG are not satisfied. My argument about professional leagues is that they are a bright line between the top levels of football and the lower levels that other organisations such as the BBC and Sky Sports use when determining which matches to feature in their news coverage. You're arguing that club websites are independent of the subject, when in fact they are quite the opposite; clubs have a vested interest in covering the division their teams play in. FCHD is also hardly non-trivial, as it covers every team down to a certain level and while it is comprehensive and reliable, with all due respect to User:Richard Rundle, it is little more than a fansite. The season pages for each of the lower leagues, by the way, only include a league table and a list of changes from one season to the next – hardly anything other than routine. Not sure what the NLM is so I can't respond to that, but to my mind, you've yet to provide any evidence of significant coverage of these leagues. – Pee Jay 20:00, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Maybe you should read again what I said, I did say if that's what you're saying – it seemed to be the implication. We're not going to agree here so I see little value in filling the page up with chat. I would say though that if you're fine with the teams and leagues themselves satisfying GNG, there's a bit of a contradiction there as the source material for those articles is largely the same as for this. NLM (Non League Matters) is used in the article we're debating, so maybe take another look. More recent season articles at this level often include results, stadia, maps, cups etc – routine or otherwise, sometimes exactly the same as for EFL, depending on which editors maintains them. Again, maybe take another look. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:25, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        I have taken several looks. I guess my standards are just higher than yours when it comes to properly establishing notability. – Pee Jay 20:31, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Your standard of reasoned argument not so much. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:36, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Remember WP:NPA. – Pee Jay 20:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        It also applies to you, in case you were unaware. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        If you could point out where I made a personal attack, I'd be most grateful. – Pee Jay 05:08, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per Bretonbanquet, Number 57, Kivo, Martinklavier and others. It has previously been established that season articles for leagues operating at Level 10 and above in the English Football Pyramid are regarded as notable. This league operated at the level which is now equivalent to the present Level 10, so, along with others of a similar nature, should be retained. Drawoh46 (talk) 18:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note. Just wanted to add. As have been said higher consensus can change, of course. But, for many years we have a clear, accurate, and extremely well-defined consensus which continues to be supported every time someone decides to create AfD - all the clubs ever eligible for FA Cup are notable, then all the leagues they played in at the moment are notable and all the seasons the league was presented in FA Cup are notable. The criteria provide a clear cut-off line of what is notable and what is not. Personally I followed these criteria creating season articles, the same relates to ones who create seventeen 9th/10th-level league articles every summer for upcoming seasons. We have a similar consensus for players which is working fine for many years: if a player appeared on the field for the Football League club (even for one minute, even in a cup game) then he is notable, otherwise - not. Consensus around club seasons is working too. Noone still didn't offer new criteria for league seasons articles, which is necessary if you don't like the old one. Taking into account a large number of articles under discussion we can't afford to create AfD for every particular article (or even for every particular league) and decide whether it satisfies GNG or not. I accept that the articles are stub-class and need to be improved but no more than, for example, the article about the Football League of the same year. Cheers, Martinklavier (talk) 07:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not difficult to find some coverage of matches in this league. If the argument against individual articles for teams seasons at this level is that there's a league article ... there needs to be a league article. Nfitz (talk) 21:50, 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. Sandstein 20:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mara (elephant)[edit]

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

Single news event, in May 2020 an elephant was moved ~~from a zoo in Argentina elephant sanctuary in Brazil~~ from a zoo in Argentina to an elephant sanctuary in Brazil. Fails WP:EVENTCRITERIA #4 - a routine kind of news event, and WP:SIGCOV - multiple news sources but they are publishing the same story. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:16, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 September 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:41, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:47, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:47, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unfortunately I am glad that Mara will enjoy her remaining years in a setting where she is being well treated, but I have to admit the nominator's diagnosis of its eligibility as per the rules is correct. Sorry, Mara. Capt. Milokan (talk) 21:26, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found a source in Portuguese with a in-depth coverage about this elephant. However, I'm not quite sure if this, one source, is enough to "save" the article.--SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 06:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. // Timothy :: talk 04:28, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Torriano Primary School[edit]

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

Non-notable primary school. Gets the type of local coverage one would expect, but fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:48, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:48, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:48, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Netley Primary School[edit]

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

Non notable primary school. Gets mention and the type of local coverage one would expect. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:25, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:48, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

o Keep - This nomination is obviously not true. The Economist, BBC, ITV, Times, Daily Mail and Evening Standard are not local coverage. It is one of the most prominent state primary schools in England which is why it has got that coverage. Fosse1884 (talk) 12:30, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the BBC, ITV and Evening Standard references are plainly trivial mentions, and based on the part of the article I can access the Economist and Times references appear to be as well. I see no substantial coverage. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:13, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spring Rewards[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG. Short lived business that was only in two cities, references are dead. The most SIGCOV is on the business shutting down Rogermx (talk) 20:20, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:50, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:50, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All references are dead, as nom notes; the only coverage found is like [1]. No particular claim of notability. Doesn't appear to have ever met WP:CORPDEPTH. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:16, 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 delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chantinelle[edit]

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

This articles relies heavily on primary sources and there is no evidence to indicate its notability. Northern Escapee (talk) 17:58, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northern Escapee (talk) 17:58, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -2pou (talk) 20:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failing WP:FICT, WP:GNG and WP:NOTPLOT. The article, in its current form, is a largely unsourced plot summary of the fictional character, which is not significantly covered in any reliable sources. A redirect to Hellblazer is possible. --Dps04 (talk) 11:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lack of reliable sources to meet WP:WAF and WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 20:21, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I prodded it with "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. " so obviously I support deletion, but I don't see why the nom couldn't just wait for the PROD to be accepted or declined? If it was accepted it would have spared us the discussion here, and so far there are no arguments from anyone trying to save it, nor such arguments have been presented after my PROD. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:07, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Early relist with addition of the comics sort.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 2pou (talk) 20:16, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Hellblazer characters#The First of the Fallen. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 08:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First of the Fallen[edit]

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

It fails general notability guidelines and there are no available source that can be used to establish its notability.The sources cited are mainly external links. Northern Escapee (talk) 17:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northern Escapee (talk) 17:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -2pou (talk) 20:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only primary sources are available, so it fails WP:NOTPLOT and WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 20:20, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I prodded it with "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. " so obviously I support deletion, but I don't see why the nom couldn't just wait for the PROD to be accepted or declined? If it was accepted it would have spared us the discussion here, and so far there are no arguments from anyone trying to save it, nor such arguments have been presented after my PROD. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Early relist with addition of the comics sort.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 2pou (talk) 20:15, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Hellblazer characters#The First of the Fallen as a valid alternative to deletion per WP:ATD-R where he already has an entry. If he is truly the archnemesis of Constantine, this is at least a viable search term. This doesn't establish notability alone, but it's from a source that shows a redirect is at least suitable. -2pou (talk) 09:58, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chamiso, Arizona[edit]

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

Another SP siding gone after double-tracking. The spot is just south of the Benson airport, which wasn't built until 1999; otherwise the area is a another big blank spot on the nap. Mangoe (talk) 20:02, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:51, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:51, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Mass-produced false content, zero newspapers.com results for a supposed community, just some mentions of the siding. Reywas92^Talk 23:13, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another railroad facility mistaken for a community. No indication it was a community or notable in any other way. Glendoremus (talk) 03:03, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete More hits on Atriplex canescens, AKA Chamiso. Every mention in newspapers.com that is not about the bush is about rail incidents near this siding. No indication it was ever a populate place. MB 05:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neither notability nor populated place for this locale is established. The 1915 and 1926 Benson, Arizona 1:250,000 quadrangle shows only "Chamisco" and nothing else. The 1943 Benson, Arizona 1:250,000 quadrangle shows only a siding symbol at Chamisco. Later, the 1963 Nogalaz, Arizona 1:100,000 shows double tracks at "Chamisco Siding". At most, the 1:24,000 quadrangle maps show only "Chamisco" and "BM 3848" by a railroad track. None of these maps show any populated place or structues associated with "Chamisco". Likely as discussed above, it is ony an insignificant, defunct railroad siding. Paul H. (talk) 17:48, 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 deleted as G11. (non-admin closure) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:16, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jahan Geneve[edit]

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

I have created this article somedays back. It was suddenly speedy deleted for promotional today and I recreated the article while trying to rectify the issue mentioned as the reason for deletion. But still some editor think it should be deleted. I am nominating my own article for deletion to let others decide if it should be there as an article or not. Chiro725 (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:05, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NOTADVERTISING. Native advertising. No effective references. scope_creep^Talk 20:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can you please say how it fails WP:CORPDEPTH, when it says "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. " and also says "Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization. ". In fact the references indicates the brand satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH as for example this, this, this, this etc. Don't you think the same?--Chiro725 (talk) 21:55, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:52, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP no significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Theroadislong (talk) 21:37, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can you please elaborate how you say "no significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" when we have this, this, this, this and many others?--Chiro725 (talk) 21:57, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A photograph, a Forbes puff piece article and a YouTube video do not make reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 22:05, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Two Forbes Frances articles. Forbes is deprecated, its non-RS. The other eight refs are junk. A shop, an announcement, a profile page and so on, all fail Corpdepth or Orgind. scope_creep^Talk 00:27, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This vote may be redundant given the speedy (I don't know which takes precedent), but here goes FWIW. I don't see anything suggesting notability. If the company were a bona fide luxury brand with such a long history etc. as claimed, it would surely have been covered more extensively and/or by more 'serious' media (ATM the closest we get to that is probably Luxe.net, which may or may not be RS); the fact that it hasn't, suggests that it isn't. As it stands, fails WP:CORP. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:57, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi Folks!! The article has been deleted by CSD'd per G11 by user:Jimfbleak, so this Afd is moot. Somebody needs to close it. scope_creep^Talk 11:04, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To my untrained eye, having a CDS and AfD running parallel seems odd, but what do I know... Mind you, on this occasion a bot may have been partly to blame. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:38, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lian Pham[edit]

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

paid for spam, sourced to the typical PR puffery, non notable author/entrepreneur Praxidicae (talk) 19:55, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Patent WP:PROMO nonsense and new-age Silicon Valley psychobabble is better suited for LinkedIn. KidAd talk 22:50, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an overly promotional article on a non-notable person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Highly promotional and sourced to lots of ancillary coverage. Does not appear to meet any notability guidelines. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:16, 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 redirect to Huachuca City, Arizona. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Campstone, Arizona[edit]

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

Yet another isolated rail station/siding, this time on the outskirts of Huachuca City. There is a small cemetery there, but every reference to it that gives anything like a description calls it either a station or a siding. Mangoe (talk) 19:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:10, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~Weak Keep~~ Campstone was part of a previous blanket AfD which had a procedural keep. Having a separate AfD ~~for Manzoro~~ is fine with me. In the previous blanket AfD, Reywas92 wrote: "Delete ... except for Campstone: [2][3]. I would encourage a List of stops of the Southern Pacific Railroad or similar to include mention without the need for separate pages." In the previous blanket AfD, Pontificalibus wrote "Campstone was the station serving Huachuca City, Arizona (source) so should redirect there." The references indicate that there was a community there. However the 1906 railroad reference does not mention a post office at Campstone. Cxbrx (talk) 15:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've change my position to delete. Campstone does not meet WP:GEOLAND #1 and the coverage is trivial so it does not meet WP:GEOLAND #2. Cxbrx (talk) 16:32, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Huachuca City, Arizona where it's already mentioned, per my comments at previous the AfD. It's a previous name for that place as well as the name of the former station there.----Pontificalibus 05:39, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That passage is uncited, and the topos suggest that it isn't true. What they and the aerials show was that the place was built as a subdivision at the north gate of the base, well away from the railroad and named "Huachuca Vista"; a second subdivision was built on the south side of the rail line east of Campstone named "Huachuca Village", both to support military base, and in 1958 the two did indeed vote to incorporate. This I can cite here, but there's no mention of Campstone in the article. This clipping is part of a large collection of material on the place at the Arzona Memory Project, and I will have to see of any of it specifically discusses Campstone, but our article onthe CIty needs work in this area and cannot be relied upon. Mangoe (talk) 18:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I gave a source in the first AfD for this redirect: "Campstone or Huachuca City depending on whether you are a railroad man or a resident". But here's another: "Huachuca City (which had formerly been known as Camp Stone, Campstone, and Huachuca Vista)" and another: "First called Campstone Station, then Sunset City, the name was changed to Huachuca". These three sources are preferable to looking at maps, which only show a single point in time and which as you've demonstrated require some interpretation.----Pontificalibus 18:32, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Pontificalibus. I find mentions in newspapers in the 20s & 30s like [4] and [5] that justify the redirect. MB 05:14, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Huachuca City, Arizona: per above // Timothy :: talk 04:30, 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 23:13, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Camilla Tyldum[edit]

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

does not appear to pass GNG Graywalls (talk) 19:23, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 19:23, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 19:23, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 19:23, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, amateur sportsperson. The "weight incident" was not extensively covered and would be, you guessed it, undue weight. Geschichte (talk) 10:41, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find coverage of her that would show WP:GNG is met. There's also no evidence she ever competed on an adult national team, much less competed at the level necessary to meet WP:NSPORT. Papaursa (talk) 21:48, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

4th millennium in fiction[edit]

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

This is a collection of trivial references. The fact that a whole bunch of speculative fictional timelines pass through this period doesn't seem interesting, and the notability of that isn't established in third-party sources. Relevant guidance: WP:IPC -- Beland (talk) 18:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 18:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of the page, I can offer the traditional reason for creating pages like this in the first place: so I don't have to spend the rest of eternity removing fictional examples from the 4th millennium page. If you want to take on the responsibility of deleting this page, take on the responsibility of patrolling 4th millennium. Serendi ^podous 19:48, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Either the material belongs in Wikipedia or it doesn't. If it doesn't belong, having a dedicated article for it to be dumped isn't a solution; it actually makes the unwanted material a permanent part of the project. Leaving a note not to add fictional entries (or describing the narrow cases where they are welcome) would probably help. -- Beland (talk) 23:39, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beland:If I leave a note not to add fictional entries, how do I explain the fictional entries in every other future century and millennium article? Serendi ^podous 00:26, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Serendipodous: Since there seems to be consensus this type of material should be deleted, I've removed it from all those articles. -- Beland (talk) 17:10, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:10, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Category:Fiction set in the 4th millennium exist, as do a lot of categories for different time periods. Not sure if any of them are really that useful. Dream Focus 20:16, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:48, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's no real commonality here. The setting could be changed to the 5th millennium, the 10th, the nth, without making any real difference. It's just a number. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:58, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are not any sources that actually discuss concept of fiction that takes place during the 3000's as an overall topic, so there is not really any way the article could be developed. And, as it stands, it is nothing more than a mostly unsourced list of pop culture references. Like Clarityfiend said, there's no real link between any of these works aside from the fact that they happen to take place somewhere between one and two thousand years in the future. I certainly sympathize with the article creator's motivation of wanting to keep this endless list of trivia off of the main 4th millennium article, but like Beland said, creating a separate list for it does not solve the problem as much as just shunt it to another area. Rorshacma (talk) 00:09, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fiction set in the 21st century, 22nd century in fiction, and Far future in fiction have the same problems. The latter already has a notability tag from May 2019. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:42, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: FANCRUFT, fails NFICTION _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:57, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:59, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as entirely constructed from original observations from editors. I don't envy the people who patrol articles like 4th millennium, but this is where it helps to expand on our guidelines and edit protections. Archrogue (talk) 20:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:IINFO and unverifiable in practice. There are no sources for any of this, and so it doesn't even begin to meet the WP:GNG. Wikipedia articles are also WP:NOT#PLOT details compiled together. Not only should this be deleted, but I'd lend my voice that this shouldn't be re-created as a section in the 4th millennium article. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:12, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources specifically about the 4th millennium in fiction, unlike Far future in fiction where at least there are sources that could be used to write an article, though not one that resembles the existing version. I sympathize with Serendipodous's comment about keeping this sort of material out of the 4th millennium article, but corraling the material into a non-notable article is not the answer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:23, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Now that we have adults who have lived their entire lives in the 21st-century, is it not time to stop treating "fiction set in the 21st-century" as a default sub-section of only science fiction? I think that article needs a huge rewrite at this point, unless there is no unifying topic at all. Considering Wikipedia was inagurated in the 21st-century I am not sure how the article has come to be so oddly formatted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:47, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The article might be better named Nineteenth and Twenteeth Century fiction set in the 21st-century.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:47, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With Category:Fiction set in 2001 the train wreck of treating the fictional setting of time as a unifying trait has happened. One work in that article is 2001 a Space Odyssey (novel). Then there is a Start Treck episode made in 1999, the 2009 Japanese novel Another, the 2001 young adult novel Born Blue, the 2010 audio drama The Demons of Red Lodge and Other Stories which is related to Dr. Who, the 1956 Robert Heinlein novel The Door into Summer (which is also set in 1970 and 2000, it involves complex layers of both hard sleep and time travel), Doxology (a 2019 novel where the main characters deal with the impact of the events of Sep. 11, 2001), Flight (a 1995 novel that has a very confusing setting, but does involve 2001 I guess), Golden Wind (manga) a manga written from 1995-1999 set in 2001, El grito a 2004 Argentine novel set during Argentina's 2001 economic meltdown, Love Money a 2004 novel with the main character in NYC during the Sep. 11th attacks, Marching In a 1970 short story by Isaac Asimove set in 2001, My Year of Rest and Relaxation a 2018 novel set in NYC in 2000 and 2001 that does not actually say much of Sep. 11, The Orange Mocha-Chip Frappuccino Years a 2003 novel that is set in 2000 and 2001 just because that is the recent past, the pilo to (The 4400) which has a lot of past settings. A few more works. Only 3 of these (2 novels and 1 short story) were written more than 7 years before 2001, and there are 18 more novels that are categorized as related to September 11th. At least for 2001 the majority of fiction set then treats it as the present or the past not the future. This treatment of thesse as a unified group makes no sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:32, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as sources don't cover this as a distinct topic. There is nothing discriminate about this millennium compared to any other point in the fictional future, and a redirect to science fiction would be the most this deserves. Jontesta (talk) 20:52, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indiscriminate listcruft. Largely unreferenced and original research._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:31, 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) 17:10, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Communist Workers' League of Sweden[edit]

