Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 September 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 4 September 6 September >

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. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Belfield[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Alex Belfield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I've nominated this biography before, which ended as no consensus as there was basically no activity on the AfD. This is a BLP of a minor radio and press journalist, of which the vast majority of the sources are either (a) to his own website and YouTube channel, or (b) simply links to stories that he's written in other press outlets. There are simply no third-party sources, apart from negative ones where his misbehaviour on radio was commented on. If we removed the primary and passing mentions, we would be left with an article which basically said "this is a journalist who did these couple of fairly trivial bad things". Black Kite (talk) 23:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:51, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:51, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:51, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This person is a minor radio presenter and journalist. Nothing about him is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:47, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unlike the claim made by the sole other participant in the first discussion, the existence of two reliable sources is not necessarily enough to get a person over WP:GNG — if you're shooting for "has a hard pass of an inherent notability marker, like winning a top award in his field or being elected as an MP", then one or two sources is enough, but if you're shooting for "hasn't accomplished anything inherently notable, but is soft notable anyway because media coverage exists", then it takes a lot more than just two sources to vault that bar. But no, the article doesn't claim anything that's "inherently" notable enough to justify leaning this heavily on primary sources in lieu of real media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 21:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Barely found anything about him. Search results return articles written by him and mere mentions of him. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 16:00, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete please. Fake and a very false person — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:6B62:40B0:0:883:6DE:C109:EC2D (talk) 06:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of historical sites associated with Ludwig van Beethoven[edit]

List of historical sites associated with Ludwig van Beethoven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Created by an IP in 2005, this page is completely unsourced and frankly, useless. I don't really see how a reader could ever find this page helpful on its own, the notability is scare if not nonexistent. An article like Timeline of Ludwig van Beethoven might make more sense, but is yet to exist. The lead itself creates some narrow and oddly defined categories with "The following list contains historical sites associated with composer Ludwig van Beethoven. This list is confined to sites that still exist. It must be kept in mind that several of these houses were arbitrarily identified as Beethoven's dwellings in the 1890s." So does this include any place he visited? Places he lived in? Association is an overwhelmingly ambiguous term – probably part of the reason that only around 30 edits have even been made to the page! Aza24 (talk) 23:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 02:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:52, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:52, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:28, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Laura K. Ipsen[edit]

Laura K. Ipsen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am confident that Ipsen is a fine person and making a good contribution to digital tech, but this page runs counter to the goals articulated in Wikipedia:Notability (people). Does anyone have better sources to demonstrate more than that she is a competent executive in tech? I suspect that this article was posted while the Ellucian page was built, which page was deleted for covert advertising by MER-C. There is nothing cited that meets the criteria for notability. See WP:BIO and WP:NRVE --Literarytech (talk) 23:23, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:56, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:22, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:22, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:36, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Ramsey Campbell. Stifle (talk) 09:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Severn Valley (Cthulhu Mythos)[edit]

Severn Valley (Cthulhu Mythos) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This setting does not meet the general notability guideline because there is not more than passing mention of it in reliable third party sources. This is ignoring that the article is currently sourced entirely to primary sources, and more because a search for independent reliable sources has come up empty. What little out-of-universe information this has is cited to a self-published website. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:05, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:05, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 20:08, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 20:08, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Originally closed as redirect to Lovecraft Country, contested. I am relisting so that I am not influencing the outcome further.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 08:55, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Lovecraft Country - Redirect to Ramsey Campbell#The influence of H. P. Lovecraft and The Inhabitant of the Lake and Less Welcome Tenants The only real pieces of sourced, non-plot information is the small bits of info on the location's development and inspiration, which really are not enough to support an independent article. The vast majority of the article, though, is a massive wall of in-universe plot summaries sourced (only sparingly, at that) to primary sources, which should not be retained. A brief overview of the location, along with the sourced pieces on its real-world development, would fit quite nicely in the Lovecraft Country article. The information on the development and inspiration for the location is already present on the author's page, so a simple redirect is sufficient. Rorshacma (talk) 15:28, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I've already said, the Severn Valley, which is in England, is not considered to be part of Lovecraft Country, which is in Massachusetts. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:28, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am aware of that, but as that is the only current article that I am aware of that includes any kind of overview of some of the fictional locations in the Mythos, I thought it would have been the only real place that could potentially be used as a merge target. However, I actually just noticed now that the information I recommended being merged is already present in Ramsey Campbell's article, so I have revised my recommendation accordingly. Rorshacma (talk) 16:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs a bit more commentary. No real consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:22, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Rorshacma. There isn't enough coverage for this location but we could redirect to what little we have covered in other articles. Archrogue (talk) 19:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good News Clinic and Hospital[edit]

Good News Clinic and Hospital (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is about an extremely small 10 bed hospital that doesn't seem to be notable. All the sources in the article are either dead links, primary, or on other subjects and just mention it in trivial passing fashion. So, I'm not seeing anything about it that would pass the notability standards of either WP:GNG or WP:NORG. As an alternative to deletion it could be redirected to List_of_hospitals_in_the_Philippines per prior consensus on non-notable hospitals. Although I doubt it would be a very searched for term considering the hospitals small size, but I'll leave it up to others to decide if a redirect is appropriate or not. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 09:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 09:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 09:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:01, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:01, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 11:15, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No notability at all and certainly doesn't meet WP:HOS criteria. Although I can find mentions in certain outlets, these are only passing comments. - Funky Snack (Talk) 11:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:20, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

William L. “Corn Pop” Morris[edit]

William L. “Corn Pop” Morris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:ONEEVENT. He has only received coverage in the context of Biden's speech and the articles are more about the speech than about him. Spicy (talk) 13:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spicy (talk) 13:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Spicy (talk) 13:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mr. Morris and his life and background have now been discussed hundreds of times in national and international television, print and radio reports spanning more than a year. Separate from Vice President Biden’s remarks about Mr. Morris, another acquaintance of Mr. Morris has publicly discussed Corn Pop and the Gang known as the Romans. Former Delaware State NAACP Chairman Richard Smith knew Mr. Morris and has publicly discussed how Morris was the leader of the largest gang in Wilmington, Delaware. [1]
Mr. Morris’ relevance and notoriety is no less significant than to another individual who is the subject of a Wikipedia article and only became known when his name was brought up in the 1988 Presidential campaign. That individual’s name is Willie Horton. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Horton
There are many similar examples I will share. It would be inconsistent to delete this article and not those articles. It would seem to be biased censorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Number9060862 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Joe Biden presidential campaign. The article is all a report of what Mr. Biden alleged his interactions with Mr. Morris were.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I considered that as an alternative to deletion, but the subject is not mentioned on the 2020 campaign page (or any other page) and I'm not sure it would be WP:DUE to include. Spicy (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems to be a WP:BLP1E, with several news articles around the event in September 2019. No indication of lasting significance. Alternatively weak merge to Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign. I think it would be undue there, but am not positive. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:25, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:20, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:NRV all we have so far is "who was reportedly the leader of a gang" but the only sourcing is based on Joe Biden's anecdotes about someone he allegedly knew far away and long ago. Joe Biden said this ... Joe Biden said that. Politicians are known for coming up with anecdotal tales to entertain an audience. The image should also be deleted from Commons, as the only source is "own work" with nothing to verify who this is and when it was taken. — Maile (talk) 22:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above comparison to the Willie Horton controversy during the presidential campaign of Michael Dukakis is flawed and not valid. Willie Horton was a convicted felon serving a life prison sentence for murder, assault, armed robbery, and rape. While Dukakas was Governor of Massachusetts, a weekend furlough program allowed Horton to escape. Horton was eventually re-captured and is currently serving his life sentence.
William L. “Corn Pop” Morris has been deceased for years, and was, at worst, the leader of a street gang. There is nothing in that article that gives the reader context on why his name even came up with Biden, nor does it say (or source) that Morris was convicted of a crime. I don't see how Biden's anecdote over having an argument with Morris - when he (Biden) was the pool's life guard - over his bathing cap and jumping up and down on a diving board, is in any way a comparison to a convicted murderer-rapist-armed robber. There is nothing in his article that makes him notable. The alpha and omega of the entire story is just a footnote Biden told about his days as a swimming pool lifeguard. Nothing else.— Maile (talk) 21:46, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tire Group International[edit]

Tire Group International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP (see WP:ORGCRIT. Creation by WP:SPA in 2016 adds WP:COI concerns as well. Loksmythe (talk) 21:19, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Loksmythe (talk) 21:19, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 17:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because no !votes have been made
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - hako9 (talk) 20:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a lot of sources here don't work, but there are some legitimate ones. This article probably needs to be really cut down. Balle010 (talk) 01:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which sources in particular do you believe are "legitimate"? HighKing++ 13:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Academy Music Studio[edit]

Academy Music Studio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found no significant coverage. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 22:13, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No SIGCOV, not really much promo material either. Seems like an normal average business.   // Timothy :: talk  13:35, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WIll salt, the consensus is that she is non-notable and will likely not become so. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:37, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: "will likely not become so" would be better phrased as "will not become so unless something changes". I cannot predict whether she will become notable in the future and should not have given that implication. Apologies-- Eddie891 Talk Work 16:35, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Laurence de Valmy[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Laurence de Valmy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Déjà vu all over again. Please see the previous deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laurence de Valmy Vexations (talk) 22:06, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 22:28, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 22:28, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt Delete as we already had this discussion recently enough. I note that the "museum collections" mostly fail verification. The others are unverifiable private collections. CICA museum is a pay to play museum. There is little here to indicate recognition or critical success. Salt: because we do not need to go through this a third time. The article is obviously an autobiography.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:14, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt per both. Johnbod (talk) 02:52, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete she has a developed a following based on her Instagram-themed art, but the sourcing is uniformly inadequate. A few almost pass muster, Miami New Times, Blanc magazine, Le Petit Journal, although none of them are sufficient on their own or as a whole. Curiocurio (talk) 13:38, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails GNG and NARTIST criteria for notability. There is misleading information in this BLP. I checked the collections, and only one checked out (a non-notable private family collection), the others were unverifable. The two "museum collections" are pay-to-play. The solo shows are dubious, the first one it for a NYC gallery with the motto "One stop shop for all your artwork needs"; the second is to an activity center and french school with no indication it even has a gallery; the third "Gallery" seems to be a restaurant in Paris, not a gallery at all. Salting may be appropriate as it will probably be recreated again. Netherzone (talk) 13:44, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • she was listed in another page so I thought it was worth a page. sorry if it is not. I didn't know about the history. I try to support women artists but I'm sure you know better.Souriredumatin (talk) 01:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • just as a clarification, it's not an autobiography. As you can check I've written on various pages. my mistake about this one, i'm still learning. maybe she will deserve a page later down the road. I had seen pages about other artists who seemed with about the same record, and I found her work interesting. That's why I published it. when I checked about her on wikipedia, nothing appeared so i didnt know it has been done once before. How to proceed to delete the page? thanks.Souriredumatin (talk) 17:38, 7 September 2020 (UTC)  [reply]
  • Delete and salt I started the first AfD. This is getting ridiculous. Edwardx (talk) 20:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said, I'm sorry. I had no idea the page had been created once before. I looked for it in wikipedia and there was nothing. I even asked how to delete it. show I simply remove all the content? I'm not sure. sorry for the bother.Souriredumatin (talk) 18:21, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Souriredumatin: No need to apologize as we are not talking about you. We are talking about the notability of the subject. This discussion will continue for one week total.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:43, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ThatMontreal: I know but i'm the one who created the page and with all these reactions, I felt I had broken some sacred rules of wikipedia. My mistake again for creating the page. where should i look in the future to make sure a page has not been created before? thanks for the advice.Souriredumatin (talk) 17:23, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CREATIVE (a/k/a WP:NARTIST) - no solo shows at major art galleries, no in-depth reviews. Bearian (talk) 21:40, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearian: Hi, ok for the major galleries. just for my info, what do you consider an in-depth review ? I thought these two were not bad. I'd be happy to have your feedback.

https://createmagazine.com/read/what-if-instagram-had-always-existed-a-profile-on-artist-laurence-de-valmy https://www.troisiemegalerie.com/articles/2020/7/5/a-quoi-ressemblerait-le-monde-de-lart-si-les-grands-artistes-avaient-eu-accs-instagramnbsp (this one is in french but you might be able to translate?) thanks so much! :-) Souriredumatin (talk) 00:14, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Souriredumatin, by "major" I mean a reliable source that is itself notable. Neither of those magazines are reliable, nor are they notable themselves. I'm thinking of an interview in Vogue, Esquire, Architectural Digest, or any one of those on the List_of_art_magazines. FWIW, I can read and edit French at a basic level, but my spoken French is limited to ordering a meal. Bearian (talk) 10:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the French troisiemegalerie.com source, it is just some guy with a website. "Après un master en Philosophie de l'Art à la Sorbonne, j'ai décidé de poursuivre mon travail d'écriture en créant Troisième Galerie." = "After my degree at the Sorbonne, I decided to further my writing work by creating Troisième Galerie". ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:29, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ok thanks for the list of magazines that's helpful. :-) Souriredumatin (talk) 19:31, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bearian, not to be rude, but I consider none of these art magazines. I usually start with Artforum because their archive is comprehensive, they're not terribly paywalled and because they still do reviews of gallery shows. List of art magazines has some really terrible entries, like Saatchi Art, which should never be used. With regards to create magazine; you can tell that this is not an independent, reliable source because they charge submission fees. See https://createmagazine.com/faq Vexations (talk) 21:56, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Artforum seems like a good source indeed! I saw about the submission fees of Create magazine for their juried section. They also have an editorial that is on top for their interviews (apparently). but of course it's not artforum ;-) Thanks all for the advice Souriredumatin (talk) 14:27, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DeVono Cresa[edit]

DeVono Cresa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable small private company. Fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. WP:MILL sources. scope_creepTalk 21:38, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak redirect to Cresa as the article claims (apparently without sourcing) that it is part of the "Cresa network", whatever that means. Just delete if that seems like a reach. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:49, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:49, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Natg 19 (talk) 04:48, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Isabelle of Orléans-Braganza[edit]

Princess Isabelle of Orléans-Braganza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mostly routine genealogy or gossip, the monarchies of both France and Brazil were abolished some years before she was born. PatGallacher (talk) 21:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She was notable enough to warrant (unpaid) obituaries in the New York Times, the L.A. Times, the Telegraph, the Guardian, and the Times (and surely some French papers, too). She may also be notable as an author (Tout m'est bonheur and Les chemins creux). pburka (talk) 22:27, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per pburka. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 06:43, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep as above, clearly notable. - dwc lr (talk) 09:41, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per obits in major newspapers etc. Have added a few of her many publications, sourced to BL catalogue - Worldcat has many more (links on talk page). Probably reviewed in major French newspapers when published (1970s-1990s), though not going to turn up in a simple Google search. PamD 10:03, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep clearly notable as identified by the obituaries posted above by Pburka from major publications. Though the monarchies have long been abolished that does not mean the families fade into obscurity. As the sources indicated, her life was covered by French and English press alike. --Richiepip (talk) 17:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per everyone above. TheRedDomitor (talk) 10:13, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above and WP:SIGCOV. Bearian (talk) 21:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A redirect can be re-created if desired. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:42, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas, Prince of Leiningen[edit]