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

Another political party (or "group"?) of Sweden. Groups on the extreme right and left tend to get more coverage than the typical run-of-the-mill party. But tha articlea about this splinter group is not supported by any coverage, tokens of significance, historical role etc. Warrants one sentence in the article of the group it split away from. Geschichte (talk) 17:44, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:11, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is no sourcing to justify this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-significant and fails WP:GNG- Sjö (talk) 08:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Communist_Party_(Sweden), as a splinter faction of the main party. 86.23.86.239 (talk) 01:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Since there is no content about this at any possible redirect target and a redirect with no context may lead some people to think the two are the same, I don't agree with a redirect. // Timothy :: talk 04:34, 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 Procedural close. It appears notability of these may be mixed, please nominate separately (non-admin closure) Reywas92^Talk 18:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish political parties[edit]

Swedish political parties – (View AfD)

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

These political party articles are remnants from another time, when the tendency on Wikipedia was that every single political party ever are notable. That is not the case, because tons of these parties are even more lacking in independent in-depth coverage than they are in popular votes. This discussion prompted me to check the Swedish situation, and there were a lot of parties too insignificant for an encyclopedia. I therefore nominate, as a start:

Geschichte (talk) 17:38, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose collective deletion. Some nuance needs to be adapted here. Most of these parties are/were solely local entities. The 'Donald Duck Party' is a very well-known phenomenon, a bit like the Monster Raving Loony Party in the UK. The Popular Democrats was not a local party, and should be valued on its own merit. Also, we have to observe particularities of Swedish electoral system, whereby one can vote for parties that didn't field any candidates. --Soman (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hardly think the Donald Duck Party was anything like the Monster Raving Loony Party. I had the latter in my school textbook, an indication that it was known at least throughout parts of Western Europe. The Swedish electoral system is irrelevant as long as the parties in question get almost no voters and no coverage. (Also observe Wikipedia's articles on newer Swedish elections, where parties <500 votes aren't even mentioned.) Where is the significant independent non-trivial coverage? Geschichte (talk) 20:07, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close without action. Inappropriate mass nomination. Nominator provides no actual arguments regarding individual article subject notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 22:35, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The same argument applies to every one of the entitities, lack of in-depth non-trivial independent coverage. The "individual subject notability" in each case is none. Geschichte (talk) 07:18, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question: "The Swedish electoral system is irrelevant"? — Toughpigs (talk) 22:53, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The fact that write-in candidates may be voted for is not interesting as long as the write-in candidates don't get votes, or in-depth non-trivial independent coverage. Geschichte (talk) 07:18, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that the write-in system means that a party may receive votes without having even registered any candidates. Thus parties that have effectively ceased to exist keep appearing in election results. Regarding the Popular Democrats, seems they emerged from Arbetarlistan which had a degree of notability at the time (but seemingly not well covered in internet sources). --Soman (talk) 17:09, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How was your WP:BEFORE search of each in Swedish? I could find e.g. sustained and non-trivial news coverage about Donald Duck Party ([6][7][8][9][10][11]). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:10, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, some of these may be non-notable, but this nonmination seems poorly thought out.★Trekker (talk) 12:37, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion. The only party listed I'm familiar with, Drevvikenpartiet, is pretty clearly notable as it's one of the largest parties in the Drevviken area. (Disclaimer: I used to live there.) On that basis there are probably others which are notable and I have to oppose the proposed group deletion.Tammbeck ^talk 13:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per WP:GNG. With that said I guess notability of all parties might be in question on individual level. But most are so I say Keep.BabbaQ (talk) 16:41, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep all. I don't think a proper WP:BEFORE search was done and the mass nomination format here has wasted more time and trouble than it was supposed to save. Individual items can be re-nominated if the WP:BEFORE checks are carried out. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:00, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose collective deletion. Each article should be nominated separately (if the nominator still thinks it's necessary) and a proper WP:BEFORE should be done.Less Unless (talk) 17:59, 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 delete. Sandstein 20:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discovery Space[edit]

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

Notability not established by third-party sources. Promotional in tone. Web site seems to have gone offline after a few years. Beland (talk) 17:36, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 17:36, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 17:36, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no independent references for this website and no claim of notability. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:19, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:13, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Sidney Hyman[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, relies on primary soruces. Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 17:53, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 17:58, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not only exclusively primary source, but exclusively ~~self-published~~ non-independent primary sources, Agricolae (talk) 17:58, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Calling published medical journal articles "self-published primary sources" is a baffling misunderstanding of both "self-published" and "primary sources". The Lancet and Nature could not be called "self-published' by any reasonable standard. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, accidentally used the wrong adjective. Fixed now with respect to the first, but a scientific research reports and position papers are indeed primary. Agricolae (talk) 20:03, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All of the references are by the subject of the article and it is doubtful that significant RS can be found to source the statements in place of those (non-)refs. --mikeu ^talk 18:32, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Stating "no evidence of notability" ignores both the evidence provided by PropelAssisting and policies for determining notability. This nomination appears to be more about providing a quick and facile response to Fringe concerns instead of actually examining notability. Upon examination, this subject passes WP:NACADEMIC #1 The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. This is a researcher published in some of the most prestigious medical journals including Nature, Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine and more. The article in Nature has been cited twice, articles in Lancet have been cited twice, their New England Journal of Medicine article has been cited fifteen times, etc. These are independent reliable sources for Hyman's research having significant impact. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's my understanding that citation counts of two and fifteen are not considered high enough to satisfy WP:NACADEMIC #C1. The rule of thumb that I have heard in AfDs on academics is multiple papers with >100 citations each. Granted that was usually in reference to contemporary academics, and I am not sure how to evaluate NPROF C1 for someone who was active prior to the internet age, when many papers may not have been catalogued by online search engines (which is why I asked for input at FTN before jumping immediately to an AfD). Spicy (talk) 19:23, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spicy (talk) 19:25, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all of Hyman's pre-fringe research was published in the 50's 60's and 70's. Looking for >100 citation counts for a researcher active in this time period is greatly anachronistic. The pre-internet and poor cataloging issues you mention are real but there were also far, far, fewer journals at that time to publish in. A 1966 article in Nature is significant by its merely being published at that time period but is highly unlikely to be scooped up in a literature search by authors of post-1990 papers where the cataloging is much more complete and the number of journal articles published each year has comparatively skyrocketed. The >100 citations may be often applied at AfD but appears in no policy or guideline and Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Citation_metrics contains specific caveats for older articles. I posited those citations as a minimum reflection of impact on other researchers. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:48, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The citation record in GoogleScholar is slightly better than the above discussion indicates, but it is still rather low, with the h-index of about 9. Certainly far below of what would be needed to justify satidsfying WP:PROF#C1 based on citability of his work, even taking into account when most of his papers were published. Eggishorn is correct that the references cited in the article are not self-published. But they are all (every single one of the 22 references currently cited in the article) to the publications of the subject himself. Thus they are not independent sources and they cannot be used for justifying his notability. I am not seeing anything else that would justify passing WP:PROF or WP:BIO on other grounds. The article is written in a promotional tone, and reads like a tribute by a close colleague or a family member rather than a neutral third party. The biographical and personal info given in the article is currently completely unsorced and presents WP:V problems as well. Nsk92 (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not quite follow the above discussion regarding the FRINGE issues, as the article doesn't mention this aspect explicitly (or perhaps as a non-expert I am unable to recognize it). If there is a significant WP:FRINGE aspect to the subject's work , I would upgrade my opinion to 'strong delete', since WP:PROF requires a higher scrutiny in such cases. There are several places in WP:PROF where it explicitly mentions that certain particular aspects that usually count towards academic notability, do not count in WP:FRINGE cases. I would, in fact, expect that most notable WP:FRINGE researchers should have to qualify for notability under WP:GNG/WP:BIO rathere than WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 20:15, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PROF even allowing for citation counts probably being generally lower in the past. (The point of WP:PROF is that we need to be able to write about academics who have demonstrable influence even when biographical coverage is spotty, but there still has to be demonstrable influence.) As written, the article is one long failure of WP:MEDRS, which requires secondary or tertiary sources that evaluate the claims made in primary ones. The assertions about his solving Gulf War syndrome are pure WP:FRINGE. The "systemic coccal disease" material is also extremely dubious. (The closest thing I can find to a genuinely independent, third-party evaluation is a brief comment by Sartin (2000), which lists it among proposed explanations for GWS that remain hypothetical and have not been demonstrated in appropriate test populations using standard microbiological techniques. Most mentions of it are by G. L. and N. L. Nicolson, who coauthored with Hyman and shouldn't be considered independent experts.) XOR'easter (talk) 21:17, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:FRIND, WP:PROF, and WP:MEDRS. I was unable to locate any reliable, secondary sources to replace the primary, non-independent sources that currently dominate the article. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 22:28, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

American men & women of science : physical and biological sciences, Who was who in America neither of which confer any notability
Committee on Veterans' Affairs [12]
Pick v. American Medical Systems US District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
Southern, P.M.; Patel, S.J. (1996). "Examination of urine sediment by the hyman method does not identify individuals with Gulf War syndrome". Journal of Investigative Medicine. 44 (1).
"Doctor to test bacteria theory for Gulf War Syndrome". CNN. February 19, 1997.
"Gulf War Illness Caused by Bacteria, Doctors Say". Los Angeles Times. March 9, 1997.
9 paras in "Congress Explores Scientific Fringe". Science. Vol. 291, no. 5505. February 2, 2001. p. 814. also 1 para in "Gulf War Illness: The Battle Continues" same page
"Gulf War Syndrome Research Boosted". Science News. October 15, 1994.

fiveby(zero) 23:37, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, nice finds. I had done a cursory search earlier and only turned up the Who's Who/Men and Women of Science entries, which I agree are pretty useless. The Science Mag and CNN articles seem decent, although I am not sure if they're enough on their own since they address only one aspect of his career. If there are a couple more popular press articles like those there may be an argument for meeting GNG, even if NPROF is not met - and we will have some material to replace the primary sources with. I'll try to see if there's anything on Newspapers.com/Gale/Proquest tomorrow. Spicy (talk)

Absolutely not. In this case whether or not one can make an argiment thatb the subject satisfies WP:GNG is a relatively minor consideration compared to other more important ones. The article, as it stands now, is written completely from the pro-Hyman's fringe theory point of view and actively promotes it. The existence of the page, in this form, is actively harmful, and I have more than half the mind to blank it right now, before waiting for the AfD to end, basically on WP:IAR grounds and per WP:FRINGE. If an article about Hyman is kept, or if a new article about his Gulf War Syndrome fringe theory were to be written instead, it would have to be written completely from scratch, from the first stence. There's nothing in this page that's usable and worth keeping. If somebody really wants to develop an article of this kind, they should probably work on it in user or draft space first, given the tricky nature of the subject matter. But this turkey here has got to go, GNG or not. Nsk92 (talk) 00:17, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article (if it is kept) needs to be rewritten from scratch (if not merged into one about the Gulf War bacteria theory), that it needs to be done carefully, and that WP:TNT might apply. And I am concerned that the sources found so far are along the lines of "hey check out this guy's wacky idea" with little analysis on how the idea actually turned out (although the Science Mag article is somewhat critical of it). But it's at least helpful to know that secondary sources exist. Spicy (talk) 00:35, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, interesting. Based on the last few links above, it may be that the fringe theory that Hyman was propagating (that bacteria were causing the Gulf War Syndrome) is actually notable. If that's so, there seems to be a WP:BIO1E situation appliable to Hyman himself, and an article about the fringe theory (which had some other advocates as well) would be more appropriate. I still think that this bio article about Hyman should be deleted, with prejudice. There is essentially nothing in this article that is salvageable and could be used in potential article about his fringe theory. That article would have to be written completely from scratch. We should also be extremely careful in not allowing Wikipedia to be used as a platform for spreading and propagating medical misinformation and quakery. Nsk92 (talk) 00:05, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am so tempted to vote keep based on the ~~$4.3~~ more than five million Bob Livingston and the rest of Congress gave him, but a few mil is hardly notable among trillions. I think fringe and marginal articles like this should go straight to draft space. If someone cares enough to write an article based on the neutral sources then all well and good, if not then it's still all good. fiveby(zero) 01:02, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good job, fiveby, and thanks - I totally missed the Science and CNN cites. Those articles seem to resolve my issue with WP:FRIND, but the WP:MEDRS and WP:PROF concerns remain substantial. The current BLP, which reads like a WP:PROMO list of the subject's primary work, doesn't merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 00:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bob Livingston and add some BLP violating text about wasting my tax dollars. fiveby(zero) 01:32, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked for sources on the Internet Archive, Gale, ProQuest and Newspapers.com. There is a lot of coverage of his Gulf War theory, e.g. [13],[14], [15], etc. And there's a staff obituary in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: [16] However I am concerned that a) the coverage is largely surrounding WP:ONEEVENT and b) most of the articles just repeat his claims uncritically. Per WP:FRINGEBLP (this isn't a BLP, but the same concerns apply): Caution should be exercised when evaluating whether there are enough sources available to write a neutral biography that neither unduly promotes nor denigrates the subject. Even if there is enough coverage to meet GNG I do not think that we have the serious critical sourcing needed to properly address his fringe claims, which, it seems, are all he is really notable for. (The paper from Southern & Patel linked above isn't usable since it's primary research and fails WP:MEDRS). I don't buy the NPROF argument, plenty of people who published in the 60s and 70s have impressive citation counts, see [17] for example. Spicy (talk) 12:59, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm thinking about suitable redirect targets. Would it make sense to add a subsubheading/paragraph "Unknown bacteria" to the "Less likely causes" subheading of Gulf War syndrome? The fringe theory was taken seriously enough to get some substantial (pork barrel) funding. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather not, its still wp:fringe.Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And $5 million sounds like a sizable amount of money, but it isn't really, not in this context. Your typical research grant for a small research team studying a seemingly esoteric aspect of gene regulation (say the primary, 1 post doc, 2 grad students, a lab tech), running over 5 years, when one includes salaries and benefits, biomedical supplies, live-animal care and maintenance costs, reagents and equipment, overhead, and the built-in annual cost increases, could run up to half that, depending on what your salary and the study's particular expenses needs are. If he was going to be hiring more, better paid, clinical people, and had a lot of costly clinical lab testing, genomics or large-animal live-animal studies in the proposal, to me $5 doesn't look all that 'substantial'. And this is in a military funding background where DARPA throws money around on fringe all the time, just in case they 'win the lottery' with one of them (or sometimes just on 'shiny pennies'). I am just warning not to let that price tag give you sticker shock: it isn't so sizable that it self-evidently overcomes WP:UNDUE and or WP:PROPORTION, such that we need to find a place to put it. Agricolae (talk) 14:55, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's really the only notable issue so far, the criticism in Science and Science News of Congress micro-managing research and giving money for unproven treatment to a person in your district. Not enough for a bio and not enough for Gulf War syndrome unless that article were expanded. Russ Woodroofe it would be undue per WP:FRINGE for it to go in even the "Less likely causes" section. fiveby(zero) 15:45, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Congressional micro-managing/pork-barreling, yet again, gets reported on all the time, so that diminished the noteworthy nature of any single specific instance. Agricolae (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, meh. The WP:DUE concerns make sense to me. One could add a "Fringe theories" subsubsection at the bottom of the Causes section of Gulf War syndrome, but after looking, I think it's still WP:UNDUE (though a little better). It looks like between this stuff and Multiple chemical sensitivity there might be enough for Fringe theories on Gulf War syndrome, but that would be more trouble to write than just adding a paragraph to an existing article. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:50, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft I read above that we could possibly put the article back in draft. If that is possible, I would like the opportunity to conduct more research to find more corroborating articles and re-write in more neutral verbiage. There is more research that is not listed in the current article. Being new to wikipedia and not fully understanding all of the laws of the site, I have been able to understand better what it is you are looking for based on your reviews of the article. Is anyone apposed to a revision and if not how do I go about putting it into draft space? PropelAssisting (talk) 20:28, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It doers not matter how much research he has done, what matters is RS reporting about it.Slatersteven (talk) 08:34, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@PropelAssisting: How did you come to know about Hyman? This question may help to find independent sources if they exist. —Paleo Neonate – 14:37, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or redirect if a suitable target can be found. While it is possible that the subject is very marginally notable, the current article vastly overstates what he is done, and is undersourced and/or primary-sourced. WP:TNT applies. I don't strenuously object refunding to user space of the WP:SPA originator, but I tend to think that there is so little that is usable there right now that it would be better to just start over. PropelAssisting, if you make another attempt at this article, then essentially every sentence should be supported by citation to an reliable independent source. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I wish the sources existed for this, because the claims made could make him notable, but primary sources do not an article make. Natureium (talk) 20:45, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Salvatore Palella[edit]

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

A biography on a non-notable business exec whose article has been the subject a months long campaign of WP:COI allegations to include intervention at WP:ANI. Listing here for community input and recommending that if deleted it also be salted to prevent recreation. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable business guy sourced to black hat SEO spam. This is almost certainly a paid advert embellishing notability. Praxidicae (talk) 17:15, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:15, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:15, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:15, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:16, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:16, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and all of the above Spiderone 20:58, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - run of the mill business person who has a start up. Bearian (talk) 00:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC) P.S. Even if the business might be notable, its owners or leaders are not necessarily so. Bearian (talk) 00:12, 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 keep. Canley (talk) 05:12, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Borders of Azerbaijan[edit]

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

Delete All of Azerbaijan's borders have separate pages. This short page is redundant and offer nothing of value, and should therefore be deleted. WisDom-UK (talk) 16:53, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:18, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article fits well into a WP:SUMMARYSTYLE structure (Azerbaijan >> Borders of Azerbaijan >> Individual Border Articles) and as a list of borders meets WP:CLN. // Timothy :: talk 20:58, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it does, but then you'd need to that for every country for consistencies sake.WisDom-UK (talk) 21:20, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all of these articles the nominator is mass nominating should be kept for the same reasons Timothy just stated. Dream Focus 21:37, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 22:21, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable topic. Zoozaz1 talk 18:07, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Canley (talk) 05:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Borders of Malaysia[edit]

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

Delete All of Malaysia's borders have their own page. This (unsourced) page is redundant and should be deleted. WisDom-UK (talk) 16:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:19, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Like the many other articles like this, its best to have all the borders listed in one article, then link to more specific information in separate articles as necessary. Any redundant information can be trimmed down. Dream Focus 21:48, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article fits well into a WP:SUMMARYSTYLE structure (Country>> Borders of Country >> Individual Border Articles) and as a list of borders meets WP:CLN. I will do some work on the article to help it function better as CLN. // Timothy :: talk 21:55, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 22:22, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable topic. Zoozaz1 talk 18:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Canley (talk) 05:20, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Borders of Indonesia[edit]

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

Delete All of Indonesia's borders have their own page. This poor quality and overly-long article can be deleted. WisDom-UK (talk) 16:57, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:20, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article fits well into a WP:SUMMARYSTYLE structure (Country>> Borders of Country >> Individual Border Articles) and as a list of borders meets WP:CLN. I will do some work on the article to help it function better as CLN. // Timothy :: talk 21:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 22:23, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable topic. Zoozaz1 talk 18:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Canley (talk) 05:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Borders of China[edit]

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

Delete. All of China's borders have their own page. This redundant, short article can be deleted. WisDom-UK (talk) 16:55, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, contains information not conveyed by a category. Geschichte (talk) 16:57, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow. The 'Borders of China' NavBox provides the links one needs. General Chinese geography info can go on Geography of China.WisDom-UK (talk) 17:00, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:21, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree, more information here than in a category or template. WP:CLN is quite clear, you don't delete one because you like another better. Also please stop nominating so many border articles, just wait and see the results for the ones you already have nominated. Dream Focus 21:43, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article fits well into a WP:SUMMARYSTYLE structure (Country>> Borders of Country >> Individual Border Articles) and as a list of borders meets WP:CLN. I will do some work on the article to help it function better as CLN. // Timothy :: talk 21:57, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well there's 200 countries in the world, about maybe 20 of them have a 'Borders of X' page on Wiki. That's a hell of a lot of work, unless we're going to oikc and choose which countries 'deserve' a page. Seems like a colossal waste of time and and space to me, when the individual border pages are far more useful.WisDom-UK (talk) 22:21, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 22:24, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable. Zoozaz1 talk 18:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:08, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Borders of Russia[edit]

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

Delete. This page is pointless. All of Russia's individual border's now have their own page. This is just a list of Russian subdivisions with no useful additional information. I would recommended deleting it. WisDom-UK (talk) 16:50, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, contains information not conveyed by a category. Geschichte (talk) 16:55, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow. The 'Borders of Russia' NavBox provides the links one needs. General Russian geography info can go on Geography of Russia.WisDom-UK (talk) 16:59, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:22, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article fits well into a WP:SUMMARYSTYLE structure (Russia >> Borders of Russia >> Individual Border Articles) and as a list of borders meets WP:CLN. I will do some work on the article to help it function better as CLN. // Timothy :: talk 21:02, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it does, but then you'd need to that for every country for consistencies sake.WisDom-UK (talk) 21:20, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Timothy. Dream Focus 21:43, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 22:24, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, – Per above, although some of the information exist in other pages, but this article can be used as a summary. Alex-h (talk) 09:48, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Alex and Timothy. Pamzeis (talk) 04:17, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep quite useful --Devokewater (talk) 13:14, 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. Sandstein 20:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shikha Malhotra[edit]

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

No credible assertion of notability exists in this article, and the subject appears to fail the GNG. Previously deleted as CSD A7, restored, declined for A7 again, so I'm listing here for community input. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:46, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:23, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:23, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:23, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:26, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Shikha Malhotra has roles in notable productions and reliable sources coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BuntyRaaj (talk • contribs) 18:51, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Owais Al Qarni (talk) 11:24, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability; fails WP:GNG Spiderone 09:50, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:09, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tanner Chidester[edit]

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

non notable bodybuilder/author, all of the sources are basically self published or paid for publications (aka black hat seo) Praxidicae (talk) 16:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:26, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG.GDX420 (talk) 08:43, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:13, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson Hana[edit]

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

Borderline G11 promotional article for a Non notable organization that fails to satisfy WP:NCORP as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. A before search showed me nothing concrete, a review of the sources used in the article are mostly not independent of the organization as they are primary sources & are all mostly unreliable. Celestina007 (talk) 16:33, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:33, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:33, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:33, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:33, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:33, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. In terms of WP:NCORP, this seems to be an otherwise run-of-the-mill 20-person company which has been around for a few years, and received some coverage for its funding and marketing efforts. But otherwise nothing substantive. In terms of WP:GNG, a search of the Irish newspapers of record returns the type of coverage we might expect for a company of this type. A search in the Irish Independent stable of papers, for example, returns just 4 results. Mostly trivial/passing mentions and very very recent news on receiving a few million in funding. A similar search of the Irish Times returns 10 just results. All also either trivial/passing mentions, coverage of today's funding announcement, and other "marketing material/press release republished as article" style churnalism. Nothing substantive. In terms of WP:PAID and WP:PROMO, the pattern of editing preceding the article's creation is similar to that often associated with paid/promotional editing. Guliolopez (talk) 19:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: lacking in-depth significant coverage per nom and Guliolopez. ww2censor (talk) 14:32, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with Guliolopez, doesn't pass NCORP or GNG. I'm unable to find any significant coverage of the company, aside from the typical churnalism, announcements, etc, and some more in-depth articles about the founder ([18], [19]) but not about the company. I also agree that the author's editing pattern is suspicious. -M.Nelson (talk) 15:59, 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) Pamzeis (talk) 12:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stark, Arizona[edit]

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

Looking at topos, it looks as though Mr. Stark's ranch eventually was called the "Valley View Ranch", and GMaps shows only ruins. Likewise the rail line is gone, and from the article text you can already guess: yes, Stark was yet another isolated passing siding with nothing around it. One ranch, at some distance, does not a community make. Mangoe (talk) 16:18, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Mangoe (talk) 16:22, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Mangoe (talk) 16:22, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Stark had a post office. BTW - Stark was part of a previous blanket AfD which had a procedural keep. Having a separate AfD for Stark is fine with me. Cxbrx (talk) 03:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having a post office isn't evidence for a settlement/community; they were put in all sorts of places (especially railroad stations) as an expedient, but the places were quite often isolated. Mangoe (talk) 05:48, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not just a siding but a settlement per [20]. There were at least a few residents, so not just a ranch. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:41, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't completely discount ghosttowns.com, they are an amateur, self-published, and to some degree crowd-sourced site; I can't see taking them as a reliable source for writing material here, though I am willing to accept their photographs as some degree of verification of other sources. But in this case, there's no indication of where their information comes from, so when they say it's a settlement, I have to ask, "how do they know that?" Moreover, the indication is that nobody has actually made a site visit. As for the two homesteaders, what we have here is just a name drop. I can just as well believe that Stark happened to be the post office where they got their mail; the passages aren't about Stark, and they don't say anything about it. Everything else is inference. Mangoe (talk) 19:38, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It does confirm that there were more residents than just the postmaster. There are a number of other land transfers, so there was definitely a real population at Stark. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:25, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly a railroad facility. A post office is not a reliable indication of a community. Nothing to indicate notability. Glendoremus (talk) 21:10, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as there were unrelated people reported to be "from" Stark and lots of legal notices about land claims. I also found this snippet "The overpass at Stark, Arizona, was formally dedicated February 8 (1931). This was the first work of this character in the entire country completed under President Roosevelt's WPA grade separation program. The dedication program was ..." I'm not sure what to make of this. Grade separation means the railroad was elevated over another busy route - but I don't know what this could be. MB 05:34, 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. Sandstein 20:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Cassady[edit]

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

Extremely minor character who disappeared from the series without anyone referring to her again. Lacks significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. A search reveals only passing mentions of this character, with no real world context to help this meet the WP:GNG. Jontesta (talk) 16:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 16:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No reception/significance suggested, references are all WP:PRIMARY. Pure WP:FANCRUFT, fails WP:NFICTION _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:59, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect: due to lack of reception/significance from third party coverage. Archrogue (talk) 20:26, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to exclusive WP:PRIMARY sourced material, with no significant reception from reliable sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:56, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:13, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fenner, Arizona[edit]

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

Another passing siding superseded by double tracking, this desolate spot a bit east of Benson had no buildings at all around it until relatively recently, so I'm not seeing this supposed "community". Mangoe (talk) 15:37, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Mangoe (talk) 16:23, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Mangoe (talk) 16:23, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A railroad facility. No evidence of a community and not otherwise notable. Glendoremus (talk) 21:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Arizona Place Names says it was a station, but I doubt that is true. Can't find anything on this so it was probably just a passing siding as stated above. MB 05:43, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An examination of historic USGS topographic maps beginning with 1915 shows that Fenner is likely an insignificant railroad siding. The 1958 St. David, Arizona, 1:62,500 quadrangle shows an absence of any structures associated with it. The 1973 Arizona, 1:24,000 quadrangle shows Fenner to be a railroad siding without any associated structures. A single structure appears northwest of Fenner in the The 1996 Arizona, 1:24,000 quadrangle. However, it is associated with a driveway from the frontage connected to Interstate highway 10. From what can be found, Fenner is an insignificant railroad siding that is not a populated place. Paul H. (talk) 19:57, 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 redirect to Glossary of video game terms#spray and pray. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:12, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spray and pray[edit]

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

This is almost entirely unsourced and has been tagged as such since 2007. My own searching finds tons of usages of the term, but almost no reliable secondary sources which talk about this in any substantial way. I found this CBS News article which I'd consider a good source, but only for the marketing use of the term. I have no doubt that most of what our current article says about firearms is true, but it's all basically WP:OR with no backing sources. The term is also used in photography, and probably other fields as well, but again, I'm not finding the kinds of sources we need.

This needs to either be deleted, or rewritten from scratch. I can't recommend moving it to draft space; if 13 years of being tagged for improvement in mainspace didn't work, moving to draft isn't going to fix it either. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:46, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:28, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:28, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Glossary of video game terms verified enough to be listed there (at least for the video game sense. I don't know if there's a military concept page to drop to). --Masem (t) 20:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Interwiki redirect to Wiktionary, per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. A lot of the current references seem like SYNTH._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:52, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like a bloated dictionary definition. Nigej (talk) 17:28, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Glossary of video game terms#spray and pray, where I just added an entry from a new source. There is no Wiktionary entry, so that point is moot. czar 06:48, 5 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. Tone 15:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Ray Chaudhuri[edit]

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

Although they seem to have close proximity to notable entities, A BEFORE search shows subject of the article has insufficient coverage in reliable sources independent of him hence fails WP:GNG. He doesn’t seem to satisfy WP:ANYBIO either. Celestina007 (talk) 14:15, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:15, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:15, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:15, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:15, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails wp:blpn and wp:gng.GDX420 (talk) 08:41, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Founded a major network and produced India's first satellite television program. (Just added to article.) Per WP:ANYBIO "made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field." Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first x to accomplish y isn’t in itself necessarily an indication of notability & anybio doesn’t necessarily supersede GNG, if they revived a notable prestigious award this could be considered & your argument valid and sound but as they appear not to have accomplished that, I respectfully don’t agree with your argument here. Celestina007 (talk) 20:50, 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 withdrawn. BD2412 T 01:07, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pixel 5[edit]

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

Does not satisfy either product notability or general notability with no references. Unreferenced, and so does not satisfy verifiability. Product has not yet been officially announced, let alone released, and so violates Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Already also in draft, and can be left in draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:07, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:07, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Google have now officially announced the Pixel 5 and this is their upcoming flagship device of 2020. Definitely notable enough for an article and does satisfy product notability and general notability. The article is in need of some updates although this will come in time. All other Pixel devices and flagships have articles, I don't see why the Pixel 5 should be any different. Commyguy (talk) 19:33, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Commyguy. Device is announced and coverage is present. Elliot ^{Talk to me} 19:54, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Per above. Goose^(Talk!) 21:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Why is this nominated. Lets not be dumb. Bluedude588 (talk) 04:15, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Obviously needs to remain TheKaphox T 04:29, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the nomination was made in WP:GOODFAITH before the announcement was made. Would recommend that we close this one. Ktin (talk) 14:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keeep Understandably, it is official, but there will be some updates that'll be filled in. 20chances (talk) 16:12, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I will remind the editors who have said Speedy Keep that civility is still the fourth pillar of Wikipedia. I thank User:Ktin for being able to read timestamps in English. See, I can be even more sarcastic. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I suggest that the editors who have said Speedy Keep strike the Speedy. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw in view of announcement. Tagging can be taken care of later. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:29, 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. Tone 15:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lukas Steinhauer[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NHOCKEY. Only played 15 games in the DEL and at least 90 games (for a goaltender) is required for notability. Tay87 (talk) 13:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 13:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 13:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 13:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Player fails WP:NHOCKEY and I did not find enough information to pass WP:GNG. Flibirigit (talk) 12:45, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage is typical sports reporting that fails to meet WP:GNG. He also fails to meet any notability criteria at WP:NHOCKEY since his only appearances at a world championship have come in junior events. Papaursa (talk) 21:56, 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 Yeditepe University. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:12, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeditepe University Faculty of Engineering[edit]

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

Contested A7 with the reason of "it exists so does not qualify for A7" . There is nothing that set this faculty up for any stand alone notability or significance. It fails to meet WP:GNG. I would be open for delete ~~and~~ or redirect to Yeditepe University McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:24, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:24, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:24, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom, although I don't see a reason to delete first. – Thjarkur (talk) 14:26, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I probably should have said Delete or Redirect, I'm not sure how often someone would search for a particular faculty of a university. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 14:42, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 17:19, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect is the best option. Individual academic departments are rarely notable. Drmies (talk) 17:20, 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. There is some agreement that it would be appropriate to mention Jr. on Puente Sr.'s page. That can be handled in the normal course of editing. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:02, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tito Puente Jr.[edit]