Andreas, Prince of Leiningen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mostly standard genealogical information, nobility in Germany was abolished at end of WW1, his family looks a bit obscure even before then. PatGallacher (talk) 21:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:47, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:47, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, textbook example of WP:NOTINHERITED. The "title" he inherited has been abolished more than 100 years ago, and his family hasn't had a territory to rule for more than 200 years. Article has essentially no content specific to the person. —Kusma (t·c) 22:55, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is the extreme in deposed monarchy cruft.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:53, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The article is mainly a genealogical record with zero notability of its own. The principality of Leiningen was annexed under the German Empire and the House of Leiningen was mainly a cadet level subsidiary of the Houses of Wittelsbach and Hohenzollern, leaving the title with very little significance on its own. TheRedDomitor (talk) 10:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which is an assessment of what the title meant 110 years ago, and has no relevance to its utter meaninglessness today.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:47, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know that, which is exactly why I have voted for deletion. TheRedDomitor (talk) 03:43, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to his father's article or another appropriate target, per my essay here. Bearian (talk) 16:23, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and the other comments above. Smeat75 (talk) 21:19, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:08, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Bilton[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Anton Bilton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability. Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. No coverage that is in-depth, secondary, independent and reliable. scope_creepTalk 21:15, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and salt. CEO of a non-notable company. Strong consensus to delete in 2018, and he hasn't become notable between then and now. Just a few more hits in tabloids and namedrops elsewhere. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:08, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SEB (band)[edit]

SEB (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This band won a song contest for children in 2006. The song contest spanned multiple countries, so it might have a good claim to fame at the time, but the band seems to have accomplished nothing of note. So they seem more comparable to a person who once won a reality show. The article as it stands is filled with trivia and is solely based on primary sources. Geschichte (talk) 21:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:47, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:47, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Redirect is optional. Sandstein 06:08, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ripple Tea[edit]

Ripple Tea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Generic tea company. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. No effective references. scope_creepTalk 21:01, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:50, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:55, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy-delete (G11). (non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 07:48, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Small Q[edit]

Small Q (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet MUSICBIO. "Nsaba Katonda" was supposedly "best gospel/christian hip-hop song" but I can't find sources to that effect. No sources in the article. In searching for sources I found not much, and the YouTube profile of the artist (1680 subscribers) as well as the two named videos (7396 and 1155 views) do not indicate a wide following. Chuka Chief (talk) 20:12, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:44, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deer Creek Golf Course[edit]

Deer Creek Golf Course (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Has been in CAT:NN since 2011; it's time to get a decision for this one. This appears to be from the organization running the golf course (see the operated by parameter in the article infobox). Here's a blurb in a local tourism site, I've found that these blurbs in such sites are generally produced by the company/paid for. I wouldn't consider this to be independent, as the site is trying to get you to book a wedding there. Another advertising listing. An actual RS for once, but just an address/phone number. Significant coverage here, but it is labeled as a blog. This is just a statement that the course has a new owner. Sales announcement here, no coverage of the course outside of the sale. Brief mention here. The coverage, except for the one university blog piece, seems to fails WP:CORPDEPTH. WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NORG apply here, as well as WP:GNG. Taking this here, instead of PROD, as I've had several AFDs not go well lately, and I'm losing a little confidence in my abilities. Hog Farm Bacon 20:00, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 20:00, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 20:00, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 20:00, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 20:00, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Run of the mill golf course, although it hosted the Deer Creek Open on the 1990 Nationwide Tour. Nigej (talk) 09:44, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm finding some "noise" among the searches I do online, so I have to default to the article as written--which points to no reliable third party sources. I suppose it could be notable or might be in the future, even a first draft of an article needs something that points toward notability from reliable sources. If an enthusiastic editor wishes to userfy, I'd have no objection. Maybe someone can clean it up and source it and whatever...--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SPAM, WP:TNT, and WP:MILL. Written badly, spammish, and other than one single championship, has not hosted a title. Bearian (talk) 21:46, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Well, I've rewritten it, but there isn't much left and wasn't able to quickly find any substantial sources with which to expand it. Seems to fail GNG. wjematherplease leave a message... 15:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the effort! I think we're looking at a result of Try another Wiki, where this article might be more suited for an online sports almanac or golf site.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete uh yeah, it exists. Google news/books search doesn't show anything that stands out and coverage is limited to directory entries, mostly. Graywalls (talk) 19:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. As far as I can see, NSOLDIER is an essay, and even though the convention may be to treat it as a notability guideline, arguments based on it carry lower weight. As a result I do not see clear consensus here, and this has been open for a month. I strongly recommend that the status of NSOLDIER be clarified via an RfC or equivalent; written policy being at odds with current practice is rarely a sustainable thing. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heinrich Thoma (general)[edit]

Heinrich Thoma (general) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability in the article and nothing significant found in Google Books or Google searches. —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:52, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:31, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:31, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are either of those WP:RS? —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:45, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete while his ranks meets #2 of WP:SOLDIER that is just a presumption and I'm not seeing SIGCOV in multiple RS to satisfy WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Presumption of notability does not apply if a thorough before search is done. The first source cited by Hawkeye is not reliable; the second, whether it is reliable or not, is just a database entry. Therefore, this individual is not notable and should be redirected to List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (T), where he is listed. (t · c) buidhe 08:35, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly notable per WP:SOLDIER, which is generally held as being the standard notability guideline for general officers (despite its status as an essay), as both a general and a divisional commander. Consensus is clearly to keep officers of this rank per that guideline. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:38, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I follow your reading of WP:SOLDIER which makes it clear that "any person who is only mentioned in genealogical records or family histories, or is traceable only through primary documents, is not notable" in spite of the rank-based presumption. It also begs the question of why the apparently non-notable commander of an apparently non-notable division ought to have an article. Wikipedia is not in the business of being a phonebook for Nazi military functionaries! —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:33, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so is it the fact he was a Nazi (no proof he was, of course) that bothers you? That's not a reason to get an article deleted. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:56, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my motivation, but I'll admit it gives me cause for thought. Wikipedia's vast array of obscure and non-notable Nazi generals does not seem to be mirrored in our coverage of (for example) Nigerian, Swiss, or Brazilian armies which no doubt have also produced their own equally interesting non-entities. Oddly, the same problem does not often seem to arise! But this is off topic. —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:06, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If someone cared to write articles about (for example) Nigerian, Swiss, or Brazilian generals then they would be equally notable per WP:SOLDIER! -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. The modern Australian Defence Force, for example, has dozens of general-level officers who are almost entirely unknown outside the military and not the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Other militaries have even bigger problems with 'rank inflation'. Nick-D (talk) 08:30, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So what you're basically saying is that you don't agree with WP:SOLDIER? Well, I do and so do many other editors. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think you are following WP:SOLDIER correctly for the reason stated in my earlier post. It is clear that there are many circumstances in which Generals will not be notable where they are not covered by WP:RS. Nigeria, incidentally, had literally hundreds of generals at any one time and recently promoted 31 to Major General in one go. As Nick-D says, this kind of thing is not unusual. The US has more than 400 at any one time. We'd be mad to treat all of them as notable. —Brigade Piron (talk) 22:33, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I have said to Necrothesp on several occasions recently, just being a General is not inherently notable, #2 of WP:SOLDIER is not an automatic pass on notability, its just a presumption, they must also SIGCOV in multiple RS to satisfy WP:GNG. Necrothesp claims there is a consensus that Generals are inherently notable, but these discussions show that is not the case. Mztourist (talk) 05:29, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SOLDIER is a Wikiproject-level notability essay, so not too much weight should be put on it. The guidance on generals is simply ill-informed. For instance, the modern Thai military has more than 1700 general-level officers! [3]. Nick-D (talk) 08:45, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so the new argument is that people in the wikiproject don't know what they're talking about! First a guideline that has been accepted for years has been dismissed as rubbish by a handful of editors, then the people who formulated it and continue to use it are dismissed as ignorant. Great! Thanks for that. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Even reading WP:SOLDIER alone, I still don't see how this argument is tenable: "any person who is only mentioned in genealogical records or family histories, or is traceable only through primary documents, is not notable." This seems basic common sense. You made a jibe about me having no evidence for Thoma having been a Nazi, but we actually have no WP:RS evidencing his actual existence. It's interesting how many generals appear in the List of hoaxes on Wikipedia, including this recently spotted example. Besides, what exactly is the point for our readership in having access to an article which has virtually no actual information in it? It may be worth raising this for future discussion on WP:MILHIST if clarification/rewriting is necessary. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, his existence, rank and commands are attested in a perfectly reliable source. Also, please see WP:STUB. Short articles are perfectly acceptable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That ref is one line, hardly SIGCOV in multiple RS. Mztourist (talk) 10:31, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And my comment was clearly simply a refutation of the above comment: ...we actually have no WP:RS evidencing his actual existence. Which is simply not true. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As has been pointed out above, NSOLDIER is not a notability guideline, but an essay. The fact people meeting NSOLDIER tend to be kept at AfD has no direct bearing on future discussions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 05:10, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looking on Google Books, there seems to be quite a bit of mention of him, in various campaigns, and mentions of him being an olympian? He was a general, and also, he was awarded the Iron Cross, so clearly he has performed something of note. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is presumably Heini Thoma, a separate person, but please do share any WP:RS that provide "significant coverage" of the subject. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:07, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets SOLDIER on both rank and size of command, and also has the Knight's Cross which means that there is several books on recipients that provide bio details. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:57, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, a book worth looking into was written by Christian Hartmann: Wehrmacht im Ostkrieg. Front und militärisches Hinterland 1941/42 [Wehrmacht in the Eastern-War. Front and Military Rear Area 1941/42]. Oldenbourg, Munich 2009; 2nd edition 2010, ISBN 978-3-486-70225-5. The book revealed Heinrich Thoma's antisemitic view while serving with 296th Infantry Division. At the time, Thoma was the regimental commander of the 519th Infantry Regiment, a regiment of the 296th ID. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:16, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak redirect: to List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (T). I recognize that he does meet SOLDIER in name, and MisterBee's source may have enough to write an article, but right now we aren't losing any detail by instead redirecting it. If enough coverage to merit a stand-alone article is found, it can be recreated. Please ping me if the article is dramatically expanded. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:01, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nazi fancruft. WP:SOLDIER is an essay and therefore irrelevant. If there are no sources and nothing to write about him except that he got a medal once, there is no content for an article here (WP:NOPAGE). Sandstein 08:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Untrue. We have a full resume. Enough to create an article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:44, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I find these insinuations that generals should not be considered notable just because they fought for the Third Reich uncomfortable in a serious encyclopaedia, as they reflect personal opinion only. "Nazi fancruft" is also highly insulting, as it implies the article was created by someone who supported the Nazis, as opposed to someone who believed that a "two-star" general and divisional commander might just be notable no matter which army he served in. Either all senior officers are presumed notable as long as they meet the criteria of WP:SOLDIER, including those of "discredited" regimes, or none are. In the latter case, I fail to see why WP:SOLDIER even exists. Although given the opinion above that it is "irrelevant" I think we know where some editors stand. WP:IDONTLIKEIT springs to mind. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:49, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there has been the assertion of sources being present they have not been listed in a way that let's others verify notability. The majority of discussion is over how we should use the essay NSOLDIER and this is the wrong place for such a discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:59, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Let's Be Beastly to the Germans. I note that no-one seems to have taken any notice of Barkeep49's relisting comment: "While there has been the assertion of sources being present they have not been listed in a way that let's others verify notability. The majority of discussion is over how we should use the essay NSOLDIER and this is the wrong place for such a discussion." In fact, this exact point has now been made twice.—Brigade Piron (talk) 12:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Most comments have actually said that he's notable because he clearly meets the criteria of WP:SOLDIER, which provides a presumption of notability rather than non-notability for generals as some strangely seem to misinterpret it as doing. Given this is a recognised Wikipedia notability standard (despite it only being an essay) this is a perfectly legitimate thing to say, given that reliable sources have been provided proving that he did hold general officer rank. I'm afraid that they have not been listed in a way that let's others verify notability is utter rubbish. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:54, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I have no idea how it is possible to read WP:SOLDIER in the way you suggest: "In general, an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources. It is presumed that individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify if they [meet a listed condition]". I really don't see the issue, since the "significant coverage" requirement is basically fundamental to Wikipedia as a project.—Brigade Piron (talk) 16:38, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is presumed that individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify if they [meet a listed condition]. Precisely. Meeting the SNG criteria (which he clearly does) is a presumption of notability! I just don't get why this is confusing to some editors. It's quite clear from the opinions expressed here (and in many other similar AfDs) that it is quite clear to most. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:49, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SOLDIER is not an SNG; it's an essay. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:23, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which as we all know has long been accepted as an SNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Necrothesp you continue to misrepresent WP:SOLDIER first as though its a rule and then in relation to the presumption. As was noted by User:EyeSerene in the [[4]] discussion that led to the WP:SOLDIER essay "significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources is non-negotiable; without this, a person is not notable and can't have an article." Rather than referring to your list of military bio AfDs, you should look at that discussion to see what was the basis for WP:SOLDIER. Mztourist (talk) 08:32, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. I believe there is coverage in sources — though I'd have to do some digging. Dapi89 (talk) 18:30, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

However Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Military_personnel refers editors to WP:SOLDIER, which means the community has accepted WP:SOLDIER as a valid guide on the notability of military personnel. --Nug (talk) 02:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, come on! Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Additional criteria makes the specific caveat that: "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, come on! How does that make your claim any more valid, given, as you cite above, Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included. AfDs have generally accepted that meeting the criteria of WP:SOLDIER is a valid reason to keep. There is huge precedent and consensus for this, as I have shown. As I have said, with two exceptions (one from years ago which would probably hold no water today; one from a country that promotes ludicrous numbers of officers to general rank), no two-star or more senior officer has ever been deleted at AfD, and only a tiny number of one-star officers ever have been. WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is all you're effectively saying, is no reason to go against that precedent and consensus. It's been built over many years for a reason. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:48, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I fear this discussion is going round in circles. I have never argued that generals cannot be notable in principle and I accept the proposition in WP:SOLDIER that generals will often be notable. However, I believe, based on the policies already set out extensively above, that it is "significant coverage" in reliable sources that is determinitive - in this area, as in any other in Wikipedia. A couple of mentions of someone's existence, in my opinion, cannot come close to meeting this requirement. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:22, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You've conveniently ignored Mitcham, which is a perfectly reliable source. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:51, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to KCB Group. Sandstein 06:10, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KCB Bank Burundi Limited[edit]