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

This musician carries on in the tradition of his father, but there is no evidence that he himself is notable. He has had at least one minor role in a barely if at all notable film, but nothing that suggests actual notability John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:51, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 September 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:17, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:11, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The brief mention in Tito_Puente#Career seems sufficient. I am not seeing sufficient coverage of the subject either as a musician or in film roles to merit a distinct article. AllyD (talk) 19:17, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Found a few brief concert announcements (e.g. [21], [22]), but I agree with the nominator and previous voter that the musician has gained little notice as a performer in his own right. The fact that he is continuing his father's music can be mentioned at Tito Sr.'s article. ☆☆☆ DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 20:16, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article on Tito Puente can be updated to accommodate a mention of his musical son. Capt. Milokan (talk) 21:29, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Notability is not inherited. I don't mind a paragraph on Puente Sr.'s page, but that's it. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 08:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Vmavanti (talk) 23:48, 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 delete. Sandstein 20:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TechnoSphere, Inc.[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:32, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:33, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability and WP:NOTDIRECTORY applies. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:05, 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. Tone 15:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Picxy[edit]

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

Non-notable Indian startup that was founded only 2 years ago. Undersourced. HᴇʀᴘᴇᴛᴏGᴇɴᴇꜱɪꜱ (talk) 12:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. HᴇʀᴘᴇᴛᴏGᴇɴᴇꜱɪꜱ (talk) 12:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Start-up funding and incubator announcements provides only trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. The most substantial of the references added is probably the New Indian Express item, but that is an as-told-to piece relying on what the CEO says about the company proposition. Aside from these searches found an at-launch piece from The Hindu but that is again relying on what the company founders said about their aspirations. I am not seeing the coverage needed to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 07:49, 5 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. Tone 15:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Allen (journalist)[edit]

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

This article lacks enough sources in its current form to establish its notability. Northern Escapee (talk) 12:24, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northern Escapee (talk) 12:24, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:35, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:35, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I prodded the article for the exact same reasons but the nominator hastily moved it to Afd while the unchallenged PROD was still in session. Anyways, i'll repeat what I stated there; The only ref currently provided in the article is about said journalist's marriage, not his career. A WP:BEFORE search revealed coverage only by NBC News, the firm he works for. No third party coverage to establish independent notability as a journalist. Fails WP:BIO. TheRedDomitor (talk) 04:51, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a barely sourced article on a non-notable broadcast jouranlist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:22, 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. Sandstein 20:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arindam Roy[edit]

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

This article is nominated for deletion for lack of sources for verification and notability concerns. Northern Escapee (talk) 12:18, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northern Escapee (talk) 12:18, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northern Escapee (talk) 12:18, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:37, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - whilst the article makes some claims of notability, none of these are evidenced; seems to fail WP:GNG comprehensively Spiderone 09:50, 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. Tone 15:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kill Your Timid Notion[edit]

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

This article has had no sources for longer than a decade. This festival no longer exists either, the external links are not relevant to the article and links to an unrelated page. Christiaanp (talk) 12:11, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 13:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 13:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I find no evidence this was a notable festival when it was held. StarM 17:26, 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 keep. WP:SNOW. Although the delete !votes make some good points, there would need to be a broader discussion as to whether this type of list should be allowed. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 08:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign endorsements[edit]

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

This is basically a list of Democrat office holders. Wikipedia is NOT a directory.

The same goes for all lists in Category:Lists of United States presidential candidate endorsements. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected: This is basically a list of Democrat office holders and a small proportion of other people who [checks notes] say they intend to vote democrat. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:05, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose This article is at least 25% Republicans and probably doesn’t even contain 1% of registered Democrats in the US not to mention the international politicians. I find it funny this article would even be nominated for deletion. Don’t you guys have some other, smaller, less notable articles to delete than one that is constantly updating and corresponds to the upcoming election? We do this for almost every election to keep track of the endorsements. The fact that anyone thinks this is an article that belongs here is insane. Plus we have articles for 3 other 2020 candidates. If we deleted the one with the most, it would seem as if we favor the other 3 parties more. Start with Howie Hawkins and if that works out then maybe try something bigger. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 12:15, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- " The fact that anyone thinks this is an article that belongs here is insane" I wouldn't have used such a derogatory term, but I agree it doesn't belong here on Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wouldn't have interpreted Lima's comment as "here" referring to Wikipedia, but rather "here" referring to this AfD. And most people participating in this AfD disagree with the premise of this AfD. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 05:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think there is no reason to have any such free standing articles period. Such long lists are not of use to many people. If the endorsement of Biden is notable to the person it can be included in the article on them, and if it is truly notable to the Biden campaign it can be included in the article on that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:02, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and WP:SNOW close. In any event, deletion of all pages within Category:Lists of United States presidential candidate endorsements is going to require wider participation than a 7-day AfD discussion. feminist (talk) 13:44, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no wikipedia isn't a directory but it does keep notable lists. --Investigatory (talk) 13:51, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very curious as to why a page that has been getting directly worked on in regards to an upcoming election, and updated constantly, is being considered for deletion in this manner. A good chunk of this list includes a mixture of Republicans, independents, and everything in-between. It has more non-party endorsements then any other candidate page ever has.Tipsyfishing (talk) 14:20, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and speedy WP:SNOW close per above. It's a notable list (see reasons listed by others above). Paintspot Infez (talk) 14:33, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Precedent for keeping this type of page for major party presidential nominees. I agree that lists of endorsements may border as promotional and I would prefer prose and context over lists, but this is a notable (and encyclopedic) list. --Enos733 (talk) 15:26, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete Even though this year is unusual, given prominent endorsements from GOP and conservative sources, nobody is well-served by this raw data dump of what is effectively primary-source material except people trying to increase their edit counts. I'm certain that it is possible to write something actually useful, such as citing commentary on the unusual patterns—commentary, I would add, that establishes notability, as opposed to just routine political reporting. Mangoe (talk) 15:50, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gee fizz. Delete, and yes I'm fine deleting the rest of them too. Good on the...treasurer of Douglas County, Nebraska for endorsing Biden, and where would we be without the political commentary of Nikki Sixx?

This is the very definition of an indiscriminate collection of anything and everything anyone could find a source for. GMG ^talk 17:07, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a list and is doing its function properly. I see no reason for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WakandaForever188 (talk • contribs)
Keep Almost all of the entries are bluelinked, so the list is serving a legitimate navigational function for existing articles. Nor is it a directory of Democratic office-holders, as it includes Cindy McCain and 177 other Republicans or now-Independent-former-Republicans. There are probably discussions to be had about the standards of sourcing and inclusion, but the concept of the list itself is fine, and the implementation isn't so terrible that it needs to be burned. AfD is not cleanup, etc. I also concur with the point above that deletion of all pages within Category:Lists of United States presidential candidate endorsements is going to require wider participation than a single AfD. XOR'easter (talk) 17:45, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that I don't see how you can have standards for inclusion that aren't entirely arbitrary. Also noting this is currently the ninth largest article on the entire project. GMG^talk 19:43, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - It was the largest (over 700Kb) until I split out two sections (each over 100Kb) into separate articles today. Even without those sections, it has (at a rough count) 1,700 entries. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:06, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - As someone who has mostly written about things that are a century old or older, that's all kinda gross. GMG ^talk 22:48, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now but open to a centralized discussion about this type of list in general if others support such a discussion. I'll need some convincing though, since I'm leaning to "keep" for this "type of list" as well. However, as long as we are having this type of list, this page certainly should be kept. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and WP:SNOW close There are 100's of Republicans and Independents on this list, A simple 30 second search would confirm this,Animaileditor (talk) 18:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and WP:SNOW close Lists like these have existed since 2008 and Biden's seems to be the most unique to the extent it includes many Republicans and Independents. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 18:35, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:39, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Important to note that a growing number of International officials, some officials who are in a Party that does not have his policy views (along with 178 Republicans, before US House/State House was split, the number was reaching 300, a number of Independents) also endorsed Biden, this is more than a "Obvious Democratic Member list" Animaileditor (talk) 20:54, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agreed. Plus, isn’t Rashida Tlaib a notable democrat? She hasn’t endorsed him. Neither have senator Maria Cantwell or governor John Bel Edwards. The article most definitely is what it says it is, a list of Joe Biden endorsements. It includes anyone who has endorsed and does not include anyone who has not. Multiple times I have vetted the entries and removed those who have just had financial support or attended a rally. The list is probably 99% or more accurate. If needed, it can be edited to remove those who are not properly added, not deleted in its entirety. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 21:32, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and SNOW close per all of the keep reasons above. // Timothy :: talk 22:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure The discussion should be had for all articles of this type, not just one. Category:United States presidential election endorsements I don't see any value in any of them. Do people decide to vote on someone because their favorite celebrity or an existing elected official they voted for supports them? What is the purpose of these list? Dream Focus 03:33, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Dream Focus, they actually do. And to be honest, I’m very interested as well as many other editors about this topic. I want to know who will be endorsing/voting for Joe Biden and Donald Trump. Not that interested in Howie Hawkins, but you get the point. I can not find any other place that has all of a candidate’s endorsements condensed like this. That’s what Wikipedia is for, creating an encyclopedia of relevant information and providing it to the reader. “Campaign endorsements” is a topic many people are interested in and want to know about. Or, if not, keep it for me! I know I’m very interested. While I can’t speak on behalf of anyone else, I’m sure others would agree. If you’re not interested or don’t like it just ignore it, no one’s forcing you to add campaign endorsements or even look at them. Heck, if you’re so opposed to them existing then why are you even commenting here? Just a thought. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 04:02, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - So this article exist to tell people to vote for someone because a famous person they like said to, don't bother looking up information about the candidates and voting for themselves. Seems rather bad thing to have. But if the news media covers it, it passes the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 16:13, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Dream Focus, that’s where you’re misinterpreting it. The article does not encourage or even support voting for any candidate or even voting at all. It simply states the people who have endorsed this candidate, which is a point of interest for many, like me. I’m not eligible to vote, but I still think this is interesting information relating to the election. Overall, we can’t tell people what to do with the information, for all I know any article has the potential to persuade people to do anything. It’s just information, and it’s properly added to our encyclopediaLima Bean Farmer (talk) 17:33, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close per WP:SNOW. Sections and subsections 12 through to 18 don't refer to what the nominator has described. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 05:16, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and speedy close per SNOW per all other editors. Andy Mabbett doesn't know that there are many Democratic presidential endorsements that have separate article, as well as Republicans and other candidates. Can you request deleting all presidential endorsement article? I believe it is not. 36.65.35.154 (talk) 05:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't attempt to speak for me; you clearly lack the insight to do so correctly, Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:00, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please keep it WP:CIVIL Limpice (talk) 20:47, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - My comment is perfectly civil; attempting to speak for me, not so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:24, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong “Keep.” This makes as much sense as deleting Donald Trump’s Wikipedia list of 2020 endorsements though that list is much shorter than Biden’s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:807:8004:2A80:7425:79E:EE11:5D44 (talk) 14:25, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:LISTN. So do dozens if not hundreds of other articles on U.S. politics, of course, but that isn't an argument for keeping this one. The list also seems to make a lot of claims about living people that are not clearly supported by the sources cited: this LA Times piece, for example, is cited 18 times but the majority of names mentioned are not described as endorsing Biden. I wouldn't ordinarily bother to participate in an AfD where the result seems so clear, but I'm doing so in the hope that this leads to a broader discussion of the appropriateness of this sort of material, which a more unanimous outcome here would probably make less likely. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, prevent WP:SNOW. These lists are relevant, to a degree. Coltsfan (talk) 17:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Absolutely no reason to delete this. Jon698 (talk) 20:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This AfD is a waste of everyone's time. The list clearly meets WP:LISTN - if you Google search "Biden endorsements" you will find hundreds of high quality sources discussing the topic. – Anne drew 22:19, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, speedy close per WP:SNOW - Nominating this page and not Trump's is honestly hilarious and just shows this to be a case of using deletion nominations as a partisan battleground, to say the bare minimum. This nomination is a complete joke, and making things up about the article's contents just makes it all the worse. KingForPA (talk) 01:55, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- At this point the original proposer is just arguing with people who disagree with his analysis. Perhaps someone should close this (seeing as consensus is pretty clear) before it gets out of hand. KingForPA (talk) 20:11, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - With due sense of irony; no I am not. Your "partisan battleground" claim is equally bogus. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:24, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - You still haven't explained why you nominated just the Biden page instead of all four (Trump, Hawkins, and Jorgensen), and until you do that I dunno if anyone's gonna buy that. KingForPA (talk) 21:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets general notability as a notable list. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 08:58, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seems to meet WP:GNG, is under active development, and of significant interest at the moment. I'm particularly impressed by the quality of the sourcing to meet the verifiability criteria. -- The Anome (talk) 09:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Close per WP:SNOW - Paperworkorange (talk) 06:13, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and immediate close per WP:SNOW, as per KingForPA; Nominating this and not Donald Trump's equivalent article is nothing more than a sad and vain attempt at influencing the election. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 19:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Arkell v. Pressdram applies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Andy Mabbett, you can’t claim there was no bias here. There are hundreds of sections with endorsements (every governor senate and house race) and two others with endorsement sections (Jorgensen and Hawkins). The fact that Biden’s article was chosen was clearly biased. I’m not going to say it is pro Trump but it is definitely anti Biden. Keeping an endorsement article for Howie Hawkins but not Biden would show there’s a real bias which is not something needed on Wikipedia Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 02:50, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I can and do claim there was no bias here. Look: There was no bias here. HTH. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:18, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Telling an editor to fuck off without even having it in you to say it plainly. Class act! KingForPA (talk) 20:03, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Are you? how rude. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's clear that the list is not merely a directory of Democrats, which is the basis for the nom. And while I don't want to get all WP:WAX, it's clear the norm in Wikipedia has been to have these articles for quite some time, and should not be tossed away on a simple AFD naming only one article. The casual inclusion of "The same goes for all lists in Category:Lists of United States presidential candidate endorsements" is way too under-the-radar for dispose of fifty-some articles in one fell swoop. If this is to be considered, it ought to be done much more carefully, with an RFC and notification on the talk pages of all the affected articles. TJRC (talk) 00:51, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW as the most blatantly obvious LISTN pass in history and per WP:POINT. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:02, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not even sure why this was nominated in the first place. TovarishhUlyanov (talk) 10:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was surprised that this page was nominated for deletion. Although the page has ballooned in size since I created it in July 2019, I disagree with the premise that the page is "basically a list of Democrat office holders". Inclusion on the page is dependent on an endorsement for Mr. Biden and is not simply a list of Democratic officeholders. Sdrqaz (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and Immediate Close per WP:SNOW it is obvious that the author of this was biased and is now actively hostile to editors weighing in. Limpice (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Bullshit, on both counts. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please Keep it WP:CIVIL and if you have a reasonable argument why it's not I'd be willing to hear it Limpice (talk) 21:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - As for the hostility, exclaiming "bullshit" at an editor you disagree with is certainly hostile and is arguably a WP:PA Limpice (talk) 21:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Had I done so; you may have a point. My description of your dual claims as bullshit was neither uncivil nor incorrect; nor was it a personal attack. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:46, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please explain how "Had I done so;" and "Bullshit" are not contradictory? Limpice (talk) 21:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Talk to Andy, you clearly have some bias against Biden, you are hostile to those who disagree with you, and now you are swearing. I recommend that you simply ignore endorsement pages on Wikipedia and move on. I will be deleting the suggestion of deletion on the page as it is silly. If enough others think endorsement pages should be deleted then that will be discussed and happen. Since you are only advocating for deleting I would recommend you stay away from this subject. This article isn’t bothering you, right? Just ignore it and those who edit and create endorsement pages can make the decision on whether they should be kept. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 21:33, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - "you clearly have some bias against Biden" You're welcome to present what you believe passes for evidence for this remarkable assertion (we could all do with a laugh, in these difficult times); but let me assure you that your claim also is utter bullshit. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:46, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Talk to Andy, after doing a little background research it appears that you are not in favor of Biden and don’t even live in the United States. You wouldn’t think it would be fair if I advocated deleting the page on the Conservative Party (UK) but not that for the Labour Party (UK) or the Scottish National Party, right? If you want to advocate deletion of endorsement pages, then please do that as an rfc or arbitration somewhere away from any current endorsement pages or on all of them. Or you could just let this go. Is a page on Joe Biden’s endorsements really bothering you that much? Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 23:55, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        "you are not in favor of Biden" Once again I invite you to post what you believe passes for evidence to support this fantasy. But then I asked for evidiece for your previous invention about my supposed posiiton, and you haven't posted that, either. "and don’t even live in the United States" Indeed. So? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems to me that a big part of the rationale for deleting this page is simply that the list is too long (okay, so make more lists so they're each, individually, more manageable???) or that there is some problem with the quality of people being listed. Some entries in this list are being objected to because people disagree with them personally, or they are being discounted simply because their endorsement was predictable. As evidence for the former, I cite someone's objection to Nikki Sixx's listing. Clearly, the implication in this objection was that they felt Nikki Sixx has nothing important to say about politics, NOT that Nikki Sixx is not notable (obviously, there is no question that Mr. Sixx is very notable). And the evidence for the latter is in the fact that the original call for deletion is simply because many of the entries in this list are people with Democratic party-aligned pasts. This is absolutely bonkers. Wikipedia is not here to judge if people OUGHT to matter, or to gatekeep whose voices SHOULD be put on a pedestal; if what they said (or, the fact that they said it) is clearly notable and can be verified as such, Wikipedia should provide that information! Especially in this case, given that there is a broad and lengthy precedent for Wikipedia's providing of information on political endorsements for major races, deletion is unwarranted. This complaint seems to boil down to either: a. the people on this list OUGHT not to have the power implicit in having a notable voice/endorsement which is listed in a prominent location like Wikipedia (which is absolutely not Wikipedia's job to judge) or b. this list is poorly maintained (Then why not just maintain it, rather than taking the almost unprecedented and drastic step of deletion? If the list is too long, why not break it up into sub-lists? Is it really right to break with a long-established precedent just because the list feels long?). Kingsocarso (talk) 04:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "It seems to me that a big part of the rationale for deleting this page is simply that the list is too long" Did you actually read the deletion nomination? Where does it say that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Immediate Close Majority of people have voted "Keep" Bunch of reply fighting going on even though majority of users want to keep (some, like me even did SNOW)I have no problem getting suggestions on how to improve these pages (in talk) but its clear that these pages serve a purpose(and that Biden's page isn't just "Democrat list" Animaileditor (talk) 09:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Animaileditor, it's not a vote. We specifically refer to it as a !vote (not-vote) because numbers don't really matter. Well-argued policy is what matters. —valereee (talk) 14:50, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is the well-argued policy? I have yet to hear it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:807:8004:2A80:48DE:2C5F:4128:32B0 (talk) 16:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For lots of reasons:
- The summary table in the subsection below shows the number of entries, number mentioning "Republican" and the percentage mentioning "Republican" for each level two section in the article. With 16% of 566 former Federal executive officials, 6% of 85 U.S. Senators and 8% of 227 state and territorial executive officials among others associated with the Republican party, and hundreds of other entries whose job is not being "a Democrat office holder" it is quite clear that this is far from "a list of Democrat office holders and a small proportion of other people" as claimed in the "correction" to the opening statement.
- It would introduce obviously unacceptable political bias to delete the Biden article(s) without deleting the corresponding Trump articles as proposed here (the Trump articles have not been included in this proposal). The Trump articles cannot be deleted without a suitable discussion which has not occurred.
- The endorsement articles for the current campaign are following currently accepted and long established practice and consensus. Any decision to stop covering endorsements needs much wider discussion than a local consensus on one article (a decision here should be without prejudice to such a wider discussion).
- News coverage I have been following makes it clear that the number of endorsements for Biden from members of the opposing party is unprecedented, at least in modern times. This gives the article a significance beyond that of the other related articles, so if anything we should keep this one even if we get rid of the others!
- A list is a convenient way of presenting structured information with associated reliable sources. Moving all this information back into the main campaign articles would impact their readability (and in this case make it too long as well). Turning it into exclusively flowing text would impact the usability. Certainly we could expand the lead to highlight significant aspects of the list (with of course suitable reliable sources).
--Mirokado (talk) 03:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Summary table[edit]