KCB Bank Burundi Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Although Kenya Commercial Bank Group is well attested in WP:RS and deserves its own article, this is not true of its small Burundian subsidiary. There is minimal coverage in reliable sources, mostly relating to its creation. Some content might be merged into the parent company article. —Brigade Piron (talk) 19:41, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Brigade Piron (talk) 19:41, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. —Brigade Piron (talk) 19:41, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. —Brigade Piron (talk) 19:41, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. —Brigade Piron (talk) 19:41, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:ILIKEIT. Can you explain why or how it is notable? —Brigade Piron (talk) 20:41, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Brigade Piron I encourage you to visit Burundi to see how it is a notable financial institution. Unless you are saying that companies in small African countries do not deserve being on Wikipedia —Zotezangu (talk) 10:33, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is part of a regional banking group. Burundi being a French speaking country, most sources are in French. English sources are mainly drown from the KCB Group website. Fsmatovu assisted in improving the page over the years. — Zotezangu (talk) 10:34, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Zotezangu, in response to your comment above, I do not think that Burundi does not deserve Wikipedia articles. In fact, you will see that I have contributed quite a few myself. This does not make just any company notable, however. There are plenty of short-lived and non-notable institutions that do not meet WP:COMPANY. I have looked at the literature, French and Kirundi included, and cannot find anything serious about this bank in WP:RS online but I am delighted to be proved wrong. Can you show me what "significant coverage" (see WP:COMPANY) I'm missing? I have found a grand total of two articles covering the bank on Iwacu—Voix du Burundi in the entire period since 2012. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Brigade Piron, Three questions: (1) Did you take your time to search other sources such as Business Daily Africa, Daily Nation and The EastAfrican? (2) Did you know that the Burundian unrest has affected the companies thus performance news is rare. (3) Have you looked at the group website? When I find pages outdated, I help improve them instead of requesting that they be deleted. That is what collaboration means. Zotezangu (talk) 20:18, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please do actually read WP:COMPANY which establishes the criteria which the company needs to meet to deserve an article. The group's website is irrelevant because it is not "independent" and therefore not a WP:RS. Do feel free to share the articles and books on the subject you have found. —Brigade Piron (talk) 22:10, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Brigade Piron, Can we put this to rest? Do remove the template. Zotezangu (talk) 14:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how it works. Please see the comment by Vanamonde93 as admin: "There are several assertions of notability here, but scant evidence thereof. !votes need to provide evidence of how the subject meets GNG or NCORP.". —Brigade Piron (talk) 14:10, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Brigade Piron, Just noticed that two users who have asked the page to be merged are less than a month old. Might these be sock puppet account? Zotezangu (talk) 21:55, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Zotezangu, I take it you are referring to AleatoryPonderings and Waweruboy? That is a very serious allegation. If you have evidence, you should raise it on WP:SPI rather than here. Otherwise, assume WP:GOODFAITH. —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:20, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
http://www.cnbcafrica.com/news/east-africa/2014/11/11/kcb-q3-results/ Yes No relation to subject Yes Reliable news site Yes Main topic is subject ✔ Yes
http://allafrica.com/stories/201110260168.html Yes No connection ~ Not sure on reliabilty Yes Yep ~ Partial
http://www.businessdailyafrica.com/Corporate-News/-/539550/1402018/-/xdsqyu/-/index.html Yes No connection Yes Reliable news site Yes Subject main topic ✔ Yes
http://www.nation.co.ke/kenya50/finance/Equity-and-Family-bank-after-banking-crisis/-/2032892/2069008/-/view/asKenya50/-/i1phxoz/-/index.html Yes No conn Yes Big news center Yes Yep ✔ Yes
http://www.newtimes.co.rw/section/article/2012-05-09/52619/ Yes No conn Yes Big news site in Rwanda Yes Subject main topic ✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
As all these links are dead, it's pretty hard to verify these claims but they do not appear to point to much more than the existence of the Burundian operations of KCB. —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are several assertions of notability here, but scant evidence thereof. !votes need to provide evidence of how the subject meets GNG or NCORP.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 05:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Kenya Commercial Bank Group : I don't see clear independent notability, most of the sources in the SA table are dead urls. However, there's a good merge target so deletion is not needed or justified. I've been unable to find enough WP:SIGCOV to justify an independent pass of WP:NCORP. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:59, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:41, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Kenya Commercial Bank Group : KCB burundi article on its own does not pass WP:GNG or WP:SUSTAINED based on sources available. This only makes sense to Keep if there is enough independent, specific and notable coverage for KCB Burundi only; which are just not enough as of today. --waweruboyWaweruboy (talk) 05:34, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article is in bad condition, but problems severe enough to require deletion have not been demonstrated. Substantive coverage of the concept as distinct from a kennel has been demonstrated, and while a merge to kennel involving an expansion of scope of that article is feasible, it is outside the scope of this discussion. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dog camp[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Dog camp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable topic. This article is an original research essay on a topic not supported or discussed by secondary sources. It can't be resolved. The essay is contrived from a collection of 6 articles/citations which contain the words "dog" and "camp". The error is that they have inappropriately mixed together four completely different variants/definitions/meanings of the word "camp". Cites 1, 3 & 4 refer to camp meaning "a place in the country for vacationers with outdoor recreation". Cite 2 is about "doggie daycare". Cite 5 is about a boot camp (intensive training). Cite 6 is about a camp site in Alaska, per "a place where an army or other group of persons or an individual is lodged in a tent or tents or other temporary means of shelter" (in this case, a seasonal location where snow is still available for those who regularly operate dogsled teams to continue training during certain seasons). Since four different meanings of the word "camp" have been mixed together, one isn't going to find any secondary sources discussing "this topic". As such, it is not notable or appropriate for Wikipedia. Normal Op (talk) 00:31, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 00:31, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge Reviewing the sources, agree with nom that this is original research synthesizing together sources on unrelated topics, with no source defining "dog camp" as that listed in the article. Kennel can largely cover this topic with a partial merge, as any place that takes dogs while their owners are away is still funamentally a kennel, even they provide more "running free" and "socializing experience" than merely keeping them in cages and going on walks. It it completely inappropriate to lump together a place that trains Alaskan malamutes how to be sled dogs with with a human camp with cabins or tents that for three days twice a year lets owners bring and teach pets. Reywas92Talk 01:16, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I didn’t know dogs go to camp. I have heard of dog daycare. Zoe1013 (talk) 01:23, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can find no secondary sourcing either, and Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. William Harristalk 10:52, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is obviously a cross between a dog park and kennel and so there are obvious alternatives to deletion. It is not difficult to find more coverage such as Dogs in the Leisure Experience. And I'm especially liking that they "typically screen potential canine guests for aggressive tendencies as they do not want to risk fights" – Wikipedia should try this. See also WP:BITE! Andrew🐉(talk) 14:57, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If members of the WP:Article Rescue Squadron want to participate here to score yet another article "saved", they will need to show notability regarding "Dog camp". That has not been yet been done. "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content...."Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article" A one sentence mention of "Camp Canine" in one book does not cut it. Additionally, I have no idea why WP:BITE was mentioned, perhaps you might care to explain? William Harristalk 08:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What we've got here is perhaps more barking than biting but I've noticed over the years that the general topic of dogs seems to be quite a battleground -- mastiffs, baiting, breeds, &c. Anyway, if the ARS is needed to find more sources then I'm fairly sure that we can oblige. I thought the book was quite a good source but if that's not enough then see Modern Dog magazine: Dog Camp and Camp Canine. These demonstrate that the topic is notable and so my !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, the book was not "quite a good source" because it does not meet WP:SIGCOV. Regarding Moderndogmagazine.com - "We reserve the right, but do not have an obligation, to monitor and/or review all materials posted to the Website or through the Website's services or features by users, and we are not responsible for any such materials posted by users." So the articles are posted by users and there is no editorial control, and therefore the articles are not independent per WP:SIGCOV again- "Independent of the subject excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent." William Harristalk 08:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the book is an excellent source and certainly passes WP:SIGCOV, as it addresses the topic directly and in detail. Modern Dog is fine too as it is a professional, published magazine and those articles are regular editorial content. The disclaimer on the website refers to comments and chat posted by readers who use the website and is not relevant. So, the topic is notable, our policies such as WP:PRESERVE apply and deletion is not appropriate per the policy WP:ATD which states that "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You do agree that Dogs in the Leisure Experience made a one sentence mention of "Camp Canine", yes?
The general disclaimer in Moderndogmagazine.com does not state that, that is a refined scope that you have invented. Do you have a reliable source that supports your position that in Modern Dog (magazine) "those articles are regular editorial content", else how did you arrive at this conclusion? William Harristalk 22:39, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. From the history, it looks like this article was originally created way back when in order to promote a specific organization, and over time, the promotional material was removed and additional material was added. But, as described by the nom, this material was largely WP:SYNTH combining multiple different uses of the words "dog" and "camp" together, without actually describing a singular concept. As even the source mentioned by Andrew above describes the example of the "dog camp" as a type of kennel rather than a distinct, separate concept, a brief description of that variety could be feasibly added to the main kennel article. But merging information from this article over to do so would not be appropriate, due to the WP:OR and WP:SYNTH issues present. Rorshacma (talk) 16:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The orginal page was taken to AfD soon after creation and the consensus was to keep the page. The page has sprawled a bit over the years since then but that's not a reason to delete. The topic is naturally broad as different institutions will run their camps in different ways. We have exactly the same issue with the human equivalent, which has numerous variants including weight loss, emotional education, academic adventure, &c. Such variety is not a reason to delete. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:52, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those are generally clean up issues, not reasons to delete. Gleeanon409 (talk) 11:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looking for sources I found:
    • Cawley, J. "This camp is for the dogs." Good Housekeeping 222, no. 6 (1996): 30-30.
    • Miles, Kathryn. "Dog Is Our Copilot." Ecotone 4, no. 1 (2008): 306-318. doi:10.1353/ect.2008.0083.
    • “FACTS: Pet Ownership.” ASPCA. American Humane Association, 2013. Web. 10 Feb. 2016.
    • Glasser, Marilynn R. Dog Park Design, Development, and Operation. Champaign: Human Kinetics, 2013. Print.
    • Lederer, R. A Treasury for Dog Lovers. New York: Howard Books. Print. 9 March. 2016.
    • Smith, Cheryl S. Visiting the Dog Park: Having Fun, Staying Safe. A Dogwise Training Manual. Wenatchee, WA: Dogwise Pub., 2007. Print. 20 Feb. 2016.
    • Stecchi, Susyn. So You Want to Build a Dog Park? A Comprehensive Guide for Municipalities and Private Entities. Sanford, FL: DogParks USA, 2003. Print. 20 Feb. 2016.
    • Wolfe, L. “Pet Products and Services Businesses Serve a Lucrative Industry.” Women in Business, 2009. Web. 20 Feb. 2016.
    • Ulrike Uli Zimolag BScN, BScOT (Honours) (2011) An Evolutionary Concept Analysis of Caring for a Pet as an Everyday Occupation, Journal of Occupational Science, 18:3, 237-253, DOI: 10.1080/14427591.2011.586325
    • The Everything Small Dogs Book: Choose the Perfect Dog to Fit Your Living Space, Kathy Salzberg, Simon and Schuster, 2005; ISBN 1605509116, 9781605509112.
    • Dog Republic helps pet owners be leader of the pack (paywall)
    • Dogs and Big Data, a mini case study.
    • Camps for your dog.
    • Dog training Camp Programs
  • These are added to the ones already noted thus meeting BASIC/GNG. The clean-up issues are to be met but are not reasons for deletion. My suggestion for anyone taking this on is to systematically confirm everything cited so far, and are they general statements or to only certain types of dog camps. Then incorporate new sources. Gleeanon409 (talk) 11:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taking a quick look at some of these sources show that they have the same issue as what was described with the current sources in the nomination. They are just examples of the intersection of the words "dog" and "camp", with no consistent description of what that means. Some of these describe training camps for dogs, some are campgrounds in which humans can go camping with their dogs, some are one-day van trips included as part of a dog-walking service, etc. And that is the issue - just because its easy to find examples of two words being used together, that does not mean that combo has an agreed upon meaning, or that the two words used together constitutes a unique, notable concept. Rorshacma (talk) 15:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The intersection of the words "dog" and "camp" yields plenty of examples which indeed help little, but these offer one example after the next on facets of professional dog camps, how they work, different types, and who uses them. Gleeanon409 (talk) 16:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A check of a couple random sources in the list above gave nothing about but passing mentions; that's not okay. The topic of this article is unclear. The lead mentions an alternative to kennels for boarding, but the little bit out there doesn't even seem to support that much. It's unclear that this is anything even fundamentally different than dog daycare with a flashy name attached to it (in fact, the article in Ecotone is explicitly using this as a synonym for the traditional notion of dog daycare). If anyone thinks that they can write a proper article, AfC is thataway, but until then, this article is so fundamentally broken that WP:TNT applies anyway. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops yeah, I meant "nothing but" of course; fixed now, thanks! –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:18, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dog daycare is not the same because, by definition, it is just short-term care during the day. Dog camps are more like a vacation, like the human equivalent of summer camp, and so include overnight accommodation. And explosives should be kept well away from dogs – see noise phobia in dogs. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:02, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
collapsing this myself; apologies for the tangent — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:59, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Started to read this, but kept getting distracted by all the graphics in signatures here. @William Harris: images aren't allowed in signatures. @Andrew Davidson: Unicode emojis aren't disallowed for some reason, but I'll register polite dismay at how distracting it is to have little pictures jump out from the text all over the page. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A discussion about sigs is likely to be even more distracting but now you've got me started. Having refreshed my memory, here's my story:
  1. I disapprove of ostentatious sigs and so, for most of my time on Wikipedia, I have had a vanilla signature without any formatting
  2. But I don't like long signature either and so started truncating them
  3. I now edit using my real name and so need to be mindful of stalkers. So, for a while, I started truncating my sig to "Andrew D." rather than the name in full
  4. But there are lots of other Andrew D's on Wikipedia including Andy Dingley and Andrew Dalby. So I was not content with that either.
  5. Last year I noticed that there was an admin called 😂. He was being desysopped but not for that reason. It was interesting that he had a username of just a single emoji so that got me thinking.
  6. It occurred to me that a dragon emoji might work well. This would have some thematic value as I consider myself to be a Dragon. The dragon emoji also looks like the letter D in some fonts that I use and that was good too.
  7. The emoji is just a single character and, by replacing " D.", made my sig two characters shorter. Andrew🐉 is just seven characters and so this is half the length of Rhododendrites, which is 14. Note also that it requires no special markup and so, when using the text editor, it still only occupies 7 characters whereas Rhododendrites takes about 100 characters to specify the font size, letter spacing, text-shadow, colour, &c. It's elaborate markup like this that makes editing talk-pages so intimidating to ordinary readers.
  8. There's still the issue of ostentation but a single character is comparatively modest compared to other garish sigs. And after 14+ years of editing, I feel reasonably entitled to some small vanity.
  9. More generally, I like adding graphics and pictures to our pages as they are otherwise a dull wall-of-text. That's why, for example, I added the picture of the St Bernard.
  10. If editors can't stand such ornamentation then there's a technical remedy. See the Unclutter signature minimiser.
  11. As for William Harris, they should note that there's a paw print emoji (🐾), which might be used in place of the file links to make his sig tighter and compliant with WP:SIGIMAGE. There are also some cute dog emojis including 🐕, 🐩, 🦮 and 🐶!
Andrew🐉(talk) 16:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the detailed reply. :) I do appreciate the thought behind the dragon. It's true that my sig takes up more bytes, and it's a fair point that new users looking at the wikimarkup might not like seeing extra html/css/whatnot. Worth a conversation. For me, talk pages are all about the thoughts expressed, and pictures in the text are just incredibly distracting such that if there's too much in a thread I sometimes decide not to bother. It's hard not to be frustrated when one person insists (intentionally or not) on making my eyes go to their words above all others. Same with text highlighting, prohibitions on which, to my chagrin, have been rejected. So I appreciate I'm in the minority on some of this. I got the sense that pictures-in-signatures was something most people were behind in appreciating their potential for distraction, but I may be in the minority on that as well. Anyway, sorry for the tangent here. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My thanks to both of you; I was not aware that this breached WP:SIGIMAGE and I will be changing it shortly. William Harristalk 01:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:25, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The kennel article defines its topic in a narrow, limited way as "a structure or shelter for dogs...". Dog camp would not be subordinate because one of the main points seems to be that the dogs get lots of outdoor activity and so the accommodation structure would just be part of the camp. And, currently, the kennel article only has 3 sources while the article in question is doing much better with 8. The tail should not be wagging the dog. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:20, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:04, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James Henry Wittebols[edit]