Summary of section contents for rev 981904613 of this article
nentries	nRepublican	%Republican	title
566	89	16%	Former Federal executive officials
85	5	6%	U.S. Senators
2	0	-	Former federal judicial officials
227	19	8%	State and territorial executive officials
222	9	4%	State and territorial senators
7	2	29%	Former state and territorial judicial officials
140	4	3%	Municipal and local officials
23	3	13%	Party officials
14	0	-	Other 2020 candidates
33	0	-	International officials
139	0	-	Academics and scholars
129	29	22%	Activists and public figures
28	2	7%	Business executives and leaders
217	1	-	Entertainers and artists
19	0	-	Sports figures and athletes

--Mirokado (talk) 03:55, 5 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shatranj Ke Mohre[edit]

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

An article about a Bollywood film, sourced only to (non-WP:RS) IMDb since creation in 2015. I could find neither plot nor writer. This listings site even describes the genre as "obscure". Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG.

There is another, and important, reason for deletion. "Shatranj Ke Mohre" ("शतरंज के मोहरे") means "Chess Pieces", which is a rather generic title for a creative work. The 1971 play by P. L. Deshpande with that name (1, 2, 3, 4), originally written in Marathi not Hindi, looks distinctly notable. I could find no indication that the 1974 film was based upon it. If it was not, the current article impedes search, gives a false and misleading impression, and discourages article creation. For similar reasons, the edit history of this article needs to go.

There are also novels with this title by Yogendra Choudhary 5 (1998?) and Amritlal Nagar (1999?) (6), and possibly other things I've missed. Narky Blert (talk) 19:35, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NonsensicalSystem^(err0r?)_(.log) 11:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:40, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of passing GNG or any applicable SNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - concerns around WP:GNG and WP:NFILM Spiderone 20:27, 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. Stacking a discussion with obvious socks advancing novel i terpretations of policy is .... Not a great way to win a debate. Finding good sources and defending them is better but the sources advanced here have all effectively been refuted. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Srila Bhaktivedanta Narayana Gosvami Maharaja[edit]

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

A recreation of Bhaktivedanta Narayana/Bhaktivedanta Narayana Goswami, which was deleted for the fourth time in 2010.

From a quick scan of the non-primary sources, I don't see how the guru in question has increased in notability since 2010 (particularly since he died that year), though I'm happy to be proven wrong. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 11:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sources in the article are all written by a disciple of Narayana's, a Swami Madhava, with the only semi-independent ref (#19) coming from ~~the defunct~~ Vaishnava News Network (although even that looks like a reprinted press release submitted by another disciple). Dāsānudāsa (talk) 11:20, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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}}.

Comment Vaisnava News Network is not defunct - it has changed URL.

The archive of the old VNN.org articles is on their new page, here:

http://vaishnava-news-network.org/vaisnava-news/vnn-legacy-pages/

ShyamDasUK (talk) 21:46, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting added by Berrely

Comment ~ Dear Dasanudasa - Actually his notability is on the increase, as it is his Centennial celebration next year. Please find over 4000 of his audio lectures and 2000 videos of him here: http://srilanarayanmaharaja.com/archive-project-info/ . I cannot see why someone not 'notable' would have such an archive published online. ShyamDasUK 22.00, 01 October 2020 (BST)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 September 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:26, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:41, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An article on the life of a notable Gaudiya Vaisnava philosopher and scholar whose books are in libraries all over the globe, whose works are cited by eminent religious studies scholars, and who continues to be the subject of academic study by others since his passing in 2010 should certainly be retained on Wikipedia. The subject certainly meets the notability criteria under "Any biography" and "Academics" at WP:ANYBIO. As a new editor on Wikipedia, I didn't recognize the importance of citing secondary sources but have included many that meet the requirements of WP:BASIC after the recommendation for deletion. A few commenters have repeated the arguments of the individual who recommended for deletion without checking the provenance of the academic sources cited. For example, please check the chapter by Irvin H. Collins (http://cup.columbia.edu/book/the-hare-krishna-movement/9780231122566) which is solely dedicated to analyzing the relationship between the subject and another religious organization, and kindly follow the guidelines of WP:BEFORE. KundalataDasi (talk) 17:09, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

— KundalataDasi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep The original closing decision to delete appears like an attack without reason that ignores provided evidence. Request for deletion ignores multiple valid resources. Source-of-inspiration (talk) 22:09, 29 September 2020 (UTC)— Source-of-inspiration (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

~~Keep~~ *Comment Request for deletion disregards valid evidence of existence and does not provide clear evidence of lack of spirituality of guru. Source-of-inspiration (talk) 22:04, 29 September 2020 (UTC)— Source-of-inspiration (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

~~Keep~~ *Comment Request for deletion does not include ^[1]valid reason for deletion as seen here Source-of-inspiration (talk) 22:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)— Source-of-inspiration (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The page was previously deleted on the criterion of lack of notability.

Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja was a world-famous guru & scholar who has 294 publications available in 7 languages

(English, Hindi, Bengali, German, Spanish, Russian & Dutch). The list of his publications, all downloadable, is here:

http://www.purebhakti.com/resources/ebooks-magazines/bhakti-books

His author page on Amazon.com is here:

https://www.amazon.com/Sri-Srimad-Bhaktivedanta-Narayana-Gosvami-Maharaja/e/B00RIWCH3Q

and a search of his name yields 208 results:

https://www.amazon.com/s?k=Bhaktivedanta+Narayana+Maharaja

I think there are much less notable & prolific authors than this who have Wikipedia pages. ShyamDasUK (talk • contribs) 20:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Comment Srila Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja has 5 official websites, at least 6 websites dedicated to him by others in English, and at least 16 websites dedicated to him in 9 other languages (ENG, GER, PT, SP, RUS, POL, FR, IT, Dutch). There are at least 6 Facebook pages dedicated to him, video channels showing him leading pilgrimages of thousands of people, 4000 audio lectures and 2000 videos of him speaking. There are also hundreds if not thousands of photographs of him available. All the above is in the covered section below (Click 'Show'). ShyamDasUK (talk) 04:17, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

sources (that are not independent) Ian.thomson (talk) 22:56, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Official websites of Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja:

http://www.purebhakti.com/

http://www.bhaktibooks.info/

http://www.bhaktiprojects.org/

https://bhaktistore.com/

https://gvpbookdistribution.com/

The following pages are dedicated to him:

http://srilanarayanmaharaja.com/

http://musicofyoga.com/

http://purebhakti.tv/

http://www.kirtaniyas.com/

http://bvmlu.org/SBNM/index.htm

http://sbnmcd.org/

Those are just some of the ones in English.

Here is a list of websites dedicated to His Holiness Narayana Maharaja in 9 other languages:

German:

https://harekrischna.de/

Portuguese:

http://presentesinigualaveis.blogspot.com/p/acervo-devocional.html

http://gvebrasil.blogspot.com/

http://jornalharekrsnabrasil.blogspot.co.uk/

http://vidasimplesepensamentoelevado.blogspot.com/

http://iskconaverdade.blogspot.com/

Russian:

http://www.purebhakti.ru/

http://www.radiokrishna.ru/

http://www.a108.net/

Polish:

https://www.purebhakti.pl/

https://www.bhaktijoga.pl/

French:

http://www.purebhakti-francais.com/

Spanish:

https://www.radharanikijay.com/

Books in Spanish:

https://www.radharanikijay.com/search/label/Libros

Italian:

http://www.gaudiya.it/

Dutch:

http://hollandsanga.blogspot.com/

Swedish:

https://web.archive.org/web/20160306041634/http://bhakti.se/ [Archive 2016: now dead page]

There were formerly pages in Hindi, Chinese and other languages but I have not had time to find the Wayback Archive of them.

He has at least 6 Facebook pages dedicated to him:

https://www.facebook.com/narayanagosvami

https://www.facebook.com/2021Centennial

https://www.facebook.com/Swami.BV.Narayana

https://www.facebook.com/rememberingsrilagurudeva

https://www.facebook.com/SrilaBhaktiVedantaNarayanaGoswamiMaharaja

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100009908766411

This YouTube channel shows videos of him leading pilgrimage of hundreds & thousands of people:

https://www.youtube.com/user/krsnakarunya

There are 4000 mp3s of his lectures and 2000 videos of him here:
http://www.purebhakti.tv

There are hundreds of photographs of him touring the world from 2004-2010 here:

http://bvmlu.org/SBNM/index.html#photos and for example, this one shows him speaking before a crowd of 5000 people at a 5 day festival he held in Noida, New Delhi in 2004: :http://bvmlu.org/SBNM/photos_noida.html

(There is also an archive of several thousand photos on Facebook which I will try to find).

All the above is incontrovertible proof of Srila Narayana Maharaja's 'notability'.

He was a Gaudiya Vaisnava holy man, guru, author and lectured all over the world in front of many thousands of different people.

His nearly 300 books are still available in print and digitally, in at least 7 languages.

Any attempt to deny this as 'notable' is frankly ludicrous, if not downright dishonest. ShyamDasUK (talk • contribs) 23:08, 1 October 2020 (BST)

WP:IDHT regarding the independency clause of WP:GNG

Comment for Ian.thomson. You state "Sources (that are not independent)".

The sources include clear biographical information in the form of audio, videos and photographs. Videos of him walking with thousands of pilgrims, and giving lectures worldwide in front of hundreds and thousands of different people. He is well-known and respected in his field. Is being famous, published, admired and followed not 'notable'? The camera by its very nature is independent - if you have concrete visual evidence of a person's celebrity, how is that not valid?

Also - have you checked all the sources I posted? How many people do you know that have websites about them & their teachings in 10 languages, even 10 years after their passing from this world? This meets the notability criterion of "worthy of notice" or "note"—that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded".

ShyamDasUK (talk) 04:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ShyamDasUK: Stop making a mess on this page. His own books, lectures, etc are not independent. Please learn what "independent" means. You need sources that are not dependent upon, affilited with, nor by him nor his associates. That's all you need to bring up. Blathering on about how wonderful you think he is just makes you look like you don't know what you're doing, which is going to make the closing admin disregard your arguments. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian.thomson - I don't say his books & lectures, or thousands of followers, are 'independent' -

I do say they are concrete evidence of his being worthy of note, ie. notable.

Here is an independent secondary source - a whole chapter in a Columbia University publication about his place in the Hare Krishna movement.

There is also the Encyclopedia of Hinduism entry cited elsewhere. ShyamDasUK (talk) 05:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ShyamDasUK: That post is an admission that you have not read (or else do not understand) our notability guidelines, and so you should not be participating in this discussion. Notability requires independent sources, dependent sources do not factor into notability at all. Continuing with the mistake of trying to defend inadequate sources instead of finding better ones (such as that Encyclopedia of Hinduism) is going make it harder for people to find good sources when you cite them.

Comment You state, "Dependent sources do not factor at all". But the Reliable Sources/Biographies rules state: "Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. Although they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred."

So there is some value in primary sources, defined as "original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, ... and so on. Primary sources may or may not be independent sources. An account of a traffic incident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the event;". I have posted you eye-witness accounts, & news articles, with video footage to back it up. The page also requires secondary sources of course, which have also been provided. ShyamDasUK (talk) 11:39, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You notice that I've not !voted? I'm not going to because I don't care. I'm just here because you and other !keep voters have seriously fucked up this page (and not in your favor). One of the ways y'all are messing up is your continued insistence on commenting on everybody's !votes and responding to everything. Stop, you're only hurting your case. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:57, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian.thomson I am doing my level best to read and comprehend your criteria, and adhere to them.

But I do feel that valid, logical points made by the *Keep side are being ignored. ShyamDasUK (talk) 11:39, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

discussion explaining the concept of notability and independent sources, WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP:HONORIFICS, etc Ian.thomson (talk) 22:56, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All of the above links to websites, youtube channels, facebook pages, photos should be on the page itself since it validates the fact that we are discussing a celebrity. Source-of-inspiration (talk) 19:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Notability is measured by coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject; the number of websites about something does not impact this measure, neither does the number of books or videos published, nor the number of lectures held. — Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:06, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm sorry Blablubbs, but I disagree. If someone is the author of 294 books available in 7 languages, in print and available online, they are by definition notable. If someone has thousands of followers and has lectured all over the world in front of hundreds of thousands of different people, they are also, indisputably, notable. He was an inspiration to many and continues to be so.

He was honoured by various western leaders, including the Mayors of 2 western cities (Houston TX & Birmingham UK) and a religious committee in New Delhi, among others. There are many who have Wikipedia pages who are far less famous than Srila Narayana Maharaja. Thank you. ShyamDasUK (talk) 21:46, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At the very least, we need to ditch the WP:HONORIFICS, which are not appropriate for an encylopaedia article. HDG Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur Prabhupada, the founder of the Gaudiya Math and the Saraswata line, of which ISKCON, IPBYS, etc., are part, is at Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati – as it should be, because that is his name minus the Vaisnava honorifics. Srila Narayana Maharaja's page should be at Bhaktivedanta Narayana (where Narayana is his sannyasi name), as it was before, if it stays. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 11:22, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would compromise on the honorifics - I would be willing to drop the "Srila", as "Sri" is the Hindi/Sanskrit equivalent of "Mr."; "Srila" would be more like "Sir". But Bhaktivedanta is his title, Narayana his first name, and he was commonly known as "Narayana Maharaja" in the world. There is another individual by the name of "Narayan Maharaj", so for clarity, the "Bhaktivedanta" designation must be retained. I would prefer "Bhaktivedanta Narayana Goswami Maharaja" but would settle for "Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja" (the name most readily recognisable) as the absolute minimum.