James Henry Wittebols (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Academic but not the holder of a named chair; two routine academic publications with routine academic reviews in fairly obscure (?) journals. If this is acceptable per our notability guidelines then surely we should have a bio for every person holding professor status, all of whom will have had something published? Sitush (talk) 04:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Sitush (talk) 04:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nb: previously PRODed with the rational NN professor, fails the GNG and WP:ACADEMIC. Only sources out there namedrops, and certainly nothing providing significant coverage to the subject. Notability tagged for over a decade. Created (for what it's worth) by a legendarily disruptive editor who's been indeffed for his antics. - Sitush (talk) 04:56, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am not seeing the evidence of prominence within his field that would be required for WP:NPROF or WP:NAUTHOR. As the nom notes, having an academic book reviewed in an academic journal is not, by itself, evidence of substantial scholarly impact. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:28, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Struck because I didn't see the Cengage encyclopedia entry that's now been added. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think multiple books each with multiple independent in-depth published reviews, and an in-depth entry detailing his career at the Cengage encyclopedia, is enough for both WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. We should be basing deletion decisions on this sort of topic on the existence of adequate sourcing, not on our own uninformed personal judgements of how routine or non-routine we think his career has been. (As for "substantial scholarly impact": that's wording from WP:PROF#C1, which is focused more on fields where journal publishing and citation counts are important; it doesn't work well for book fields.) —David Eppstein (talk) 06:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • not on our own uninformed personal judgements of how routine or non-routine we think his career has been - really? - Sitush (talk) 06:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • My own judgement in this specialization is certainly not well informed. Do you mean to tell me I should use that instead of our source-based notability guidelines? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:07, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wouldn't presume to tell you anything. What I am doing is questioning your own presumptions of others. Eg: this, this, this and this should suggest to you that I do consider things in the round. I could give plenty of fairly recent examples where I have commented without !voting etc, and where I have listed upwards of a dozen BEFORE checks. You need to re-examine AGF, I think. - Sitush (talk) 07:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I was the deprodder, and I added (weakly) sufficient reviews at the time. David Eppstein has found more reviews. 5 reviews of one book and 2 of the other are a reasonable pass of WP:NAUTHOR. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment He might be notable as an academic and author. I suggest to check more his academic records--Iockyrice (talk) 20:57, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 04:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 04:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As people have questioned some of the sources without committing themselves, I think a relist is preferable
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:23, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 18:39, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gopalaa[edit]

Gopalaa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An article about a Bollywood film, sourced only to a listing site (muvyz.com) and IMDb (both not WP:RS) since creation in 2016. A WP:BEFORE search turned up only a plot synopsis in Indonesian. I have no objection at all to sources in languages other than English; I've used them myself; but they must satisfy RS - and this one doesn't, as any translation shows. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 18:07, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:13, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:13, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Opinions are evenly matched between keep, delete and merge Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mogo[edit]

Mogo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:47, 25 August 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, 25 August 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, 25 August 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, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge a minimum of info (creators, first appearance, brief description) to List of Green Lanterns. The entry should be five sentences or less. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to only WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of the subject, where direct detailed coverage is needed to establish notability, per the WP:GNG. Would accept a redirect if there is some consensus around target. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article lacks real world details needed to fulfill WP:WAF or meet WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 15:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Argento Surfer.  WP:ATD-M is a probably a good alternative in this case to get the appropriate content moved. This is definitely a valid search term and redirect that would likely get created anyway. He meets the lower standard of a WP:LISTN entry, and the suggested list meets LISTN with several listicles out there. Maybe use the intro at this Book Riot piece as a point of reference for merge content. -2pou (talk) 18:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep or else Merge with List of Green Lanterns. There is a chapter titled "All for One and One for All: Mogo, the Collective, and Biological Unity" in the book Green Lantern and Philosophy, which counts towards notability. There is also some discussion of Mogo on pages 184-185 of Nerd Ecology: Defending the Earth with Unpopular Culture, although that is a weaker source. I also found some (admittedly just mentions) sources regarding the story "Mogo Doesn't Socialize" by Alan Moore about how it was a brief, throwaway story that actually became very influential for the Green Lantern mythos. Still, even if the page is merged somewhere that first source would be a useful reference to link to. Rhino131 (talk) 11:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does the chapter which has his name actually discusses him beyond a plot summary? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:53, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes it does. It's a philosophical analysis of whether a sentient planet can actually be considered "alive", whether it has a soul, and as an example of the philosophy of biology. I rather find it a bunch of mumbo jumbo, to be honest, but that's irrelevant. It's a good source, although like I said it's the only source I found which could be considered significant coverage, hence the weak keep vote. Rhino131 (talk) 12:06, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:04, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: If you have to ask whether a book chapter about this character provides significant coverage, then you've kind of lost sight of what significant coverage means. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:42, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per Rhino131, the coverage seems wp:sigcov for a fictional character. --Mamushir (talk) 20:11, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per User:Rhino131. It's a single source, and a lot of it really more about philosophy of biology than it is about the character. But there is something worth preserving here. Archrogue (talk) 19:21, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus that the sourcing is not adequate to demonstrate notability under WP:NCORP. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nucleus Research[edit]

Nucleus Research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:PROMO. There are hits in RS (e.g., [5], [6], [7]), but not WP:SIGCOV. Tagged for notability for nine years. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio 10:18, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:04, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep: There have been definitely some wp:promo. I have tried to fix the same and removed under-referenced info and promotional tone. Except the reference 1 (press release), others are reliable source, also it passed wp:sigcov. --Mamushir (talk) 20:27, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mamushir, Thanks for removing the promo! I disagree with you on the WP:SIGCOV point, though; of the refs, only [8] looks like SIGCOV to me, and it appears to be a trade journal. Thanks, in any event, for your !vote on a nom that's been stalled for quite a while :) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • AleatoryPonderings, yes, I have passed by this and thought to fix before voting. I kinda agree with you on wp:sigcov now, but have given these references ROI, CNN and Marketwatch and the article was very old, I thought to give a benefit of doubt. I am free to reconsider my vote when others will mark theirs. Why can't I can except the first among them be you? --Mamushir (talk) 21:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Articles that quote research from this company aren't considered for notability as we require a reference to actually provide in-depth details on this company. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 13:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons given by HighKing. Stifle (talk) 09:34, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and highking, this seems to be a pretty clear fail of WP:GNG/WP:NCORP. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:12, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Tone 18:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Pincus[edit]

Fred Pincus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject is an academic and an author but does not meet WP:BIO, WP:NACADEMIC, or WP:AUTHOR. I was able to find one book that referenced the subject (Dominic, in the refs) but otherwise found no reliable sources that establish notability. I found several news articles by him, but none about him with the exception of an article in the University newspaper covering his retirement announcement. Likewise, I was able to find academic works written by him but not about him. With the exceptions listed above, the only sources that are specifically about him are routine coverage such as, his short bio in conjunction with articles he has written, and his bibliography (e.g., on the University website). Paisarepa (talk) 17:29, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Paisarepa (talk) 17:29, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Paisarepa (talk) 17:29, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Paisarepa (talk) 17:29, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Paisarepa (talk) 17:29, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Subject has several papers with hundreds of citations in what I believe to be a lower citation field. I think it's enough for WP:NPROF C1. His Understanding Diversity textbook also appears to be somewhat widely held (giving some support from NPROF C4). His other books have garnered at least a couple of reviews [9][10] (also his edited volume [11]). Although these few reviews are a bit weak for WP:NAUTHOR, they give some support. Comment that the lede of the article make him sound like he has fringe views on reverse discrimination, which doesn't necessarily look to be the case. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:29, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on pass of WP:Prof#C1 on GS citations. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • Weak keep Has a decent number of cites, and some book reviews, etc. Article needs tidying, not deleting. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Katsuhiko Tasaka. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 04:51, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tōkaidō no yarō domo[edit]

Tōkaidō no yarō domo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable film, nothing found in a WP:BEFORE search to establish WP:NFILM. Tagged for 3 years for notability. Donaldd23 (talk) 17:22, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 17:22, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 17:22, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The nominator is blocked, and nobody else seems to have a strong opinion. Sandstein 16:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sabah Mirza[edit]

Sabah Mirza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not-notable individual, sources are mentions Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 08:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 08:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 08:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, he was notable, and was behind his president for almost 30 years, he also was president of Iraq Football Association (IFA), and in charge of other official posts.--Abu aamir (talk) 09:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Devokewater@, could you please prove how the this individual is not notable, he was notable and important official man, he was the first bodyguard of Saddam since the late 60s and became the chief of Saddam personal guards till the early 90s, besides his other official posts and early partisan duties (since he was 16 years old), you can easily search the name in different languages and variants to determine his notability, look at him here being young behind saddam in 1979, and look after many years --Abu aamir (talk) 13:55, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Abu aamir (talk) can you add sources that are reliable, verifiable, independent to the article that indicate notability. Regards --Devokewater@ 14:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
that is fair , please give me some time, by the way the delete nomination was just minutes after the creation.--Abu aamir (talk) 14:27, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
excuse me for not being able to mention your name properly.--Abu aamir (talk) 14:29, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Abu aamir (talk) please ask for help at the Teahouse. If you manage to add sources etc you'll be able to keep per WP:HEY. Regards --Devokewater@ 14:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Devokewater@, I have added more information and sources to the page, take into consideration that the sources were only of foreign languages, when I add Arabic Sources, it will be overwhelmed, and thanks for the revoking of your early agreement to the nomination, that was a moral courage --Abu aamir (talk) 10:48, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment he is notable due to his relationship with Saddam Hussein, sources have been added, the article has improved. --Devokewater@ 11:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Devokewater, notabilty is not inherited, have you taken a look at the sources, they are all passing mentions, he does not meet WP:GNG. Regards Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:32, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
{Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) I'll wait a while too see if the article is updated + improved. Regards --Devokewater@ 11:45, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 17:19, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment : Possibly the fact that he has been elected vice chairman of National Olympic Committee of Iraq is better to consider than his being bodyguard of Saddam Hussain, while considering WP:N. Also, the problem of passing mention is still there per Synoman Barris.--Mamushir (talk) 20:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Newly found citations support notability. (non-admin closure) Donaldd23 (talk) 10:55, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Idi Pellantara[edit]

Idi Pellantara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable film, nothing found in a WP:BEFORE search to support it. Tagged for notability for 9 years. Donaldd23 (talk) 17:12, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 17:12, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 17:12, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Kailash29792, can you expand on how this Tweet, that simply mentions one of the actors, the name of the film, and shows a poster, helps the article pass WP:NFILM? It isn't an in-depth review, it is a passing mention of the film. Thanks. Donaldd23 (talk) 19:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The film has received at least two full-length reviews from published Telugu newspapers. From Andhra Patrika dated 24 July 1982[2] and Zamin Ryot dated 23 July 1982.[3] I gathered these sources by searching manually in online archives which are available at this point, and added the same to the article. Hence it satisfies other evidence of notability. --Ab207 (talk) 06:19, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://heavy.com/news/2019/09/joe-biden-corn-pop-william-morris/
  2. ^ R., V. (24 July 1982). "చిత్ర సమీక్ష: ఇది పెళ్లంటారా" [Film review: Idi Pellantara?]. Andhra Patrika (in Telugu). p. 8. Retrieved 6 September 2020.
  3. ^ Kumar, Chandra (23 July 1982). "సమీక్ష: ఇది పెళ్లంటారా" [Review: Idi Pellantara] (PDF). Zamin Ryot (in Telugu). p. 9. Retrieved 6 September 2020.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 09:34, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysia International Film Festival[edit]

Malaysia International Film Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable award ceremony, only citation given is the festival's website. Nathan2055talk - contribs 21:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per WP:GNG: [12], [13], [14], [15]. It's not that old, so may still be a bit WP:TOOSOON, and some of the coverage is arguably WP:ROUTINE. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:31, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the reliable sources identified above that show coverage of this film festival in international publications such as Variety and Hollywood Reporter so that it has more than a national reach, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:23, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep the sources shown by AP are enough to indicate notability. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 18:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alt.fan.warlord[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Alt.fan.warlord (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable usenet group, has been in CAT:NN. Was kept, fairly easily, at a discussion back in 2005, but all of the keep !votes in that were consisted solely of WP:ITSNOTABLE with no evidence of backing it up. The main claim to notability from the previous AFD was that it was mentioned in the Jargon File, but that doesn't seem to be the stuff of notability. I'm not sure what this is but it doesn't look particularly reliable. This mentions the group in one sentence. Very brief coverage here This is a republishment of the previous piece. Just a list entry here, with no explanation. I suspect the brief definitions posted in the sources above are copied from the Jargon File, which would make sense. This paper only mentions the group as a works cited (yikes!). It gets a paragraph in this thesis, but I can't tell what type of thesis it is, as many theses are excluded as RS per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Gets only half a sentence of coverage here. This is a master's dissertation, generally considered to be below WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Not finding anything particularly useful on the internet archive. Pretty much, this doesn't seem to be a notable usenet group, and since we don't have a listing of usenet groups anywhere, I don't see a good place to redirect to. Hog Farm Bacon 16:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 16:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 16:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 18:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Raafay Israr[edit]

Raafay Israr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As a part of NPP, I had draftified this article on 26 June 2020, two days later it was moved back to mainspace by Aanuarif saying that "Moved to Article space after fixing the issues and reviewing it ". Theroadislong added a "Notability" tag on 4 July 2020, which was removed by ErtugrulKayi on 25 July 2020 saying that "Removed notability template after fixing the issue" but they lied, as they did not made any edit on the page which we could say as "fixing the issue". Anyways, I think most of the coverage is routine, mill and the subject is not notable. Comments please. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 16:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 16:28, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 16:28, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NMUSICIAN. Theroadislong (talk) 16:40, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It appears to be too soon for this singer, as he has only been covered in social media and what appear to be friendly publications that reprint press releases. Note that the article says he has won three awards. Those ceremonies appear to be non-notable in themselves, with the exception of the Shaan-e-Pakistan award, which has made the news in its own right ([16]) but this singer's minor award did not. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 00:19, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In case the article is deleted, requesting deleting administrator to Salt it based on what I mentioned in nomination. Regards. ─ The Aafī (talk) 13:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 18:36, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia of Carrick[edit]

Columbia of Carrick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are no reliable sources to be found for this mural which is on private property. The sources in the article have nothing to do with the mural or the Emma Lazarus Park so this article does not have any WP:RS. There is also no RS to support the claims of vandalism but there are photos. The article fails WP:V and WP:N Lightburst (talk) 16:24, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Emma Lazarus Park is currently at AfD as well: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emma Lazarus Park. I would think that these articles would stand or fall together, though perhaps this mural has gotten coverage the park hasn't. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:52, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - After searching online, I could find nothing to substantiate the notability of this mural. There were a couple of social media hits that obviously do not count. Fails WP criteria for notability. Netherzone (talk) 17:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the only sourcing out there is user-generated, as in this Wikipedia page. There appears to be no independent notability. The article is also a strange essay of original research. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't really matter. You want to cancel an article on a mural? Go for it. It doesn't really matter. Consider it your accomplishment/good deed for the year. It literally isn't worth arguing about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoham0211 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have looked for sources online and cannot find anything to help pass WP:GNG. Camerafiend (talk) 15:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia has established notability standards for art, which are more stringent than "demonstrate the art exists". This does not meet those standards. To can this a "cancelation" is just a false statement. A cancelation of art is an act which destroys the art. The art exists indepdent of whether Wikipedia has an article on it. Wikipedia is meant to follow substantial secondary source coverage of things, not just be an indiscriminate coverage of absolutely everything there is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable, work of art in a private garden. In 2007, we could take seriously claims that they didn't know what Wikipedia is or is not, but in 2020, everybody know we are an encyclopedia and have some standards. Bearian (talk) 19:45, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 18:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Regatta[edit]

The Regatta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable (fails WP:GNG and WP:NBUILDING) and there is no indication of importance in the article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:30, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 18:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Tides[edit]

The Tides (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable (fails WP:GNG and WP:NBUILDING) and there is no indication of importance in the article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:17, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:22, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:30, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 18:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Lancaster[edit]

The Lancaster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable (fails WP:GNG and WP:NBUILDING) and there is no indication of importance in the article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:16, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:22, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 18:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Chandler[edit]

The Chandler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable (fails WP:GNG and WP:NBUILDING) and there is no indication of importance in the article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:13, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:23, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:29, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Tone 18:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coco Republic[edit]

Coco Republic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There's extactly one piece of "independent" coverage here - the NZ Herald article - and that's not exactly a stellar example of journalism. The rest is reworked press releases and paid-for features. This retailer appears to fail WP:CORPDEPTH. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware that the NZ Herald is a reputable newspaper; reading is tech. Also, please demonstrate that it is a "significant corporation" - there's this thing called sources that we use. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:59, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Someone got out of the wrong side of the bed today, it seems. For an Australian corporation it actually makes significant revenue. And the sources it gives already are significant enough to show notability in my opinion. I see you disagree, and I respect that. Try not to get an ulser over me disagreeing with you. Life is too short! - Chris.sherlock (talk) 01:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the only one who will require you to show sources, but feel free to coast on opinion instead... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:27, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the existing sources are pretty good. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 02:00, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 03:10, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. We have articles for eclipses almost up to 2200 (which is somewhat arbitrary, I suppose?) In any case, we should either delete all articles beyond a certain year or leave this one as it is (closing keep). Tone 18:45, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Solar eclipse of July 16, 2186[edit]

Solar eclipse of July 16, 2186 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This event may or not happen and 166 years in the future is far WP:TOOSOON for an article. WP:CRYSTAL. It is already covered in the chart found here List of solar eclipses in the 22nd century. Lightburst (talk) 15:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:33, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:33, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These are extremely predictable events, see [17], although the predictions might be off by a few minutes. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to List of solar eclipses in the 21st century. No significance, no notability, and no sources about the solar eclipse itself. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 03:03, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is going to happen, whether humanity and Wikipedia is around or not at the time. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 06:09, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable as longest solar eclipse. Tom Ruen (talk) 16:15, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think that this discussion is being lost about whether or not this eclipse will happen, which it almost certainly will... but that doesn't mean we need an entire article about it. It's ridiculous, there's no notability to it (you can see this in the citations - there's literally no sources, beyond automatically generated crap, that cover it), and the article's content itself is too technical for the general audience. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 01:46, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable future event. And definite. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:01, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How is this notable? ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 09:38, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Many rationales were offered for deletion, both in the nomination and in some of the further participation. These primarily come down to:

  1. Violations of What Wikipedia is not. This article doesn't fit really comfortably in most of the examples of "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" and "Wikipedia is not a memorial site / news aggregator", but it definitely has significant elements of those things, and participants are fairly split on whether it applies. I don't think this particular line of argument is going to settle itself any time soon, because the policy itself does not present a real bright line on this kind of list article. Good faith editors differ on the interpretation.
  2. Violation of Notability (standalone lists). There's a reasonable argument that this is a valid split of other, more general articles, and sources have been presented that discuss this topic as a whole, which is usually the criterion used to determine whether a group of entries warrant a standalone list article - but other participants assert that much of this coverage is rather questionable, and this starts to cross into very emotive territory regarding certain advocacy groups. This notability guideline is one of the more vague ones we have, and it again appears that good faith editors differ over its application to this article.

Beyond those two core arguments, other concerns regarding bad sources and potential BLP issues are mostly editorial issues for individual entries, and there's definitely not an agreement here that the sourcing itself is poor enough to warrant deletion of the article as a whole on that basis.

Some "other stuff exists" arguments were debated here, and they have rather more validity than usual in one sense: This is probably the most emotive and divisive of the many "List of fatal <animal> attacks" that we have, and it might yet be that a more sensible way of handling this long-term disagreement is an RfC to specifically try and work out a consistent guideline for how we should handle them en masse. This is an issue that needs to be settled, but this discussion has reached no clearer consensus than the previous one, and that shows no sign of changing here. ~ mazca talk 11:57, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of fatal dog attacks in the United States[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of fatal dog attacks in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This nom will certainly be controversial, and I think it merits a detailed rationale, so please bear with me. 1) this is in violation of WP:IINFO. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and it is literally a listing of non-notable people who died in a dog attack. 2) Similarly, WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies. None of these people individually meet our notability criteria, and most of them were only covered in local publications. 3) I'm concerned about WP:BLP (which does apply to recently deceased people). There is seemingly no point in listing the names and personal information of non-notable people. See the second paragraph of BLP, which says we must take extra care to have "regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist" 5) WP:NOTNEWS: very few, if any of these events have a lasting notability outside of the 24 hour news cycle 4) I feel that it doesn't meet WP:LISTN We already have Fatal dog attacks, which covers fatal attacks generally, eliminating the need for specialized lists. In reading through the past AFDs, there is clear consensus that the topic of people being killed by dogs is something that is clearly notable. Sources such as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 either agreggate breeds of dogs involved in fatal attacks/other statistics, or pick a random year and use it as a test case to analyse trends in fatal dog attacks. This, admittedly, is great coverage to include in a broad concept article. However, none of them provide a convincing justification to listing every single documented fatal dog attack. This list is just overly massive and a complete list would probably be much longer. Sure, some of these attacks may had hundreds of news articles and the broad-concept of 'dog attacks in the United States' is almost definitely notable, but I see no justification to exhaustively listing every single individual case. I'm sure people will have strong and vastly differing opinions, so will end by saying: let's take extra care to be civil and avoid personal attacks here. We are all here to improve the encyclopedia. Focus on content, not people. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 15:15, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am also nominating the following related pages because they constitute the rest of the list:
List of fatal dog attacks in the United States (2000s) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of fatal dog attacks in the United States (before 2000) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Also please consider the WP:RECENTISM and WP:SYSTEMATICBIAS issues having this list raises. Imagine if we tried to list all fatal dog attacks from all history and all the world! Eddie891 Talk Work 15:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:25, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:25, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:25, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 16:41, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Fatal dog attacks is a notable topic, but there's not the sort of coverage to work WP:LISTN. And Dream Focus - It looks like some of your examples above should probably go, too. Sometimes other stuff that does exist shouldn't. Hog Farm Bacon 16:33, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as is. These are far too frequent and numerous to warrant a list. WP:IINFO and WP:NOTNEWS are king here. An overall compilation of statistics would be fine, such as deaths per year, per breed, per country, etc. (doing like this wouldn't even require the attacks to be fatal). Whether that can be done in a main article or warrants a separate article just for the stats, I'll remain agnostic about for now. The individual details surrounding specific attacks are run-of-the-mill news items and don't warrant mention. We also don't (nor should we) compile lists of every person killed by lightning strike, by shark attack, in plane crashes, etc. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:38, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom. Wikipedia is not the news. Clearly breaks WP:IINFO and are not individually notable so have no place in an encyclopaeida. — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 16:44, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. The nom's very detailed rationale explains it all. Onel5969 TT me 17:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all the lists meet our criteria WP:LISTN the lists are informational. I have much respect for Eddie891, but I have even more respect for the project and for the reader's desire to find this information. The pageviews show that our readers are using this information. Lightburst (talk) 17:34, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pageviews aren't indicators of what should be kept or not. The page My penis has been deleted many times as thoroughly unencyclopedic content. I bet it'd get great pageviews if it existed, but pageviews aren't a good indicator on if a subject is encyclopedic or not. Hog Farm Bacon 17:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with you up to the point where lists are kept based on WP:LISTN criteria: if the lists are informational (readers think so) and referenced, and this one (List of fatal dog attacks in the United States) has 721 references. Also mentioning the My penis page is not even close to this article's content worthiness. Lightburst (talk) 18:07, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Pageviews ARE an indication of the topic's notability. This article averages over 450 views per day. The "top level article" Fatal dog attacks averages just 37 pageviews/day. Dog bite averages 183 pageviews/day. So the readers aren't coming here because they sought out "fatal dog attacks" or "dog bite" and clicked a link to see USA fatalities. They're coming from somewhere else. And considering the length of the article's title, and the esoteric nature of the subject (as opposed to the ubiquitous "my penis"), the reader must be wanting fatalities in particular. And they must be doing that because the subject is notable enough to seek out further information on the topic. Just because a handful of Wikipedia editors can't pinpoint enough Wikipedia-grade RSes on the spot to satisfy some editors, doesn't mean the topic isn't notable. And the pageviews are a definite indicator of general notability of the topic. Normal Op (talk) 08:21, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, history: There are also List of fatal dog attacks in the United Kingdom and Fatal dog attacks in Canada. In the spring of 2019 there was a lengthy discussion that resulted in the decision to peel out the "studies" from the page Fatal dog attacks in the United States (as it was named then) to a separate page that would be international in scope but separate from the list of fatalities. No one did that, so a few months later I created the page Fatal dog attacks (first version) and included in it some international fatalities (and links to the USA, UK and Canada pages). Someone later removed the list of international fatalities from that page [18] (without discussion) and I haven't gotten around to making an international List of fatal dog attacks page to put that content into. Normal Op (talk) 17:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, perhaps an RfC. These are all ultimately spinoffs from Dog bite which no one is seriously suggesting shouldn’t exist. As such they are simply examples of fatal dog attacks, some of which (Dianne Whipple comes to mind) are certainly notable. The issue has undoubtedly been covered by groups advocating for and against certain breeds being outlawed in some regard. I’m guessing the actuarial industry would have some interesting statistics to help as well.
    Personally I also wonder if the past years might benefit from at least introductory prose detailing how that year’s cases compare to previous years. As well it may make sense to convert all past years into prose rather than charts.
    An RfC might be called for taking input from this AfD to discuss the best ways to organize this content. Gleeanon409 (talk) 18:17, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - I also completely agree with the nomination statement. In addition to the issues already provided in the nomination statement, my other concern with this page (with respect to the page's compliance to accuracy/reliability standards for Wikipedia) is that it lists the suspected breed(s) of the dogs involved in the incidents. There are numerous studies that have concluded that breed information (without DNA) is subject to high rates of inaccuracy -- on average between 40%-60%. This study [1] determined that breed information in media reports differed from breed determination by animal control agencies up to 40% of the time. Another study [2] determined that visual identification techniques for some breeds differed from actual DNA results up to 60% of the time. Essentially, the problem with listing breeds is that there is a high probability that either the shelter and/or the owner have not correctly identified the specific breed of their dog -- which then leads to inaccurate information in media reports as almost all media reports on dog bites simply identify the breed as reported by the owner/shelter (which again is likely to differ from the dog's actual DNA around 50% of the time, per cited studies). Therefore, I would have more support for this page if the "Category of Dog" column were removed as the information in this column is not reliable -- and worse, has been the subject of a lot of controversy, disagreements, and problems on this page (at least, as I've observed over the last several years of watching this page). However, even if the "Category of Dog" column were removed, I still find that this page is not aligned with the type of content that is appropriate and expected for Wikipedia. Thanks for considering my comments and feedback, Michael. Michael2468b (talk) 19:20, 5 September 2020 (UTC) — Michael2468b (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Adding several more studies on the accuracy of breed identification: This study [3] determined that accurate breed identification varied between 10.4%-67.7% (depending on the number of breeds identified in the dog's DNA); this study [4] determined that DNA results matched visual breed identification only around 25% of the time. Regardless, as mentioned above, there is a lot of evidence to support that breed information is prone to high rates of inaccuracy without DNA; therefore, removing the "Category of Dog" column would actually improve this page's accuracy (by eliminating questionable/debatable/inaccurate data from it). However, as mentioned in my first comment above, even if breed data was removed from this page, I would still support its deletion for the reasons outlined in the nomination statement.Michael2468b (talk) 20:19, 5 September 2020 (UTC) — Michael2468b (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Sources
  • Those are reasons to clarify for our readers at the top of the list that listing of breeds has been shown to be a highly imprecise science, but not a reason to delete the whole list. Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:17, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • But saying I would still support its deletion for the reasons outlined in the nomination statement is essentially a ‘per nom’ !vote, which is a reason for deletion. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:12, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correct, my vote is still in support of deletion regardless of the breed accuracy issue. If the final conclusion is to retain this article, I would like to start a separate discussion about the removal of the "Category of Dogs" from the page (and the other similar pages) as it's unreliable and worse, encourages changes to this page by those with personal agendas (either for or against certain "breeds") which only serves to diminish the value of the page. In fact, I use this page frequently in my class as an example of how inaccurate/unverified data is unfortunately published on Wikipedia (with the objective of teaching my students to apply critical analysis to test the validity of information they find on the internet; and for this page, students almost unanimously agree that the breed information does not meet scientific standards to be valid/true). With respect to the tagging that I have "made few or no other edits outside this topic" -- that's true but irrelevant, I use this page for various class projects and just because I don't contribute much doesn't mean that I have less of an interest or impact on this page.Michael2468b (talk) 23:11, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - In response to the offered rationales for deletion:
  1. The WP:IINFO rationale for deletion (RfD) has been argued in previous AfD attempts. The consensus has been that notability derives from the topic itself, i.e., "Fatal Dog Attacks" that meet WP:Notability because (per WP:LISTN), "it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." The fact that the non-notable individuals were killed does not decrease the topic's notability.
  2. The WP:NOTMEMORIAL RfD has also been argued in previous AfD attempts. The consensus has been that this does not apply because the names themselves are not the point - they are included for completeness in describing the event, and to assist readers if they wish to explore for additional information beyond the sources cited in the entry.
  3. The WP:BLP RfD is not supported because the only "personal" information is generally the individual's name, the city or town where the event occurred, and some discussion of the event as presented in WP:RELIABLE SOURCES - usually local news media. Edit an entry if you feel it violates the WP:BLP WP:NPOV, WP:V, or WP:NOR criteria rather than deleting the entire article.
  4. Skipped in the argument for deletion.
  5. The WP:NOTNEWS RfD is not supported because 1) the article does not contain "routine" news reporting - "dog bites man" is routine, but "dog kills man" is a rare event can generate multiple news stories over several days, including analysis of dog & human interaction, as well as intense, emotional commentary; 2) the article is not a "news story" about one event or multiple events - as stated earlier, it is a stand-alone list of events under a notable topic.
  6. The WP:LISTN RfD is not supported because per WP:LISTN, "the list topic has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". It is the topic of "Fatal Dog Attacks" rather than the individual people that qualify the list as "notable." A stand-alone list related to a notable topic conforms with WP:LISTN.
  7. The WP:RECENTISM RfD is not supported because the topic of fatal dog attacks is demonstrably an item of enduring interest, rather than a singular recent event.
  8. The WP:SYSTEMATICBIAS RfD is not supported because the list acknowledges that its geographic restriction ("in the United States") and that it is incomplete. When you find a list that claims to be "all fatal dog attacks from all history and all the world" then feel free to tilt at it. This list is not that list. Astro$01 (talk) 20:16, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as long as referenced, is an often-looked up and discussed topic. Is referenced. Dog fatalities is a notable topic. It is not an indisciriminate list, but rather a well-defined one whose elements must have (and indeed do) sourcing. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTIINFO WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:NOTNEWS. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate memorial for victims of a specific death, especially as almost every victim is non notable, including infant children (some not even named), and referenced by a single news report. Delete reasons remain the same for the last nomination. Ajf773 (talk) 01:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per Astro$01. Well referenced and notable subject of enduring interest. Makes no claim to be complete, it is a select list as determined by editorial decision making process. -- GreenC 01:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There were two prior AfDs for this article. The article has had multiple name changes which have splintered the Talk page archives and (almost) lost the prior AfDs.
— Normal Op (talk) 03:04, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I Put those at the top of the AFD in the box on the right already. Dream Focus 04:28, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 14:36, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep ALL: This list article is well-sourced, meets WP:GNG, is informative, has good criteria for inclusion. These list-articles are part of a set and are neither a content fork nor duplicated content. Originally the list was part of the fatal dog attack article until it became big enough to require it to split. The list entries are well cited and there has been very little problem with bias or edit wars. This list (and there are many lists similar to it) is not intended as a memorial to people, but as a document showing the history of fatal dog attacks over time, and give a brief summary on how the event happened, and sometimes includes what happened because of a particular attack (legislation, or a conviction, etc.). Anyone thinking such a list as this is a memorial should clear up their misunderstanding of the word "memorial". Memorials would be focused on either one person, or a group of people dying in the same event. Chronological lists or collections of deaths by similar manner are NOT memorials to the various and unconnected people who died that way, but are bodies of information of interest to those researching a topic by manner of death, which is one function of an encyclopedia. The people's names are only of interest to search for further information or citations for a particular death. The oft-cited policy WP:NOTMEMORIAL says "Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances. LISTN isn't an issue because the subject "fatal dog attacks" and "fatal dogs attacks in the US" have been well covered in media, studies and books. These lists are not memorials, they are events. RECENTISM is so far from an issue that I can't even believe it was brought up. Normal Op (talk) 06:13, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alerting the following editors who either have high edits in the last year or who edited one of these list-articles recently, and who have not yet voted: 45382B3, Matthew stebbins, Jacobm co, Rosebud0214, Mickey912. Normal Op (talk) 07:12, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment some things I think it's worth clarifying. 1) Yes it is a violation of WP:IINFO. Several keep !voters have harped on the fact that it isn't in-discriminant because has clear inclusion standards. That's wrong. reported by the news media, published in scholarly papers, or mentioned through other sources. is not a standard of inclusion, it is just a rephrasing of WP:V. Of course a fatal dog attack would have to be mentioned in a source to be here. There is no threshold of inclusion other than it being verifiable, which is already our policy (see WP:NOR as well). Note that indiscriminate says merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia, which is the case here and brings me to point 2) WP:NOTNEWS absolutely applies to this list. Particularly points 2 and 3, Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events.. 3) in the same vein, WP:LISTN is not met because nowhere is the actual list of fatal attacks (chronicling individual events) discussed. These three points are at the heart of why this list should be deleted. Nobody is saying that "fatal dog attacks" or even "fatal dog attacks in the United States" is a non-notable topic, but that the "list of fatal dog attacks in the United States" should be deleted, something that has not adequately been addressed in keep !votes, imo. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:50, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Eddie891: Absolutely YES this sort of list has been discussed and/or covered in multiple sources over time, however a particular POV-pushing editor has campaigned to strip all mention of these from Wikipedia, so you won't find them in mainspace but might find them in archived talk page and noticeboard discussions. Medical studies aren't going to mention individual victims by name, but they do occasionally list several fatal events together for a discussion and sometimes you can cross reference their stories to actual cases with names (such as this case study report). Here are several lists mentioning either people by name or listing the fatalities without names (and providing links where you can find the names):
— Normal Op (talk) 16:51, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That you're linking exclusively to anti-pitbull advocacy websites as your reliable sources ... doesn't instill confidence that someone else is POV-pushing. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:24, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first four links cover ALL fatalities regardless of breed — just like this wiki article does. That the final three links focus on pit bulls probably results from the fact (supported by dozens of medical studies) that pit bulls have been involved in the majority of the fatalities. [19] So your inference fails, Rhododendrites, and perhaps you have been swayed by the same POV-pushing editor over time to think that those organizations are "anti-pitbull". The nominator suggested that such lists of fatal dog attack events has not been discussed or covered elsewhere, I have provided links showing that they have been discussed by multiple sources over a significant period of time. Normal Op (talk) 17:39, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • And nom didn't ask for "reliable sources", by the way, and I'm not advocating the use of any of these sources as a citation in mainspace; but the fact remains that this sort of list HAS BEEN AND WILL CONTINUE TO BE discussed and published. And THAT was my point. Normal Op (talk) 17:42, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...Well, I kinda assumed it went without saying that we would use reliable sources when establishing notability/lack thereof. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not saying they aren't reliable sources, I was catering to Rhod's accusation that I was presenting such. Normal Op (talk) 18:08, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, fair enough, but if you know they're unreliable[see below], why are you presenting them here to support an argument at AfD, where only reliable sources are relevant? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:21, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not saying they aren't reliable sources. Normal Op (talk) 18:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I misread your previous comment as "I'm not saying they're reliable", so struck that. I'm still confused, though, by And nom didn't ask for "reliable sources". Unreliable sources are irrelevant for establishing notability. So any call for sources is implicitly a call for reliable sources. Either those sources are unreliable and have no place here or you're presenting them as reliable. If you're — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:14, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. This one is a medical examiner. That's a reliable source. [20]
  2. This one is an attorney who is an expert in his field. That's a reliable source. [21]
  3. This one has been recording dog bite related fatalities for fifteen years and every single publication is well-cited to other sources. That's a reliable source. [22]