3 names is not an unreasonable number - cp. Sarah Michelle Gellar or Martin Luther King. And religious leaders, Acharyas, should be treated with respect, even in academic circles. ShyamDasUK (talk) 21:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Above stated: "Not appropriate for encylopaedia article" Where is this stated? What third-party published documentation states this? Stated above: "because that is his name minus the Vaisnava honorifics." This sentence needs clarity. Again, there is not a single academic reference citing third-party sources to support the suggestion for deletion. The statements above are ungrounded, false, and contradictory as stated in comment below by KundalataDasi below. Source-of-inspiration (talk) 19:39, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I wholly disagree with the individual named Dasanudasa. By his logic, the word "Prabhupada" should be removed from the title of A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada's article. Without this, hardly anybody would recognize the subject of the article. Instead, the appropriate course of action is to use the full name under which each of these individuals have published their books and are recognized by their readers. For Srila Narayana Maharaja, this is "Srila Bhaktivedanta Narayana Gosvami Maharaja." Anything short of this would confuse him with another person with a similar name: Narayan Maharaj. I urge Wikipedia administrators to consider this point and avoid any changes to the article name. This would be completely inappropriate and diminish the educational value of the article, as it would then become less discoverable to those seeking to learn more about this eminent guru. KundalataDasi (talk) 11:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Prabhupada is an exception in the majority of reliable independent sources call him by that name, rather than simply AC Bhaktivedanta Swami. That isn't the case for Narayana Maharaja (albeit mainly because there are hardly any sources on his life that aren't published by his own organisation or disciples). The article title now is inappropriate due to the extensive use of honorifics. "Srila" is not part of his name; neither are "Goswami" or "Maharaja" (the first of which simply means he is a sannyasi, and the later of which is an honorific meaning "great king"). Just as we don't use titles like "Sir" or "Dame" or "His Majesty", neither are these appropriate for an article title. There are no other Bhaktivedanta Narayanas on Wikipedia, so this shouldn't present a problem. Poor old Bhaktivedanta Tripurari doesn't even get his "Bhaktivedanta" in there, just his sannyasa name: he's at Tripurari. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 13:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment This statement, "Poor old Bhaktivedanta Tripurari doesn't even get his "Bhaktivedanta" in there, just his sannyasa name" is subjective, non-academic and has no bearing in this discussion. Source-of-inspiration (talk) 19:39, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I take no delight in "Poor old Bhaktivedanta Tripurari" [sic] not having his name properly represented - he should be "Tripurari Swami" or "Bhaktivedanta Tripurari" at the very least. He is also a Vaisnava leader. ShyamDasUK (talk) 21:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment I think we could drop the "Srila", as a compromise. It is an honorific, similar to "Sir" or "His Holiness". It can still be used in the article itself. Most searches would be for Bhaktivedanta Narayana, Narayana Maharaja or Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja. Personally, I would settle for "Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja" as the absolute minimum. ShyamDasUK (talk) 21:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

accusations of bad-faith that miss WP:AGF and WP:BURDEN Ian.thomson (talk) 22:56, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Comment Original request for deletion states: "from a quick scan...." A quick scan indicates whimsical actions; whimsical actions to arbitrarily suggest an article for deletion constitutes trolling ^[2]. A quick scan does not meet any guidelines for the deletion process. You have not made a single specific point with academic evidence or research.

Comment: You are suggesting that the page for ^[3] Srila Bhaktivedanta Narayana Gosvami be deleted yet it appears you have not executed any of the considerations before nominating an article for deletion as cited here ^[4] under **Deletion Process**.

For your convenience I am citing a few of the points here. Note that ALL of the steps should be considered:

Investigate the possibility of rewriting the article yourself (or at least creating a stub on the topic and requesting expansion) instead of deleting it.
First do the necessary homework and look for sources yourself, and invite discussion on the talk page by using the notability template, if you are disputing the notability of an article's subject. The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth.

To repeat, it clearly states in the process for deletion:

The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth.

Unless you have scholarly evidence to support your suggestion for deletion, you are violating Wikipedia's deletion process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Source-of-inspiration (talk • contribs) 19:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agreed. There are no valid grounds for deletion, certainly not on the basis of notability, nor lack of sources. ShyamDasUK (talk) 21:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:BLP, almost all sources are primary except for a now defunct news network, and this page seems to be full of sockpuppets canvassing votes, presenting no actual keep arguments. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 13:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

commentary on above !vote, including slight correction of reasoning, bludgeoning of process, and people getting upset that canvassing is readily apparent Ian.thomson (talk) 22:56, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dear Berrely - Please check the sources again, there is a variety of them including scholarly analysis by those unconnected with the Hare Krishna movement.

I don't know what a sock puppet is, but I also don't see how hard evidence of hundreds of publications and dozens of webpages in a variety of languages, plus proof of festivals and lecture tours held globally during Maharaja's lifetime, before many thousands of people, do not prove that a person was a celebrity and thus 'notable'. Is there some kind of prejudice or campaign in the academic world against religious persons and communities? ShyamDasUK (talk) 17:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The news network is not defunct, it has merely changed URL from www.vnn.org to http://vaishnava-news-network.org/

The VNN.org archive is found here: http://www.vaishnava-news-network.org/europe/index.html ShyamDasUK (talk) 17:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, Berrely states "Fails WP:BLP" - BLP being Biography of Living Persons. But Maharaja passed away in 2010.

I think this shows he didn't look very deeply into this page, or its validity.

I have just Googled sock puppet - that is, "online account for the purpose of deception".

I am known by this name, Shyam Das - it is not even just a pseudonym. No-one is pretending to be someone else here.

It is a wholly false and frankly, offensive allegation. ShyamDasUK (talk) 18:27, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct to point out my mistake, I had a temporary lapse of judgement. Even so, the article still fails the equivalent notability policy, Wikipedia:Notability (people). Also, for a definition of sockpuppet on Wikipedia, see WP:SOCK. I am in no way saying you are a sock or SPA, but with the constant bludgeoning in this AfD, it is likely multiple users are (or at least canvasing votes) — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 18:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Berrely - you say "the article fails the notability policy Wikipedia:Notability (people)".

Among those criteria are the following:

The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times.

The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field.

The author of the page has added 2 such awards, from the Visva Dharma Samsad (World Religious Parliament) in New Delhi, 2003,^[5] and from the Mayor of Houston, Texas, 2003.^[6]

There is also a record of his being honoured by the Deputy Mayor of Birmingham, U.K., Mrs. Teresa Stewart, and the president of the National Council of Hindu Temples, in June 2001. He was at that time presented the World Peace Flame, which had traveled around the world from five continents, and has been previously offered to the Pope, Nelson Mandela, and others who were known to have been instrumental in bring about world peace, by Kamala Wood of Life Foundation Worldwide.^[7]

As for "enduring historical record in a specific field" - I have provided so much evidence of that, audio, video & photographical, in the form of thousands of lectures given, festivals held, his travelling the world 30 times, and being received by thousands of people in dozens of countries - this page amply meets both these criteria of notability.

He has a published biography ^[8], and section 4 of the Notability (People) page states:

Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources.

Please read WP:BASIC, not a single of the source you provided are reliable, and many are self published. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 20:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to have examined the sources in any depth at all, your one-line comments carry little weight. There are 11 separate authors cited as sources, some of them impartial academic scholars. It is unsurprising that the Hare Krishna devotees know the most about a Hare Krishna Guru, Acharya (teacher), but the various branches of Hare Krishna are not the only sources given. Please look again. Are you saying the 'Encyclopedia of Hinduism' is not valid? You may as well be saying "Hinduism is not valid". ShyamDasUK (talk) 21:46, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure whether Berrely has this article confused with another because this is not an accurate statement. Please note that the majority of content in this article is sourced from an entry in the Encyclopedia of Hinduism published by Mandala Publishing. Additional sources include scholarly articles by Bloch, Broo, Collins, De Backer, etc. who are all academic professionals who have written on the subject of the article. Finally, I have also referenced news articles online, which are perhaps less credible than these academic sources above but reliable nevertheless. KundalataDasi (talk) 21:14, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ *Comment Berrely is making false accusations of socket puppetry; meanwhile he is not presenting himself as following the guidelines for deletion as stated here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:D%C4%81s%C4%81nud%C4%81sa#Violating_Wikipedia_deletion_process_requirements. A deep investigation of his editing history does not indicate Berrely is an expert in any subject matter particularly this subject matter; Berrely displays no authority to even comment in this thread as he simply copied and pasted the original suggestion for deletion from Dasanudasa. You are WRONG to state that we are socket puppets. That is a false accusation and in itself displays a hostile and desperate attempt to hack, troll, and vandalize the page of an innocent celebrity who has served humanity for a greater good. Source-of-inspiration (talk) 17:14, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Struck and un-bolded three duplicate !votes. Users would benefit from dropping the bludgeon, remembering that Brevity is the soul of wit, and avoiding ad hominem attacks. Focus on content, not contributors. If you cannot make a convincing argument in a reasonable-length paragraph, the point becomes far less convincing with every wall of text that gets posted. Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:47, 3 October 2020 (UTC) (came here from the discord)[reply]

Reply Thanks Eddie891 - I do have a tendency to be verbose and go into detail. I'm not a Wikipedia expert. But I have collected a large body of evidence to show that the subject was and is a most notable person, and provided it herewith. I tried to make it as legible as possible. All the best =o) ShyamDasUK (talk) 17:58, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion
^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandals_versus_Trolls
^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srila_Bhaktivedanta_Narayana_Gosvami_Maharaja
^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Deletion_process
^ https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/05/Srila_Bhaktivedanta_Narayana_Gosvami_Maharaja_Yuga_Acharya_Declaration.jpg
^ https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fd/Srila_Bhaktivedanta_Narayana_Gosvami_Maharaja_Honorary_Citizen_and_Goodwill_Ambassador_of_Houston.jpg
^ http://vaishnava-news-network.org/europe/EU0107/EU10-6828.html
^ https://www.gokulbhajan.com/all-books/books-gaudiya/Srila_Gurudeva-the_Supreme_Treasure.pdf

Delete: No in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of subject can be observed following a before search. Celestina007 (talk) 19:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think you may have reviewed too quickly. Mandala Publishing, Columbia University Press, Abo Akademi University Press, etc. are not self-publishing houses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KundalataDasi (talk • contribs) 21:27, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject of the article was appointed the “Honorary Citizen” of the City of Houston on 31st May, 2003 by Mr. Lee P. Brown, the Mayor of the City of Houston. The plaque (a photo of which is seen in the article) given by the Mayor states that this “is in recognition of your outstanding success in your vocation and in appreciation of the valuable contributions you have made and are making through unselfish public service for the benefit and welfare of humanity. Furthermore, as a token of high esteem, I have selected you to serve as a Goodwill Ambassador of this city …..”.

City of Houston is the 4th largest city in the United States. Mr. Lee P. Brown was a very respected and influential leader of Houston. He would not have appointed Srila Narayana Maharaja as the Honorary Citizen and the Goodwill Ambassador if he was not a notable personality and his contributions were not noteworthy. Vbudhiraja (talk) 22:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Vbudhiraja (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

Delete This article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Based on the above discussion, I thought I was going to find lots of sources to evaluate. However, I was very surprised that searches on Google News and Scholar, NYT, JSTOR and Academic OneFile did not produce a single source: no passing mentions, no short bios and no reviews of his work. In the evaluation of the sources listed above, I am still not convinced they show notability as defined by Wikipedia at WP:N. We can't use his own publications to show notability because they are not secondary sources. Fan pages, Facebook pages and blog posts are not reliable. VNN doesn't have a masthead and accepts articles from "contributors" so they are not reliable. Therefore, I recommend deletion. My vote might change if at least two links to profiles or reviews of his work are posted that pass WP:GNG: "Significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Claims that he is notable, without a link to a source I can check myself, will not convince me that he is notable. Z1720 (talk) 02:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a comment for Z1720. Please take a look at http://cup.columbia.edu/book/the-hare-krishna-movement/9780231122566 for the Irvin H. Collins piece referenced in the article. You can preview the book in Google Books and confirm that the entire chapter is devoted to a study of Srila Narayana Maharaja. Furthermore, consider the book by Broo Mans and the dissertation by Luc De Backer ("Conversion and Ritualisation"), the latter of which is indexed in Proquest Dissertations. A search on Oxford University's SOLO system produces dozens of hits on Srila Narayana Maharaja--both works that reference him and works that have been written by him. Srila Narayana Maharaja is often cited by Religious Studies scholars whose academic focus is on Hinduism or Gaudiya Vaisnavism. I would also encourage you to search on academia.edu, which nets numerous results. I'm sincerely puzzled why you would argue that he is not notable when all these references exist and have been included in this article. Please reconsider. KundalataDasi (talk) 05:27, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for Z1720 - You say you found not "a single source" on Google News (3 sources in 3 languages, English, Spanish & Italian).

You omit to mention Google Books, there are over 10 pages of publications there;

Google Images brings up hundreds of photos of him, too many to count.

Google Scholar brings up many results, too - including secondary sources by impartial academic scholars, such as this one published by Columbia University Press, which delineates the history of Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja's relationship with Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada and ISKCON.

Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharajawas and is a famous personality, remarkable and/or of special interest in the religious field, and an accomplished & prolific author.

May I also point out that the Wikipedia criteria for Notability of Academics (including Scholars and Philosophers) states:

Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources. ShyamDasUK (talk) 04:04, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ShyamDasUK: Bringing up Google images proves you have no understanding whatsoever as to what qualifies as an independent reliable source. Just stop already. Also, when I look at the Google Books results, I see that there are results but it's rather difficult to find those that are independent of him but still specifically about him. As the person asserting notability, it is your job to cite specific results (not just "hey, there's plenty there but I'm going to make you find them anyway").Ian.thomson (talk) 05:35, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for giving some ideas on where to find sources. Here is my analysis of what was posted:

Regarding the Columbia Uni. Press source: The author of the book, Irvin H. Collins, is part of Narayana Gosvami Maharaja's organisation. Per [23], "Irvin H. Collins...is now associated with the organisation of Narayana Maharaja." WP:GNG says if you want to use a source to establish notability, it must be, "'Independent of the subject'[:] excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it." Collins is affiliated with Maharaja, therefore this source cannot establish notability.

Regarding the Google news search results: [24] has no masthead (the "About" page is an error message) and the article doesn't have an author, so it's not a WP:RELIABLESOURCE. [25] is about one of Maharaja's disciples and only mentions Maharaja in passing. [26] might be reliable, although it is clearly labelled as a blog and I can't find the masthead on the site. Maharaja is only mentioned in three paragraphs of the blog post.

Regarding the Google Books search: Many of the results mention Maharaja in passing. If you find a book that is a WP:RS and fulfils WP:GNG, please post it below. The amount of search results will not convince me: I will need a specific source, with a link, that I can evaluate (similar to what was posted for the Columbia Uni. Press source)

I'm ignoring the Google Image search results because images are not reliable sources

The Google Scholar results either produce Maharaja's own work (which are not reliable sources) or passing mentions. One source, [27], gives a synopsis of the conflict between Maharaja and ISKCON in the footnotes, but I don't think this is significant coverage, and I can't determine if the two editors of the book are independent of the subject as I can't read their bios in the Google Books preview.

To summarize: There are two sources listed above, [28] and [29], that might be enough to establish notability, but I would need to see more significant coverage of this person to change my vote to "keep".Z1720 (talk) 21:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Likewise Z1720 I tried to find some coverage online but miserably failed. I tried with the "B. V. Narayan" spelling as well. The keepers above should try to explain which SNG criteria Gosvami meets (because it is a definite GNG fail) and then point out to resources that validate the SNG argument. Saying that there are facebook fan pages and things alike is a weird argument to be made in AfD. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 05:24, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a comment for The Aafī. Please take a look at http://cup.columbia.edu/book/the-hare-krishna-movement/9780231122566 for the Irvin H. Collins piece referenced in the article. You can preview the book in Google Books and confirm that the entire chapter is devoted to a study of Srila Narayana Maharaja. Furthermore, consider the book by Mans Broo and the dissertation by Luc De Backer ("Conversion and Ritualisation"), the latter of which is indexed in Proquest Dissertations. A search on Oxford University's SOLO system produces dozens of hits on Srila Narayana Maharaja--both works that reference him and works that have been written by him. Srila Narayana Maharaja is often cited by Religious Studies scholars whose academic focus is on Hinduism or Gaudiya Vaisnavism. I would also encourage you to search on academia.edu, which nets numerous results. Thank you for considering. KundalataDasi (talk) 06:13, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KundalataDasi, while you commented the same earlier pointing to Z1720, you shouldn't comment it again and again. Suggesting you to read the COAL essay, "Don't Stand There Bouncing the Damned Ball". Thank you! ─ The Aafī (^talk) 06:39, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @The Aafī - My www.duck.com search on "B.V. Narayan" yielded this paper to the GBC & devotees of ISKCON, this condolence notice on his passing from ISKCON, who had been inimical to him at times; this formal apology from that global religious organisation to him for previous misunderstandings, and this subtitled video of him speaking about Lord Jesus. There are images of him also but the best search term would be "Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja".

There is some confusion because there is another B.V. Narayan from Bangalore, and Narayan is a very common Indian name.