That's three; that should do it. Normal Op (talk) 19:59, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Err, no... the "Dog Bite King"'s self-published legal site, Dog Bite Law, is not a reliable source. (??) The dogsbite.org statistics would just be statistics even if they weren't published by an advocacy group. Statistics don't help notability. The first one, however, is indeed a reliable source. Not because it's from a medical examiner, but because it's a peer reviewed journal article. ... But it doesn't mention any of these cases. Its research seems like it might be useful for a fatal dog attacks topic article, but it doesn't help this list. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:24, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The suggestion that these are sources worth considering by someone with more than a few hundred edits is making me doubt myself. This is very much not an area about which I have a lot of knowledge. Accordingly, I've opened a thread at RSN: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Dogsbite.org%2C_other_dog_attack-related_advocacy_websites. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:30, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This gish gallop of yours is exhausting, and unnecessary. Kenneth Phillips is a well respected attorney and a subject-matter expert. Here is one write-up about him in the Washington Post: [23] (free account signup required). Normal Op (talk) 20:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the reliability I’m still not convinced that the list of non notable events is merited on Wikipedia. just because something is verifiable doesn’t mean it’s suitable for inclusion on wikipedia. Of course advocacy groups and (perhaps) subject matter experts write about the areas they are involved in... its what they do. It concerns me wrt notability that the only sourcing outside of this is news reports and case studies (ie ‘pitbull maulings in Detroit’) that aren’t, to me, indicative of the significance of the wider list. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 21:17, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Eddie891: Here are 5 news reports and 2 studies that discuss "lists of fatal dog attacks". [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] Normal Op (talk) 09:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the effort you have put in to finding sourcing, but it seems to me that you have presented more of the same coverage. The journal articles seem to go towards establishing the notability of statistics, not listing individual events. The other articles, three of which are from the same source (citywatch LA -- which seems to be a non notable news site that is more advocacy than news), are all local publications covering news. I just don't see a wider notability of the extensive list we have here established. I'll add that there seems to be a slightly emerging consensus at RSN that sources like dogsbite.org are not very reliable. Anyways, I'm probably sounding like a broken record here, so that might be it from me. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 22:29, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You wouldn't happen to be able to cite any "actual research", would you? By this argument, we should delete every Wikipedia page devoted to individual dog breeds, because it's just "complete nonsense" that anyone can claim they can tell the difference between a Great Dane, a German Shepherd, a Golden Retriever, and a Chihuahua. Astro$01 (talk) 10:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going off this thread, where various studies were posted and discussed. On closer inspection, I see I've misreported what was in the sources. News reports of dog attacks are not "more likely than not" to be wrong, they're just very likely to be wrong. And you seem to misunderstand me. I'm not talking about discussions of dog breeds in general, just about misidentification of dog breeds in news reports of dog attacks. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 15:02, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the only source on that rather soap-boxy page that pointed to an actual refereed journal (Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association) was Co-occurrence of potentially preventable factors in 256 dog bite-related fatalities in the United States, which said:
"On the basis of the expanded definition (any agreement between alleged breeds and mixes), breed descriptors among media reports were discordant for 19 of 148 (12.8%) dogs; animal control or local law enforcement assessment of breed differed from the media account for 18 of 129 (14.0%) dogs."
So, there was agreement on sources from 86% to 87% of the time. I'm having a hard time understanding how that level of agreement makes news media "very likely to be wrong" when 86% to 87% agreement would normally indicate that the reports are very likely to be right. I suggest that if there are conflicts in the reporting that you can always go look for more sources and add information from other sources to the list, e.g., "media reports the dog was either a St. Bernard or a Chihuahua", rather than deleting the entire list. Astro$01 (talk) 16:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The media reports are NOT inherently wrong about dog breed reporting. Dog show judges every day identify dog breeds quite easily. Most people know what kind of dog they have. Media reports dog breed based off of what was in the police blotter. The police get it from (a) what the owner said it was, (b) what their eyes told them it was, or (c) what Animal Control said it was when the dog was confiscated. Judges have ruled in numerous cases that an ordinary person can identify a pit bull and most people know when they own a pit bull. The ONLY people in the United States who are objecting to breed identification are (i) the pro-pit bull people & lobby (because it's their dogs who are doing the majority of attacks), and (ii) the No Kill people who don't want to put down the dogs swamping their shelters. Most pit bull dog owners KNOW their dog is a pit bull and have no problem bragging about it (https://themajorityproject.com/), and the dog only become "unidentifiable" when the dog attacks someone or a landlord says "no pit bulls". Even though many fatal attacks are by "German Shepherd" or "St Bernard", you don't see the German Shepherd or St Bernard people participating in this farsical study-building exercise to "prove" you can't tell a German Shepherd without DNA. Any large hairy black and tan dog WILL get labelled a GS, but the GS people aren't complaining. Only the pit bull people. This paradox is the smoking gun about WHO is promoting the agenda of "you can't identify a breed without DNA" while people have been doing that for centuries without any problem. The "science" is funded by pro-pit bull and No Kill advocates and is proven as fraudulent EVERY SINGLE TIME you look at the details of these studies. Normal Op (talk) 17:30, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Astro$01:I don’t think anyone is mistaking Chihuahuas for Bulldogs or Dachshunds for German Shepherds. The challenge is with specific unique breeds within breed types/groups - for example, accurate visual identification for specific breeds within the diverse bully-type (bulldog-type) breed group such as the various pit bull type breeds and other similar breeds and mixes such as Dogo Argentino, American Bulldog, Cane Corso, Alapaha Blue Blood Bulldog, and many others. And unsurprisingly (per studies) there is a higher level of agreement/accuracy for purebred dogs than for mixed breed dogs. However, accuracy declines when attempting to identify the difference between, for example, an American Staffordshire Terrier mix and an Dogo Argentino mix or an American Bulldog mix and a Cane Corso mix. These are just a few examples, there are many breeds in the broad bully-type category that have similar physical characteristics that unless they are purebred, are harder to accurately identify their predominant breed and secondary breed(s) without DNA. Not an argument, just a clarifying point with respect to misidentifying dog breeds. Also, the "Co-occurrence" report is not a DNA study, it's admittedly a study on the discrepancies between media reports and animal control based only on assumed breed by visual breed identification (not DNA) -- which are discrepancies that are still important to study, but it's not a study on visual breed ID vs actual DNA.Michael2468b (talk) 17:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How is any of this relevant to the discussion of deleting the article? Even if the dog breed was unquestionably, provably, definitively misidentified in every single source across the entire article that wouldn't be a reason to delete the article; we would just fix or remove the breed information, the same as any other incorrect information on any other article. The entire issue seems like an irrelevant tangent. Paisarepa 18:38, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Paisarepa:I agree; the breed data discussion is off-topic and has become overly tangential from the original AfD nomination statement/reason.Michael2468b (talk) 18:58, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all based off of non-RSes and WP:NOTMEMORIAL/WP:NOTNEWS --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain I was asked to chime in (vote) on this AFD discussion but I will abstain since I'm not an expert on the policies or rules that govern deletions. However, I'll point out that per WP:AFD: Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments.. So as I understand this one part of the Wiki deletion policy, the outcome of this AFD nomination should be based on Wiki policy and less on total votes. Thanks, Jacobm co (talk) 03:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - fails WP:NOTSTATS, WP:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:NOTADVOCACY, and WP:NOTNEWS. Atsme Talk 📧 01:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
     – This is the correct venue now that AfD has been reopened.
    The article/list needs to be deleted based on the delete arguments, and hopefully I can better explain the importance of that happening for the sake of accuracy. In these types of lists, we cannot possibly correct potential inaccuracies and it is highly likely there are many. These lists serve as validation for the no-pit-bull advocacies and it helps them pass controversial laws when an encyclopedia like ours publishes such lists under the pretense they are well sourced and dog IDs are accurate. WP should not put itself in this position per WP:NOTADVOCACY. I was hoping we didn't have to discuss the controversy itself, but more editors need to be aware of what is going on so they can better understand why accuracy is important in these types of lists. From my perspective, it should not even be up for debate considering the widespread misidentification of dogs and the deliberate attempts to destroy any dog that even looks like it might be a descendant or a mix of the hated breed as evidenced by the article in AAHA, along with many other articles of importance to this issue, including AVMA, Veterinary Journal, NCRC, ASPCA, Vetmed, NBC, NatGeo, Animal Fdtn and on and on. Atsme Talk 📧 15:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NCRC and AFF are pro-pit bull lobbying organizations dedicated, and your own (currently undisclosed) COI on this subject should preclude you from contributing on this subject. Normal Op (talk) 16:52, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You were just warned by Nosebagbear about slipping back into past behavior that resulted in your indef t-ban from dog/canine topics, and yet, here you are continuing to bludgeon your opposition, but worse, you just made a false accusations of a COI against me. That is unacceptable. Atsme Talk 📧 21:11, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Normal Op, unlike many here (including both you and I), Atsme does disclose her identity and most aspects of her professional life, if you are aware of some COI you should present it to WP:COIN, if not you are simply slandering for no purpose than presumably to sway opinion, it could be argued that such actions are a form of WP:Harassment. Cavalryman (talk) 02:17, 19 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • Weak Delete - a few thoughts. First, how is this different from List of hazing deaths in the United States or List of deaths on eight-thousanders? There is a volume difference, we have about 40 deaths by dog attack in the US per year. At some point, the volume is too much. A List of Maltese people that contained all 500000 Maltese residents would be ridiculous, even though the topic of Maltese people is clearly notable. List of Maltese people correctly contains only blue-linked articles -- most of the entries here would have no possibility of being stand-alone articles. The guidance at WP:CSC says that if a complete list would include hundreds or thousands of entries, then you should use the notability standard to provide focus to the list. At 40 entries per year for one country, this is just too much detail. That said, I don't feel that NOTNEWS or IINFO applies here; perhaps an RFC to add a criteria to WP:NOT would be informative. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:00, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I did the math, and it would require (500,000/40 =) 12,500 years for the number of US dog attacks to match the current Maltese population, assuming they remain constant. I just thought that was amusing. Mariolovr (talk) 03:09, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lists of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States has thousands of entries -- so many that the linked article is just an index of the actual lists, which are by month. Volume shouldn't be a deciding factor between keep or delete. Likewise the overwhelming majority of entries are not individually notable, again not a reason to delete. Paisarepa 03:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The underlying concept is not notable; sourcing is dubious and the article comes down to collection of news and memorials. Stifle (talk) 09:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Just as a note, since I see that an awful lot of time/energy has gone into compiling these lists. Has anyone considered exporting this content to a different wiki? Wikia, for example. There's a lot of good content on those kinds of sites that doesn't quite fit on Wikipedia (for better or worse, I guess). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:52, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. We have the article fatal dog attacks, any independently notable fatalities can be linked there. Cavalryman (talk) 23:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]
    • Individual fatality events (which are cited, as all of these are) won't need to establish notability if they are included in an article that satisfies its own notability. In fact, that's where this list started out before the article was split apart, and then someone named Fatal dog attacks in the United States to LIST OF... Long game, perhaps? Normal Op (talk) 01:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What are you suggesting? Speak plainly. Cavalryman (talk) 01:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]
[31] [32] Normal Op (talk) 16:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, if you have something to say just say it. Are you suggesting that I have somehow orchestrated this AfD because my opinion has not changed since the last AfD? You have recently been given some gentle reminders to AGF and to slow down in this topic area [33][34]. Cavalryman (talk) 00:38, 18 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment I closed this AfD as "no consensus"; however several editors have reminded me I !voted "keep" in a previous AfD (which I forgot about) which would give the appearance of having a conflict of interest, so I am re-opening the debate. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:37, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per NOTNEWS; appears to be mainly a list of local news reports. We have fatal dog attacks which is where the necessary encyclopedic coverage of this topic should be.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the biggest problem I see with this kind list is that breeds are identified and, as brought up above, this is a problematic issue that has real-world consequences. If the list stays, that section should be removed, even if it's exported to another Wiki, as Rhododendrites suggests. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per above. Oeoi (talk) 18:33, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It's hard to see lists like these as anything other than a memorial for non-notable humans. Those names add nothing to the understanding of the topic of fatal dog attacks on humans. If there is scientific data on rate of attacks and factors that affect the risks to be garnered from it, I would expect the academics to do it, which we can then add to the main article. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:35, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per the nom. Fails WP:IINFO, WP:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and has serious WP:BLP issues. A set of incomplete lists from local sources of random people killed by dogs in one country is hardly the purpose of Wikipedia, and as the nom hinted at, where does this end? If truly a notable collection of data, why not a list of fatal dog attacks in the first century of the Roman Empire? Or in 1950's Thailand? Wikipedia should not be listing the names and personal details of random people who were victims of WP:RUNOFTHEMILL tragedies so people can gawk at these blood soaked local events, which is the only reason for this article that I can tell. Aside from gawking, what is the lasting notability reason for having an article dedicated to including as many entries such as this real one: "Demi Witherspoon; 2 years; pit bull; The family dog bit the child's face completely off." The article Fatal dog attacks is enough. Newshunter12 (talk) 17:44, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a particular list item that could be improved, then I suggest improving it rather than deleting the entire list. As it happens, fatal dog attacks are not WP:RUNOFTHEMILL but are relatively rare events. There are all sorts of articles that are lists of "Lists of fatal [cause] attacks...", and this is just one of them. As to "Why", it was split off of the Fatal dog attacks article specifically to preserve instances that were originally included in the parent article as the list was growing too long. The idea is to help people who want to do further research on this topic once they read the main article, so the stand-alone list shows an incomplete list (inviting new items) and provides a link for anyone who want to know more about a particular event. BTW, if you find lists of dog attacks in the Roman Empire, or in 1950's Thailand, feel free to tilt at them. Those lists are not this list. Astro$01 (talk) 00:23, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
From my experience the problem with spin off lists like this is that they become dumps for anything only slightly notable having to do with the topic and they aren't maintained at all because most people don't visit them from the main article. Except for people who are just there to gawk and therefore won't cleanup super hyperbolic entries like the one Newshunter12 cited. Also, according to the CDC there are 16 fatal dogs attacks in the US per year. While that might seem small, it isn't when this article is just about "fatal dog attacks in the US." Especially considering there is no inclusion criteria besides being killed by a dog. All you would have do is list two or three years worth of people that have been killed by dogs in the United States and the list would become impossible to navigate and extremely useless. The alternative would be to list only "notable fatal dog attacks" (whatever that means in this context) to keep the number and usefulness down, but then no one is going to review it regularly make sure whatever arbitrary standard you come up with is being followed and then it would just as easily be manageable enough for the main article anyway. Where people will actually police it and delete the sensationalism. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:13, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I get your point to a degree, but I have to point out that this article has 14,000 page views in the past 30 days, while fatal dog attacks has only 1,100. It appears that this is the main article, though not the primary topic. Alleging that people are just there to gawk is an unfair assessment to make without evidence, as is the allegation that the article is an unmaintained dump. Nor are either of those allegations material to the question of notability and therefore deletion. Sure, there are issues with questionable breed identification and perhaps with hyperbole, but those failures fall on the sources and should be dealt with by finding consensus on the talk page and then improving the article. It would be OR and SYNTH for an editor to assume the source is wrong and 'correct it' in this article or any other. Finally, every list has criteria and being killed by a dog (in the USA, post-2000 post-2009) is the criteria for this list. That every event that meets that criteria can be included isn't evidence that it's indiscriminate; that's how lists work, things that meet the inclusion criteria are included. Paisarepa 02:56, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Such statements as "bit the child's face completely off" are NOT hyperbolic, Newshunter12, they are unfortunately reality. The dispatchers said that in clear voice [35]. It's NOT the first time a dog ate off a face in an attack [36]. And if such statements were hyperbolic, they would have been corrected by another editor. There are 82 page watchers [37] and when information gets posted wrong, it is corrected — usually within minutes if not hours, and sometimes played down. I have probably reviewed every single edit made on this page since I joined Wikipedia two years ago. I'm pretty sure there are a few people who also review all edits on a regular basis. This page was created 11 years ago as a list of fatal dog attacks (US). It's been edited regularly, and reviewed regularly. The Fatal dog attacks page is about a year old and doesn't have the same number of followers... or interest. There is a finite list of "known" dog bite fatalities each year. So this page has never been, and probably never will be, a dumping ground. "Poor content" is not a valid reason to delete a page; it's a reason to correct a page. And if it hasn't been corrected on THIS page, then you can pretty much know that the information is correct (or very close) because of the high number of people monitoring the edits. The argument that has been presented about the dog breeds being wrong, is also bunk, because each entry is corrected if it's wrong. The rules on the page have been "whatever secondary source says the breed is, that's what is used here." That's paraphrased; the actual rule is on the Talk page in the pink section. — Normal Op (talk) 04:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the concern is that the list covers too many years (however one decides what the right number is), the simplest response is to split off a sub-list with the appropriate number of years, e.g., a "2010 - 2019" list. This would be consistent with past practice and leave the main list covering 2020 onwards, rather than deleting the entire list and all current sub-lists.Astro$01 (talk) 07:45, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Well sourced and informative article. Meets WP:GNG and in my view is suitable under WP:LISTN. — Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:06, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep All. Why delete such a well-sourced list? None of these events might warrant their own separate article but media coverage means they are notable to be covered in this manner. Also, the fact that certain dog breeds come up quite often here just means that they happen to attack a lot of people. As stated above by Normal Op, this kind of list has been covered by multiple sources over time and them being biased is irrelevant. StellarHalo (talk) 04:06, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. We have articles for eclipses almost up to 2200 (which is somewhat arbitrary, I suppose?) In any case, we should either delete all articles beyond a certain year or leave this one as it is (closing keep). Tone 18:45, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Solar eclipse of September 4, 2100[edit]

Solar eclipse of September 4, 2100 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This event may or not happen and 100 years is far WP:TOOSOON for an article. WP:CRYSTAL. It is likely enough that the future event is already in the chart found here List of solar eclipses in the 21st century. Lightburst (talk) 15:04, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:08, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:08, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why though? ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 01:46, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think that this discussion is being lost about whether or not this eclipse will happen, which it almost certainly will... but that doesn't mean we need an entire article about it. It's ridiculous, there's no notability to it (you can see this in the citations - there's literally no sources, beyond automatically generated crap, that cover it), and the article's content itself is too technical for the general audience. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 01:46, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable future event. And definite. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:01, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 18:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apna Bana Lo[edit]

Apna Bana Lo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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. A WP:BEFORE search turned up the press pack, a bare mention in Radio Times, and a blog which hints that the film made little impact. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 15:01, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:15, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:15, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Pasting a comment that I posted on a similar page earlier today. This page follows many other pages that I have been observing in the last few weeks (and perhaps before that as well), of Indian films from the 1950-1980s, that have been showing up for deletion. By the current rules of WP:NFILM, they all fall short of the requirements, primarily because of the lack of English language online sources of reviews for these films, resulting in an undue number of films from the 1990s. This should be a topic of discussion for one of the India Projects, to think through at an aggregate rather than discussing each of the films on a one on one basis in an AfD. I agree with the high level sentiment that Wikipedia is not IMDB. However, in the same vein, Wikipedia is not just a replication avenue other recent online sources (read as recent newspapers). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktin (talk • contribs)
  • Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 00:32, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to concerns around WP:NFILM and WP:GNG Spiderone 14:12, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Tone 18:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bearden School District (Oklahoma)[edit]

Bearden School District (Oklahoma) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

School District with two schools. This article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. WP:BEFORE revealed only WP:ROUTINE coverage and brief mentions, nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV which addresses the subject directly and in depth and is an WP:IS   // Timothy :: talk  07:32, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: Per comment below, subject also does not meet WP:GEOLAND.
  • Note - school districts do not fall under NORG. As a quasigovernmental entity, with fixed boundaries and taxation power, they are covered under WP:GEOLAND, which only requires verification of existence for notability. TimothyBlue, I purposely didn't phrase this as a !vote so if you want to withdraw this, I'll close it. John from Idegon (talk) 09:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I added this to the above, thanks for the information, I hadn't considered that guideline. But WP:GEOLAND says "are typically presumed to be notable" typically is not always, and a presumption is not a guarantee of notability. In this case, there is WP:ROUTINE coverage, but nothing that meets notability. If I missed something that shows notability, please post it and I'll be glad to withdraw (and thank you for the consideration on letting me withdraw, instead of !voting keep).   // Timothy :: talk  11:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply @Scorpions13256:: This doesn't mean it is always notable. Additionally, SCHOOLOUTCOMES states, "This page is not a policy or guideline, and previous outcomes do not bind future ones". The guidelines are the factor here that define notability. Most school districts have more than two schools, so I believe this is an exception if there are not RS showing notability. If you have any sources that show that the district is notable, please list them. I'm happy to withdraw if there are sources showing notability.   // Timothy :: talk  21:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply @TimothyBlue:: Sorry I did not get back to you sooner. I see why citing WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES was not a good move on my part. I should have cited WP:GEOLAND instead. I understand that many school districts have more than two schools, but I am unsure why you think this is an exception to WP:GEOLAND. If school districts are "typically presumed to be notable" , it sounds like there are few exceptions to the guideline. A lot of school districts in rural areas have only two schools. If we were to delete this article, we would have to delete the articles for most other small districts that do not have significant coverage too. In my opinion, such a move would be going against WP:GEOLAND because the number of affected articles would indicate that there are a lot more exceptions to that part of the guideline than it seems to imply. Scorpions13256 (talk) 03:18, 2 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 14:44, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - clearly meets GEOLAND. John from Idegon (talk) 15:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - School district's are notable per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and WP:NGEO. Wm335td (talk) 20:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Generally we keep public school districts in part because they're a legal government entity and because it's a target article to redirect all the little schools. Bearian (talk) 16:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 18:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mahal (1989 film)[edit]

Mahal (1989 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This discussion is about the 1989 film, which should not be confused with the TV series Taj Mahal 1989; an article with several references on which I have no opinion.

An article about a Bollywood film. The Encyclopedia of Indian Cinema reference is a bare mention of existence. The hindigeetmala.net is a bare listing. The IMDb external link is not WP:RS. A WP:BEFORE search turned up an empty listing at BFI and nothing of any value; I was unable even to find the plot. A search for the IMDb title, The Mansion, fared little better, though it did turn up this tiny page. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 14:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:59, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:59, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to International Spanish Academies. Closing this jointly with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colegio Español Don Bosco. Merge both of these to a new International Spanish Academies article. Redirect both. It sounds like this could be done quickly as a placeholder, and then somebody with the appropriate language skills could augment it with translated text from es:International Spanish Academies at a later date. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:59, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Colegio Español (Bata)[edit]

Colegio Español (Bata) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NSCHOOL this article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. WP:BEFORE revealed only WP:ROUTINE coverage and brief mentions, nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV which addresses the subject directly and in depth and is an WP:IS   // Timothy :: talk  08:18, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  08:18, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  08:18, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  08:18, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  08:18, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If merge, where? If creating a new article, do we merge all articles to it?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 14:38, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This one is between keep and redirect. Closing as keep but redirect is a viable option that can be discussed on the talkpage. Tone 18:33, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Genesis[edit]

New Genesis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:47, 25 August 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, 25 August 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, 25 August 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, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to a lack of third party sources to pass the WP:GNG. Only WP:PASSINGMENTIONS which are not enough to establish WP:NOTABILITY. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article fails WP:GNG and does not meet the standards of WP:WAF. TTN (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to New Gods. Still a plausible search term and should be redirected. I think New Gods is the best opton. Rhino131 (talk) 02:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Redirect to New Gods important to the topic of comics. Darkknight2149 10:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's a major staple in DC Comics, has been depicted in fictional media.Valkyrie Red (talk) 05:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: New Genesis is discussed at length in Hand of Fire: The Comics Art of Jack Kirby (University Press of Mississippi, 2011). You can see some of this material in the Amazon "Look Inside" preview. I'll give a couple sample sentences, both from page 196: "The saga turns out to be not so simple, for Kirby — and this is revealing – blurs the seeming idealized perfection of New Genesis, adding complexity to his gods... Characteristically, the heroes of New Genesis are mostly youths, representing hope, energy, and enthusiasm." This isn't plot summary — while it does describe characters and plot elements, it then builds on that to provide analysis and literary criticism. Similarly, in The Jack Kirby Collector #76 (2019), there is much discussion of New Genesis; one good example is on page 34: "Kirby knew that New Genesis was no heaven. Rather, it was more like the free West during the Cold War, which was threatened by forces from within as well as without." These are just a couple of examples. Kirby's work has been well studied and covered, especially the Fourth World material, and the conflict between New Genesis and Apokolips is at the heart of that work. Sources abound. — Toughpigs (talk) 03:52, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to allow discussion of the sources presented in the most recent !vote
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 14:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 18:33, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James Moy[edit]