Try here: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=b.v.+narayana+maharaja&ia=web ShyamDasUK (talk) 06:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ShyamDasUK, You miss what is reliable, significant and independent coverage. YouTube, Wordpress and sites alike aren't reliable sources. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 06:44, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Aafī - He has several mentions on this Hare Krishna news page (independent of and sometimes critical of his organisation), including this letter showing him to be Acharya & president of a religious organisation and this article regarding the sale of a $3.5m Los Angeles property, both from 2007. ShyamDasUK (talk) 07:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ShyamDasUK, This isn't any reliable source or something having significant coverage. To my understanding this website comes no way near the "premises" of reliable sources. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 07:24, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the ISKCON formal apology to Srila Narayana Maharaja in 2009 from their official news page, not Wordpress. There are several mentions of him here on ISKCON News, including this one regarding their relationship with "His Holiness Narayana Maharaja, a prominent leader of the Vaishnava group the Gaudiya Math". Note that they are a separate organisation who had quarrelled with him and his followers (cp. Protestant/Catholic, Sunni/Shia - in this case, ISKCON/Gaudiya Math).

The coverage may not seem significant to you, but to a sizeable minority (western Hindu converts), it is very relevant indeed - and therefore of public interest, and noteworthy. ShyamDasUK (talk) 07:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ShyamDasUK, just because a newspaper is read by some people, doesn't mean the source is reliable. In this whole argument you have been ignoring the most obvious policy (from WP:42): Articles generally require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. If you continue to claim a source is noteworthy because "many people read it" or "it is very well known in X" then your arguments will be disregarded. I suggest reading the basic WP:GNG, instead of repeatedly asking the same questions. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 09:09, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I consider the subject to more or less meet WP:ANYBIO additional criteria of WP:SNG. Particularly, #1: the person has received an award and was honored as the Honorary Citizen and Goodwill Ambassador of the City of Houston. Also, #2 is apparently met: “The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field” - in the Gaudiya Vaishnavism field. Uksus70 (talk) 13:23, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uksus70, it also needs to pass WP:BASIC, simply passing 2 addition criterion doesn't guarantee it notability. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 13:26, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're right Berrely. Perhaps I misinterpret the first statement of the “Additional criteria” section which says, “People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards.” Thank you for teaching the newbie that I am. Just please WP:DNB :) Uksus70 (talk) 13:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In relation to WP:BASIC, most of the criteria are met:

1. Sufficient reliable, secondary sources: Especially the following are independent academic studies, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject: Bloch, B.; Broo, Mans; De Backer, Luc; Holland, Clifton L.; Murphy, Una Marian; Rosen, Steven; Rao, K. L. Seshagiri. None of these seem to be connected with the subject.

2. I referred one of these books- Encyclopedia of Hinduism and the subject has been covered substantially. This is an independent work commissioned by India Heritage Research Foundation, USA. Also looked up another source: By Goswami, Satswarupa das - Srila Prabhupada Lilamrta. The subject has significant coverage here. This is an independent work commissioned by ISKCON, independent of the subject and intellectually independent of other sources quoted. I looked up to see if the author Goswami, Satswarupa was a follower of the subject but he is not.

3. Multiple secondary sources have been provided (listed in #1).

Additionally, subject also meets Criteria for WP:ANYBIO #1, #2.

Deletion is unnecessary in my view. Kathy0204 (talk) 15:41, 4 October 2020 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Kathy0204 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

Are you quoting an encyclopedia... In an encyclopedia? WP:TERTIARY — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 16:06, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is an independent work, an in-depth study, presenting various facts and aspects about Hinduism. Where is the guideline not to use tertiary sources in WP:TERTIARY Kathy0204 (talk) 16:14, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's quite clear Kathy0204 (above) created her account specifically to add another 'vote' to this discussion, and I suspect Uksus70 has been canvassed too. Something to be aware of. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 10:43, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dāsānudāsa, This AfD is "sock infected". ─ The Aafī (^talk) 13:34, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Likely an online forum somewhere spoon feeding people. A closer will disregard most of these !votes anyways. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 16:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks the coverage required in multiple reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG; a lot of the 'keep' votes from SPAs and meat puppets are not addressing Wikipedia policy Spiderone 17:29, 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 Shiramine Shrine. Without prejudice against the recreation of a suitably written and sourced article. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:08, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seidai Myōjin[edit]

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

The source provided a non-reliable website. During my WP:BEFORE, I found a couple of additional sources on the subject: this from Reuters and this from Discover Kyoto. While these are reliable sources, Seidai Myōjin is only mentioned in passing. In general, it appears that he is only ever mentioned in conjunction with the shrine mentioned in the sources. These mentions are not WP:SIGCOV. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:18, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:18, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:18, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:18, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

"High-court keepy-uppy in Kyoto leads ancient Japanese to indulge in shrine fever". The Guardian. June 1, 2002.
Shiramine Jingu Shrine en
精大明神 is not linked in ja:白峯神宮. Kemari has Kanji 蹴鞠 same as Cuju. oops, guess en has an article Kemari

fiveby(zero) 12:47, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what your comment is intended to say. But the Guardian article is quite useful. The second paragraph mentions Seidai Myōjin in some detail. I've got to say, my view is still that the subject is notable in conjunction with the shrine or football in Japan more broadly but not necessarily as a stand-alone article. Feel free, though, to clear things up if I misconstrued your comment! Modussiccandi (talk) 13:05, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is much distinction between the shrine and the kami see Myōjin, Kanda Myōjin. A Setsumatsusha of Shiramine Shrine so a redirect there is probably appropriate, but someone familiar with Shinto might have a better idea. fiveby(zero) 14:40, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I have asked Midnightblueowl to have a look at the discussion. They are one of the main contributors to the Shinto article. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:52, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have an idea why the article is nominated for deletion, the article is basically a single sentence. I did mention that there weren't many English sources on the god. But there is a possibility that there are tons of sources written in Japanese. Sorry about that I probably should have looked for more sources last night. But, I'm against deletion. CycoMa (talk) 14:03, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - It seems notable enough to have its own page, given how it's a Japanese deity. However, I understand opposing arguments. There aren't a lot of online sources and the Wikipedia page itself is a whopping one sentence long. As someone else already mentioned, we should bring in some Shinto experts to comment on the matter. I'm definitely not one of them. — Coastaline (talk) 19:11, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Shiramine Shrine from available English sources on the net, seems to be a god, intrinsically linked to the shrine. Unless at least Japanese RS are quoted to substantiate his significance beyond the shrine, the article should be a redirect.Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shiramine Shrine - at least for now. Hopefully more English language literature on this particular kami will arise in future, which could be cited here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now. However this subject is notable enough because he is a Japanese deity! When some source are available on online, we will restore the article. VocalIndia (talk) 16:48, 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. Tone 15:24, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TimeSheet (software)[edit]

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

The company appears to have folded as the previously noted website (http://www.businessrunner.net/timesheet/) redirects to a completely different site. Apart from Lifehack, other sources do not appear to be RS. It seems to fail GNG/WP:NCORP. Infogapp1 (talk) 11:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:43, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:43, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:43, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:44, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:45, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Gone without a lasting impact. gidonb (talk) 23:20, 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 keep. Tone 15:24, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abby Lakew[edit]

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

There certainly are some sources about Abby Lakew, but the article does not show her notability. Views in hundreds of thousands on Youtube are not enough to make someone notable enough for Wikipedia. Maybe Kora All-Africa Music Award nomination is enough for some, but for me, the article has a week stand-point and this is why I am nominating it for deletion. Cheers! Nadzik (talk) 10:50, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nadzik (talk) 10:50, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Nadzik (talk) 10:50, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Nadzik (talk) 10:50, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. Nadzik (talk) 10:50, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:15, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Kora Awards seem sufficiently notable, and I'd place a nominee thereof on this side of notable. Also she's newsworthy enough for The Times of Israel, having been the opening act at a music festival in Jerusalem [30]. I think in cases like these we have to be mindful of WP:CSB where the subject is unlikely to appear in the pages of Billboard or Parade. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:18, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are several sources that cover her nobility such as 1, which supports the rest sources and the same information in the context. It details her abandonment from Ethiopia at the age of 13 to live in U.S., and her release of two albums. Therefore, I suggested that there are variety reliable source that covers her life as well in lieu of its deletion. The Supermind (talk) 21:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Times of Israel article does not even come close to meeting sigcov because it's literally just one sentence saying that she opened the festival. The Jerusalem Theatre website is from the theatre that hosted the festival, so it's quite clearly promotional/not independant from the subject. Instead, to argue for GNG, I'll proint to Ezega Article and Ethiogrio Article. One Kora Awards nomination doesn't satisfy point 1 of WP:ANYBIO, which says about nominations for major awards "has been nominated for such an award several times". But, she does meet WP:MUSIC criteria 8 through that Kora nomination. It's also worth noting that she (according to the Ethiogrio Article) prefers to sing in Amharic, so it might be worthwhile in terms of improving the article to do some searches in that language. Samsmachado (talk) 23:16, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the points put forward in the preceeding post she has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources and therefore passes WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:56, 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. Sandstein 20:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Communist China and the Free World's Future[edit]

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

On the basis of User:Nick-D and User:Albertaont comments over at Talk:Communist China and the Free World's Future. Lacks notability. DTM (talk) 10:11, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:36, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:36, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per WP:NOTNEWS - there's no evidence that this speech has had any lasting impact. Nick-D (talk) 10:37, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per WP:NOTNEWS - to be notable, has to be a speech from someone like Trump himself, we don't create articles for cabinet member speeches. Albertaont (talk) 15:53, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The speech is still not only from a notable member of the current U.S. cabinet (Secretary of State), it's still significant as part of the current relations between the Trump administration and China, and also useful for other readers to understand the current U.S. perspective (and especially the Trump administration) on China. If it is not possible to keep the article, then I suggest merging the article while trimming and leaving only relevant information where possible. Mr. Lechkar (talk) 22:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. ETTD. Pompeo has been shunned (even by Pope Francis) and is making virtually no effect on anything. I have seen no ongoing coverage; it was not even a front-page headline in a single news cycle. It's all screaming into the void of Trump's erratic and irrational foreign policy and blatant racism towards China and its people. At best, it deserves a redirect. I am not criticizing the content of his speech, but its impact, which is less than zero, a mote in the dustbin of history. Bearian (talk) 00:17, 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. Numerically and per strength of argument: this article remains substantially unsourced, and WP:V as well as WP:N are strong arguments for deletion. The "keep" side makes no policy-based arguments to contest that. That the creator is checkuser-blocked and banned also does not inspire confidence. Sandstein 20:51, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1989 Swiss Army order of battle[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No evidence that the 1989 Swiss order of battle is notable, doesn't seem to have received significant attention as such.

This is a followup nomination after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1989 Portuguese Armed Forces order of battle, a group nomination where it was indicated that separate nominations would be better.

There also was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1989 Swiss Army order of battle from 2 years ago, which ended as keep (though with strong calls to source it). The article has not been improved since, and the sources which are there are not really about the 1989 order in the first place, and not very impressive otherwise (e.g. the "the-northrop-f-5-enthusiast-page" indicating that the first post-cold-war reorganisation happened in 1995-1996[31]). Fram (talk) 09:44, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 09:44, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 09:44, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 09:44, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All army groups have an order of battle, which is relevant in time of war. Notability is not inherited, so whatever decisions are made about other nations and other armies with Order of Battle, are not relevant here. -- Whiteguru (talk) 10:11, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing SIGCOV in multiple RS that satisfies WP:GNG. I am not convinced that an order of battle serves any purposes without a battle and don't accept that 1989 is in any way significant, even as the end of the Cold War which Switzerland arguably wasn't a part of. Mztourist (talk) 10:53, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, when broken down by year this borders on an indiscriminate collection of information. Geschichte (talk) 17:41, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: This was discussed thoroughly at the failed group nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1989 Portuguese Armed Forces order of battle and the overwhelming consensus was keep. Based on that this should be a SNOW close. // Timothy :: talk 22:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually based on the discussion there the Nom was advised to withdraw and resubmit separate AFDs, which they have done starting with this one. Mztourist (talk) 03:10, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mztourist, thanks for letting me know, I thought the group ended as keep. Fram, sorry for my incorrect assumption. // Timothy :: talk 11:18, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Can you, for clarity, ~~strike out~~ your !vote? No problem if you add a reasoned "keep" (or preferably delete ;-) ) as well of course. Fram (talk) 12:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done :) Best wishes from Los Angeles

Keep: 1989 was a key point in the Cold War (the very end). This was obviously a notable event of a notable subject. This article is part of the history of that key event/subject. The order of battle is significant to military history. Just as Cold War shouldn't have all the available information. We use WP:SUMMARYSTYLE to drill down deeper into a subject/event. Something such as Cold War >> Switzerland >> Swiss Army >> Order of Battle. It's a list article with significant information about a notable event. I admit I don't have sources, but I think how this fits into our coverage will show it has value and that deleting it would diminish that subject/event. // Timothy :: talk 18:45, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: what makes 1989 any more significant than 1956 (Hungary), 1961 (Berlin), 1968 (Czechoslovakia) or 1981-4 (Pershing II)? Do we really need ORBATs of every European country at different points throughout the Cold War? What exactly does it add? Mztourist (talk) 05:49, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And what does it learn readers about the Cold War, or about 1989? Indicating the significance should be done (normally by independent sources) by showing what changed during that year, or compared to the previous or following year. A static picture of the order of battle learns me nothing at all about the Cold War, Switzerland in the Cold War, the impact the events of 1989 had on all of this, ... Essential information which would use too much space (or which would be WP:UNDUE in another article) can be spin off, but for that it has to be shown that it is essential information. Your 'drill down' is very nice, weren't it for the fact that the Swiss Army article doesn't even link to this article (in fact, the only article this is linked from is List of orders of battle). Fram (talk) 07:18, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deete - Seems too arbitrary a time point to be worth representing as a separate article. Agricolae (talk) 14:29, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- My question on this is how far the 1989 order of battle differs from that of 2020. I suspect the answer is not much. If so, this is a harmless article. If we were going to have siblings for other years, I would object to its existence. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Agricolae, Mztourist. WP:NOT (t · c) buidhe 23:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As stated above, 1989 was an important year for military history, hence these lists. The fact Switzerland wasn't technically involved in the Cold War is irrelevant. It prepared for the fallout from the Cold War just as any other country did. Its forces were much stronger then than they are now, just like any other country which might have been affected by the Cold War. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, what makes 1989 any more important for military history than 1956, 1961, 1968 or 1981-4? Mztourist (talk) 12:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Feel free to present the sources that support your "keep" for this specific article, as for the moment there are none. Furthermore, the article does nothing to demonstrate this importance or how 1989 was so drastically different compared to 1990 for the Swiss order of battle. Fram (talk) 13:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I believe that's already been sufficiently explained above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:55, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Considering that no one in this discussion has presented a source, I'll take that as a "no" and hope that the closing admin will weigh your !vote accordingly. Fram (talk) 15:08, 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. Sandstein 20:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cavender's[edit]

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

Has a lot of stores - exists - but I couldn't establish that it meets WP:CORP or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 09:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:21, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I can find are community blogs and obits of the founders. The larger retail chain Boot Barn is currently a redlink. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:40, 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. Tone 15:24, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christoph Fischhaber[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NHOCKEY. Played only 2 games in the DEL, well short of 200 required for notability. Tay87 (talk) 08:09, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 08:09, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 08:09, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 08:09, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Player fails WP:NHOCKEY and I did not find enough information to pass WP:GNG. Flibirigit (talk) 12:45, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY and I don't see evidence that he has the coverage to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 18:47, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Pamzeis (talk) 12:58, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Monroe District (Santa Rosa, California)[edit]

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

Redirect to Santa Rosa, California. Informal neighborhood fails WP:GEOLAND, and has only received trivial coverage from local publications. KidAd talk 04:40, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The current article includes numerous sources documenting info, usage from 1870 on. It appears to have been a community, eventually swallowed up by expanding Santa Rosa. Wikipedia is a gazetteer(?) about places, if a community is documented, even only by local sources, it can be covered in Wikipedia. Also Wikipedia is not temporary or whatever, a former community is valid too. Communities might possibly be listed within a higher level article, like "Neighborhoods" section of Santa Rosa article, but can/should have a separate article if there is enough to say about it (which is the case here). I don't happen to see immediately if it was ever legally in existence as a town, but it did have legal existence at least in form of a Monroe school district, whose annexation into Santa Rosa school district is documented. The nomination is harsh, suggesting redirect, i.e. that there is nothing even worth merging. There is far too much documented material to merge into Santa Rosa article's section on neighborhoods. This article is the place to cover Monroe, and to accommodate additional future information, such as, perhaps, historic photo(s) of its school(s) and of its general plan. So, keep. --Doncram (talk) 22:05, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't exactly understand what you mean by Wikipedia being a "gazetteer." Wikipedia is certainly not a travel guide. Every square block of every city in America surely has some interesting story attached to it, but that doesn't mean that those need to be catalogued in detail on Wikipedia. A large section is dedicated to "Elementary School," which contains a series of dry factoids about a local one-room schoolhouse. Generally, content on this page is all trivial, and would be far better suited to a local archive or historical society. KidAd talk 23:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Technically the wp:NOTTRAVEL admonition, that Wikipedia is not to be a travel guide, is only about not including phone numbers and opening hours and other ephemera which are appropriate for mention in travel guide coverage of a place but not for Wikipedia's coverage of the same place. And this article doesn't include any phone numbers or opening hours or the like. By "larch" u mean "large", right? --Doncram (talk) 01:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking. I understand a gazetteer is a publication which covers everything, like a Sears Roebuck catalog is a gazetteer about the company's products. Wikipedia is not a gazetteer about Sears products and not about many other things, but basically i think policy is that Wikipedia agrees to list all _places/communities_ (of some types) by presumption of notability for all of them, rather than requiring sources (so in the past in many AFDs it has been said Wikipedia is in fact a gazetteer about them). Also in the past there was consensus that all high schools everywhere in the world would be acceptable, as long as existence was proven, so "Wikipedia is a gazetteer about high schools" was said (and IMO that was good policy for Wikipedia for several reasons including marketing-type/gateway-type reason of making it easy for people everywhere to get started into Wikipedia). Okay, looking for it, please see: wp:Gazetteer. Which links to wp:GEOLAND within Wikipedia policy about notability of places, and see that Populated, legally recognized places which have ever existed are presumed notable, and for this one there existed a school district at least, IMHO meeting the criteria (though u might disagree the school district suffices). Also see about Populated places without legal recognition, for which Wikipedia coverage is appropriate if there exist sources, which are explicitly available here. IMHO the article is fine, though I hear your point that u think the material is dry. If others agree with you that the article should not be kept, though, then "merger" would still be appropriate rather than "redirect" for some of the sources and (dry) material to be merged. --Doncram (talk) 01:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram, where would content from this article be merged? I have not come across articles related to Santa Rosa, California that provide this much...coverage on an elementary school and surrounding neighborhood. Like I said, save it for the Santa Rosa Historical Society or local county archives. KidAd talk 02:01, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see that WP:GEOLAND is an established policy, but Wikipedia:Gazetteer appears to be a pretty stale (meaning old) essay. Per WP:IINFO, Wikipedia should not be an indiscriminate collection of facts, figures, data, or historical information, even if that material is sourced to hyper-local publications. More than half of Monroe District (Santa Rosa, California) is dedicated to the elementary school. I've noticed that Wikipedia usually includes pages on high schools, omitting elementary or middle schools unless they are notable for other reasons. It does not appear that the school of the same name is notable enough to confer notability upon the neighborhood in which it is located. Just some things to think about. KidAd talk 01:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Upon further research, it appears that a large portion of this article is dedicated to an elementary school in the neighborhood/district. A better redirect location may be Santa Rosa City Schools instead of Santa Rosa, California. KidAd talk 01:56, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | [verbalize] || 07:44, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: But there's other substantial material not relating to the school, including about the Monroe Clubhouse founded in 1915, built in 1922, dance floor said to be the best in Northern California laid in 1947, still serving for dance classes and other functions today. And there's other material i can't reach without newspapers.com subscription. It's a community, long documented, just keep it. I !voted "Keep" above. --Doncram (talk) 20:08, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Doncram. Meets WP:GEOLAND. There is too much info for a Merge into Santa Rosa which is already good sized. MB 07:16, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Pamzeis (talk) 13:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Night Call (podcast)[edit]

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG for WP:SIGCOV that addresses the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 16:42, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Hello! Per the guidelines "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." In none of the citations from TIME, Oprah, and ELLE is Night Call the main topic of the source material, but in every one Night Call is addressed in its own distinct topic (which is to say directly) with at least 70 words devoted specifically to it (which is to say in depth). Additionally, these sources are reliable, secondary, and independent. Kinerd518 (talk) 17:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:13, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:00, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! It's been a week and I'm not sure if the original deletion nominator is around or has any response, at what point is it reasonable to consider the discussion closed for purposes of removing the notice? Thanks! Kinerd518 (talk) 16:44, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Modifying search to "Night Call (podcast)" turns up an array of web pages / news about this podcast. Girls in Hoodies also gets significant coverage. Some of the reviews qualify as secondary (Timber!) so there is notability. Keep. -- Whiteguru (talk) 07:05, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion to me seems pretty well closed with ample time for input. I'm going to remove the notice from the page, thanks everyone! :) Kinerd518 (talk) 18:26, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kinerd518, That's not the proper proceedure. Please let an admin close the discussion // Timothy :: talk 19:23, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- TimothyBlue Fair enough! How do we get in touch with one? Kinerd518 (talk) 19:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Kinerd518, admins review them regularly, I imagine they are giving this more time since the sources have not improved to show the article meets guidelines. Since this has had limited participation, it will probably be relisted. // Timothy :: talk 19:38, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sources in article have not been improved. Comments above above are about clickbait articles and "least 70 words devoted specifically to it" is not in depth coverage. No one has listed any further sources that meet guidelines. // Timothy :: talk 19:34, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- TimothyBlue It seems we have a disagreement about whether the sources meet the guidelines though, and there's no exception for "clickbait" that I can find in the notability guidelines. Can you tell me what specific criteria for a source would satisfy you? Or can you find someone who agrees with your assessment that can do the same? Kinerd518 (talk) 19:45, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Kinerd518, See WP:RS and WP:RSEDITORIAL for information on sourcing. There should be two secondary sources which are not editorials that meet WP:SIGCOV. Regarding "Or can you find someone who agrees with your assessment" would be considered WP:CANVASSING and is strictly prohibited, the discussion needs to be natural and organic.
  
  I did try and find sources, but was unsuccessful. I hope you are able to, I listened to the podcast, it was interesting and well produced and I enjoyed it. // Timothy :: talk 20:15, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - TimothyBlue Again though it's not clear to me what you're looking for - I'm not using the editorial sources to claim that Night Call is the BEST podcast, merely that it is A podcast that has been covered in independent reliable and secondary sources, and therefore warrants a Wikipedia page. You keep pointing me back to significant coverage but I and one other person feel that standard has been met already, which is why I'm trying to get at what you specifically are looking for. Do you see what I mean? Kinerd518 (talk) 21:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note added delsorts to help increase discussion // Timothy :: talk 19:52, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | [speak] || 07:43, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 70 words is not sigcov (t · c) buidhe 08:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "70 words" was probably not the best opening keep argument, and may have skewed some follow-on discussion points... Perhaps WP:100W was considered too high a bar? Short reviews are the norm in the book world (e.g. those from Publishers Weekly, Kirkus, Library Journal, Booklist, etc.) and quite the foundation of WP:NBOOK.
Regardless, it is better to evaluate the sources on their own merit, and WP:NWEB is our guideline if GNG fails us. Here is another "best of" example, but I would definitely not consider that significant... Looking at the O piece, I think that fails the first WP:WEBCRIT bullet of NWEB, not being much more than "this is what it is" and a rank. The Elle piece is more along the lines of something from Kirkus, and the Time piece something from Booklist. Here is a more in-depth review from Vulture: [32], and this review is decent [33]. Anyway, if one were to only take Time and Vulture I would keep. -2pou (talk) 21:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I added the Vulture and the Maine one, as well as one I found that's a similarly longer review, and removed the Oprah one. Thanks for the recommendations! Kinerd518 (talk) 20:27, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Kinerd518: Good find. That Pacific Standard piece is probably the best reference yet. -2pou (talk) 22:16, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 08:29, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Wrong Way to Love[edit]

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

Non notable film, nothing found in a WP:BEFORE except film database sites. Tagged for notability for 2 years. Donaldd23 (talk) 19:34, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 19:34, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 19:34, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment no significant coverage in Variety under the Italian or the English title. This is not a good sign. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 02:46, 13 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 12:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searching for references with "A Wrong Way to Love" 1969 brings up a whole slew of web pages all with the same synopsis of the movie. No critical reviews of the movie were found, so fails WP:NFILM -- Whiteguru (talk) 06:40, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added some contents coming from two very important contemporary film critics. It's an Italian 1960s genre film, so looking for its English title or looking for it in the Variety archive (which at best includes a dozens 1960s Italian genre films) does not make too much sense. The director is one of the most important Italian genre directors of the 1970s, additional material about this film can be found in the monographies about him, like Fernando Di Leo by Davide Pulici or Di Leo - Calibro 9 by Gordiano Lupi. Probably the page has to be moved back to its original Italian title, as it is mainly notable under that title. --151.52.164.193 (talk) 09:19, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | [soliloquize] || 07:40, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as additional references have been added to the article including two reviews by Italian film critics (exercising WP:AGF as the reviews are offline) so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:55, 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. Sandstein 20:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Birney[edit]

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

Mayor of a suburban city with no significant focused press coverage from even regional news outlets. Clearly fails the second clause in WP:NPOL. Sounder Bruce 05:59, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Sounder Bruce 05:59, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Sounder Bruce 05:59, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Sounder Bruce 05:59, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No coverage from local sources? Are you trolling? Seattle Times, Redmond Reporter, KIRO-TV, all local outlets, all covered either her race or COVID-19 policy. If James E. Smith (Montana politician), former Mayor of Helena, MT, with three sources to his name can have an article, deleting this would make absolutely no sense. She's the Mayor of a city home to Microsoft and Nintendo. It's not like having an article for the mayor of Podunk, Iowa. NDACFan (talk) 07:02, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NDACFan, I said "no significant focused press coverage". Most of this falls under routine coverage or passing mentions, which does not establish notability. And the fact that other stuff exists does not make this article notable. Redmond is the 17th largest city in Washington by population, so regardless of its place as a tech hub it is just not a major city whose mayor is automatically a major political figure. Sounder Bruce 07:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing suggests that this mayor of a suburb of a major city is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:32, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm unsure, but I'll do more research. Bearian (talk) 00:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mayors of unimportant cities are not inherently notable per WP:NPOL, meaning we need more than local coverage or substantial long term local coverage or being famous for non-political reasons, and none of these conditions are met. SportingFlyer T·C 21:13, 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 redirect to Solitaire#Software. I'll add a mention there. Sandstein 11:18, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PySol[edit]

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

When I first saw PySol and read about it being a relatively well-known FOSS solitaire game, I was expecting to find ample coverage about the software and its details, but after grinding the Internet for hours, to my horror, the coverage is disappointingly lacking. Yes, this article is mostly well-sourced, but most of these nineteen sources are primary sources, rather than secondary ones needed to establish notability. I have made one edit to the article using a secondary source, and since then, I was unable to find any other meaningful secondary sources explaining why the software is notable. A sad discovery, but no one said that the truth was beautiful. Free Media Kid! 04:38, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Free Media Kid! 04:38, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect though I'm not sure of a good target but it would be a list of something like solitaire games or games written in Python. I don't know if we have such. I think there's enough sourcing to be on such a list and thus a searchable term, just not a standalone article. --Masem (t) 04:43, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We don't have lists of freeware in which the items are not independently notable, so that route is out. It isn't mentioned in another article so as to warrant a redirect. The article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. czar 06:40, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Masem. A few solitaire games are valid search terms. Otherwise has no significant coverage from reliable independent sources. Jontesta (talk) 16:01, 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. Tone 15:24, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redsense Medical[edit]

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

is is part of an advertisement for a company making a routine safety device to detect a routine type of accident during dialysis. This part describes the company and its sole product; an already deleted part Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Venous needle dislodgement describes the accident & its potential consequences. The discussion in that AfD explains why the products is inherently trivial, and it is therefore quite unlikely that the company could become notable. Thus, as expected, the references and content here does not meet the standards of WP:NCORP. I presume there is COI, for trying to get 2 articles when there is at most a very weak case for one is a standard promotional trick associated with paid coi editing . DGG ( talk ) 03:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 05:16, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 05:16, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Aside from the possible COI editing, the subject of the article has no significant coverage to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 10:32, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References don't support notability for inclusion. Fails WP:CORDEPTH. scope_creep^Talk 08:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Dom Kaos above. 1292simon (talk) 08:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Failure to pass WP:CORPDEPTH is invoked as an argument for deletion above. According to WP:CORPDEPTH, "Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization." The examples of sufficent coverage include "A scholarly article, a book passage, or ongoing media coverage focusing on a product or organization". I can't see that the sources provided would not fulfill that - for example (Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2017 Feb 7; 12(2): 357–369) and the coverage in Ny Teknik, the weekly Swedish engineering magazine. Still, I have added an additional section with citations detailing Redsense as a case example in international business study to improve it further.

DGG postulates that this is an advertisement and that both the product and the condition it addresses are trivial. I have written the two articles contested here out of an interest for the phenomenon they both relate to. I am not part of the company and my writings here have not been influenced by any company or any representative thereof. The decision to write the article is my own, as is every sentence added in the process. I have strived to represent a neutral point of view and to write objectively and without bias. The product is to date the only FDA cleared product of its kind in the US, based on patented fiber-optic technology, thus hardly trivial per se.

As regards the triviality of the condition, it was suggested in the venous needle dislodgement discussion that the complication is an obvious side effect and thus could not have significance. To me, that is like arguing that cetacean stranding would be an obvious side effect of whales, or that back pain would be an obvious side effect of our evolutionary decision as a species to start to walk upright; whether it could maybe be trivially foreseen as a potential outcome is not an argument for triviality if it is a phenomenon that causes widespread effects, has major implications for society and thus is established within public consciousness or some considerable subset thereof (and, as a consequence and more importantly for the context of this discussion, in referencable sources.)

The references in the venous needle dislodgement article were admittedly inadequate at the time of the AfD for that article as I had not understood the standards of WP:MEDRS, but I did since improve them by providing citations to review articles supporting the claims in the text, such as (Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2017 Feb 7; 12(2): 357–369), describing it and its consequences at length and listing it as a "major emergency". These improvements were, however, left unadressed in the context of that discussion.

I claim that the updated sources provided in that article do demonstrate that dislodgement is well established at least within the nephrology public consciousness and that it there is looked upon as a hazard that is worthy of analysis, prevention and consideration - and thus not trivial. (I also, as an aside, note that other complications listed as major emergencies alongside VND in the aforementioned review have WP articles). According to a 2012 review ("Venous needle dislodgement in patients on hemodialysis". Nephrology Nursing Journal. 39 (6): 435–45) more than half of nephrology nurses in the U.S. are concerned about venous needle dislodgement often or very often.

Furthermore, the fact that the normal variation of venous pressure as detected by the hemodialysis machine over the course of a hemodialysis treatment session is of the same magnitude as an acute pressure drop due to a dislodgement incident makes monitoring for it far from a trivial matter, as outlined for example in the review (Polaschegg HD. Venous needle dislodgement: the pitfalls of venous pressure measurement and possible alternatives, a review. J Ren Care. 2010 Mar;36(1):41-8), and the short time from incident to a potentially fatal outcome makes the incident itself more complex than an IV dislodgement in general. (As another aside, the on-going shift from in-clinic to at-home treatment in U.S. hemodialysis also makes this issue likely to become even more notable in the future.) Inapond (talk) 20:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article is written from the company's point of view and does not show the third-party coverage that is required for corporate notability. The article also has tone issues; if the article were trimmed down, not much might be left, and anyway the article does not establish notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:55, 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 redirect to List of Hellblazer characters#Mary 'Zed' Martin. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 08:27, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zed (comics)[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded by User:Andrew Davidson with copypaste rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for a proper rationale in the PROD). So here we go, as usual. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:47, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:47, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:47, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:47, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG, neither source in the article currently providing sufficient coverage. TTN (talk) 22:10, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Hellblazer characters#Mary 'Zed' Martin: Valid alternative to deletion per WP:ATD-R where she already has an entry. 2pou (talk) 09:29, 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 Mingus Union High School. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 08:26, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clarkdale High School[edit]

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

Content already exists at Mingus Union High School. Article does not meet GNG or NSCHOOL. BEFORE showed only routine, non-notable, run of the mill mentions in local news, the kind any high school would receive Article makes no claim of notability. The school has been closed since 1950 and the search term is ambiguous so a redirect does not seem appropriate.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the above reasons:

// Timothy :: talk 00:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 00:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 00:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect both to Mingus Union High School. Post-schools RfC, these do not meet the WP:GNG. Further note: Jerome High School (Jerome, Arizona), the third pre-merger component of Mingus which was not nominated, is historic and merits a keep on those grounds. Raymie (t • c) 18:27, 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.

[1] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion

[2] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandals_versus_Trolls

[3] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srila_Bhaktivedanta_Narayana_Gosvami_Maharaja

[4] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Deletion_process

[5] ttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/05/Srila_Bhaktivedanta_Narayana_Gosvami_Maharaja_Yuga_Acharya_Declaration.jpg

[6] ttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fd/Srila_Bhaktivedanta_Narayana_Gosvami_Maharaja_Honorary_Citizen_and_Goodwill_Ambassador_of_Houston.jpg

[7] ttp://vaishnava-news-network.org/europe/EU0107/EU10-6828.html

[8] ttps://www.gokulbhajan.com/all-books/books-gaudiya/Srila_Gurudeva-the_Supreme_Treasure.pdf

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]