James Moy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP with no external references Rathfelder (talk) 14:29, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 14:29, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per WP:CREATIVE and WP:NEXIST the photographer is known by his work. This one has taken photos for Autoweek 1 and Motorsport 2, his photographs are used in many publications including the Mirror and Foxnews 3. Wm335td (talk) 20:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions. Let's try wikilinking what's already in the article: "Moy has worked with some of the world's largest image agencies, such as Sutton Images and Crash Media Group." Both are red. Oversights by Wikipedia (which of course has many oversights), or exaggeration? Also, does "worked with" mean something other than "provided photographs for", and if not, then how many photographers have provided photographs for these agencies? -- Hoary (talk) 00:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 00:14, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - simply having his name mentioned under photos does not constitute coverage required for notability. I wasn't able to find anything about James Moy in a google search, only articles featuring his photos. Having a look at WP:CREATIVE, it looks to me like he doesn't meet any of the 4 notability conditions. A7V2 (talk) 04:38, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete having your photos appear in various publications no more is a way to show notability than having articles written appear in various publications. We need sources about someone, not just to show they have created artistic work in some way, broadly defined.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:36, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of WP:SIGCOV about him. I did a couple of searches and found a single interview. Bearian (talk) 16:54, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America1000 17:04, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dream On![edit]

Dream On! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article fails WP:NFSOURCES. I admit the article might pass per WP:NFO (since the film features Ed Harris and Paul Reubens) but I leave it to consensus to decide. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 21:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 14:27, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The consensus is that whilst the criteria at WP:NBOX are not technically met, the participants are happy for the article to exist nonetheless. Stifle (talk) 09:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Laatekwei Hammond[edit]

Laatekwei Hammond (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable boxer that fails GNG and NBOX. I could only find passing mentions in sports results, no significant coverage. -- 2.O.Boxing 12:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. 2.O.Boxing 12:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. 2.O.Boxing 12:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. 2.O.Boxing 12:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, very poor article but had a significant career in professional career and was the national champion of a significant boxing nation which passes my view of notability for a pro boxer. --HuntGroup (talk) 16:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. WP:NBOX sets clear criteria that is not open to interpretation. He would have to have fought for a world title from a major sanctioning body (which he hasn't) or at the very least, have held (not just fought for) one of the regional titles listed here (which he hasn't). Whether he's had a somewhat significant career or not is irrelevant if he fails both GNG and NBOX. -- 2.O.Boxing 17:19, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If winning either the WBA or the WBA European effectively gives notability then I think its only fair the winning BOTH the WBA and the WBA titles is enough to confer notability for me. --HuntGroup (talk) 18:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you mean, you must have made a mistake in your reply. I think you're trying to say you have an issue with the titles listed in NBOX? If that's the case then you'll have to raise that issue at the relevant talk page and gain consensus for any additions or removals. As it stands, the subject fails GNG and NBOX. -- 2.O.Boxing 18:46, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, no mistake. The titles he won are notable. They might not be explicitly outlined in the list of titles on the NBOX page but that is just an error by omission. They simply need to be added. Stop nit picking. --HuntGroup (talk) 10:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not nit picking, its following NBOX. I very much doubt it's an "error by omission". Regardless, as my (and obviously yours seeing as you couldn't find any sources with significant coverage) before search proves, he fails GNG. Wikipedia's standard for including an article about a given person is not based on whether or not he/she has attained certain achievements, but on whether or not the person has received appropriate coverage in reliable sources, in accordance with the general notability guideline. "In accordance with the general notability guideline", Hammond is not notable. It's utterly irrelevant what titles should or should not be listed in NBOX. It wouldn't even matter if Hammond had fought for multiple world titles (satisfying NBOX), if he fails GNG then he fails GNG. Having a title or two added to NBOX won't change that. – 2.O.Boxing 11:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The list of titles on NBOX that convey automatic notability isn't exhaustive or exclusive. Plus in my view he does pass GNG.--HuntGroup (talk) 11:15, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing conveys "automatic notability". As it clearly states at the top of WP:NSPORTS, An athlete is presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition or won a significant honor, as listed on this page, and so is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The key word being presumed. And as it also states at the top of WP:GNG, If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. Again, the keyword being presumed. I recommend you familiarise yourself with the notability guidelines before commenting at AfD discussions. Saying NSPORTS conveys "automatic notability" means you clearly haven't read them.

Let's examine the sources:

  • 1 is a passing mention
  • 2 is a passing mention
  • 3 is the only one that gives significant coverage. Per GNG; There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Since this source isn't exactly high quality and the depth is minimal, more sources with significant coverage are needed. I mean, if Hammond is indeed notable, that shouldn't be hard, right?
  • 4 is a passing mention
  • 5 is a passing mention
  • 6 is a passing mention
  • 7 is a passing mention. Yes, this one is about his fight with Witter, however, it clearly focuses on Witter and gives no significant coverage of Hammond
  • 8 is a passing mention
  • 9 is a passing mention
  • 10 is his BoxRec profile
  • 11 is a passing mention
  • 12 is a WBO ranking outside of the top ten (failing NBOX, by the way)

So in summary, one source has minimal significant coverage, nine are mere passing mentions, one is a BoxRec profile, and one is a WBO ranking. Fails GNG. You need to elaborate on how you think he satisfies GNG.

  • Keep: A notable player with referenve on multiple sites.Iitianeditor (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Iitianeditor: would you mind providing some of these multiple references (not just passing mentions, significant coverage is required)? If not then it's a total fail in regards to WP:GNG. -- 2.O.Boxing 17:19, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Squared.Circle.Boxing: I'm including the websites here 1.https://boxrec.com/en/proboxer/20144 2.http://www.fightsrec.com/laatekwei-hammond.html Iitianeditor (talk) 06:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Iitianeditor: Lol, The links you provided are record websites. Almost every licensed boxer in the world is listed on those two websites, they do absolutely nothing to establish any kind of notability. Please familiarise yourself with WP:GNG before participating in deletion discussions. As it stands, nobody can provide me with any sources to demonstrate notability, the subject does not satisfy GNG and fails to satisfy every aspect of NBOX. Non-notable boxer. – 2.O.Boxing 10:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - nominator Squared.Circle.Boxing, please acquaint yourself with your responsibilities under WP:BEFORE. Note, compliance with BEFORE can be tricky for some topics - including individuals with non-European names, which are routinely transliterated in multiple ways. If you don't know how to do the extra work to effectively search for RS for a topic then please don't nominate articles on those topics for deletion. Geo Swan (talk) 21:27, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Geo Swan: I assume you was expecting this, but would you mind providing the sources to establish GNG? As is common in AfD. I'd be happy to withdraw if GNG is established. Vaguely implying that you may have found sources isn't very helpful. -- 2.O.Boxing 21:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Squared.Circle.Boxing, you mean more sources beyond the ten added by HuntGroup?

    I see, above, you seem to have claimed Hammond doesn't meet the strict criteria of NBOX. HuntGroup wrote he won WBA titles. You claimed you didn't understand his point. Well, doesn't NBOX explicitly say winning a WBA title measures up to NBOX? Geo Swan (talk) 22:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Geo Swan: No, I mean sources that actually give significant coverage of the subject, per GNG. The sources HuntGroup added are exactly what I found in my BEFORE search; passing mentions or fight results, nothing that classified as significant coverage. I do not claim Hammond fails to meet the "strict" (there is probably around ten different regional titles within each major sanctioning body, most of which do not require even a top 20 ranking to obtain. So the criteria isn't really strict at all) criteria for NBOX, it is a fact. HuntGroup wrote a very vague reply that was clearly missing important information. I shall elaborate; fighting for a WBA world title (which Hammond has not) does indeed denote notability , per NBOX. However, fighting for any WBA title does not. Per NBOX (whether people like it or not), regarding the WBA, only winning (not simply fighting for) a Europe, Fedelatin, or Oceania title is deemed notable (because they are the most significant titles that the WBA have for those regions). None of which the subject has won (as I previously stated, Hammond has not won any title listed in NBOX). NBOX states that, for regional titles, a fighter has to have won one of the titles listed. Hammond has won the Ghanaian, West African Boxing Union (not to be confused with the African Boxing Union, which is listed), WBA Pan African, and the WBO Africa. None of which are listed in NBOX (for a reason). My question to you was; you implied there was something I missed in my before search that denotes notability through significant coverage, please provide the sources. I respectfully ask that you oblige. If not, then as has been established, the subject fails NBOX and GNG. Please aquatint yourself with NBOX, and provide references that satisfy GNG, or I respectfully request you strike your vote, as it will clearly be another unsubstantiated and subsequently invalid vote (not that it really matters, deletion discussions are settled by the substance of the argument, not the amount of votes one way or another). -- 2.O.Boxing 00:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As per WP:Athlete, there are all these sports and numerous criteria. Some criteria are absolute, other criteria (particularly in other sports) exhibit white privilege. That is fellow is an African Boxer and does not scrabble by his fingernails into the WBO criteria calls for consideration and evaluation of biases. One failing at WBO ranking outside of the top ten does not denote lack of notabiity. --Whiteguru (talk) 12:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Whiteguru: Sorry, but your comment doesn't really make much sense. Hammond fails to satisfy WP:NBOX and WP:GNG. As I've asked everybody who has "contributed" their opinion, can you provide any sources that establish notability by meeting GNG (NBOX isn't up for debate, he fails all criteria)? Throwing the race card on the table is just, stupid lol – 2.O.Boxing 13:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As the close has been challenged by the nominator, I am relisting the discussion for another week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:24, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Roxy the dog: what policy based keep votes? NBOX isn't even debatable, he flat out fails to meet any of the criteria. For GNG there's only one source with significant coverage, and it's minimal. I don't see how one source with minimal significant coverage along with nine passing mentions satisfies GNG. What am I missing? – 2.O.Boxing 14:41, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus is keep, as was demonstrated by the first close. The four keep votes above all gave rational policy based reasons that do not agree with you. Please dont WP:BADGER this discussion any more. we already know what you think. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 14:49, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, basically, one source with minimal significant coverage along with nine passing mentions does not satisfy GNG? Yea, I thought as much. Thanks for clarifying with such a valuable contribution :). – 2.O.Boxing 14:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete quite simply fails WP:NBOX. As someone who has on multiple occasions unsalted pages of boxers who failed NBOX earlier in their careers but then much later met the criteria I'm close to the subject area. Maybe one day but for now NN. It's somewhat binary actually. Glen (talk) 15:09, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. NBOX might be ok for indicating a cast-iron guarantee of notability, but it's too hopelessly restrictive to be used as a rationale for deleting articles. As a multiple national champion, with regional titles and challenges for the Commonwealth title, the subject has clearly had a sufficiently significant career for inclusion. --Michig (talk) 19:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there's much mention in 20-year old London papers ... the issue here on finding good in-depth stuff, is likely how long ago this was, and that he's from a small very-poor nation, without much Internet back then. Even finding western stuff from that long ago is a challenge, as it's old enough to not be on line, but not old enough to be widely and extensively archived. NBOX is a red herring, and isn't really relevant ... it's more a GNG issue. Nfitz (talk) 22:18, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It certainly looks as if his successes have been quite widely covered in the printed press, even if these are not easily accessible via standard internet searches.--Ipigott (talk) 09:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 18:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Georgie M'Glug[edit]

Georgie M'Glug (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contemporary English photographer but no real evidence of notability. Rathfelder (talk) 14:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 14:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I could find nothing on this photographer other than social media and two mentions of her name for the two group shows she was in (no in-depth independent SIGCOV). Not notable or a case of TOOSOON. Netherzone (talk) 14:28, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; except that I'm not even sure that she's contemporary (she may have already retired). -- Hoary (talk) 23:55, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per CSD G5. Graham87 06:25, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Billions[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Ben Billions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't find any sources to ascertain notability after BEFORE. Hence this. This article has earlier been deleted 4 years ago per AfD:Ben Billions. If anyone can improve this article, I would feel great in withdrawing the nomination. But as of now it is both GNG and SNG fail. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 13:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 13:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:56, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I added two reference to the article, but this is not enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Charmk (talk) 15:28, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has been created by a checkuser-confirmed sockpuppet. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:58, 5 September 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:22, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vivek Gupta (soldier)[edit]

Vivek Gupta (soldier) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another MVC recipient who seemingly fails WP:NSOLDIER and definitely WP:GNG. Also has issues with referencing and tone. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:44, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:44, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 PEST analysis. I have closed this as it's unlikely spinning the wheel for another week is going to get much more. I am therefore taking a normal editorial action of redirecting the article to somewhere that the topic is better covered. That should not be considered as having the backup of an AFD consensus; merely an action taken as an alternative to pointlessly deferring taking an action. Stifle (talk) 09:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Six Segment Analysis[edit]

Six Segment Analysis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NEOLOGISM. It's in the title of one self-published book ([40]) and briefly referenced in another book ([41]). Hits on Scholar are for six-segment analyses in other contexts. Existing refs are dead, vague, or unreliable. The alleged reference to Economics of Strategy seems specious to me (see [42]). AleatoryPonderings (talk) 22:44, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 22:44, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:11, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein talk 13:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 18:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TrumpVirus[edit]

TrumpVirus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A few politicians coining an array of vaguely similar terms does not an article make. Words and terms themselves have a very high bar for notability for standalone articles (see Ain't for one example), and this doesn't come anywhere close to that. As it stands, this is a single paragraph chock full of WP:SYNTHesis, putting a bunch of wikt:WT:SOP phrases, a hashtag, etc, together into something that's kind of a WP:COATRACK about criticism of Trump's handling of the pandemic. If there's information to add to an existing article (and there sure are plenty about this already), then add it, but this doesn't deserve the redirect that was initially placed. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:15, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:15, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:15, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:15, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:15, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Sources have been found and notability has been established. I no longer see any need to delete this article. (non-admin closure) Not a very active user (talk) 04:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Apocalypse (2000 film)[edit]

The Apocalypse (2000 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The film doesn't appear notable. The article currently cites only two sources, and neither can be used to establish notability. The first one, IMDb, isn't a reliable source because it's largely user-generated, and the second source, New Advent, doesn't even mention the film. Not a very active user (talk) 12:04, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 12:04, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 12:04, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Apocalypse (2000 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – I have amended the article. I think that the film is notable as it is one of Richard Harris' last films and was the last of the films, based on bible stories, produced by Lux Vide. All of the other films have Wikipedia articles. I have added in extra references to the article in response to the above comments. Gingerdave (talk) 21:20, 10 September 2020 (GMT)
  • Keep - This article is a part of the Bible Series for which there is a category on Wikipedia. There are also articles for this film in Japanese, German, Italian, and Polish, so it is of note worldwide. I have added more reviews and references from TV Guide and Variety. However, it should be moved to The Apocalypse (2002 film). The IMDb reference for the 2000 release date is unreliable and all of the other references give a release date of 2002. --Nicholas0 (talk) 20:54, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Pat Bagley. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 04:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I Spy a Nephite[edit]

I Spy a Nephite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable book. Should either be merged with the author’s page or outright deleted and redirected to him. Dronebogus (talk) 10:52, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 10:52, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 10:52, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Pat Bagley. The article by Ann Edwards Cannon cited in the article, which discusses the book quite briefly, is about the only coverage I've been able to find – not enough to indicate notability but enough to support a sentence or two in Bagley's article. (I don't see any benefit in deleting prior to redirecting.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:14, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Pat Bagley. There is not enough coverage to justify a seperate article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:25, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as suggested. Bearian (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 18:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Price Bicycles[edit]

Price Bicycles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This looks like a possibly notable bicycle manufacturer, but there are no sources and I can't find any concrete ones to expand the article with, aside from a few in Swiss German. However, this is probably because the name makes searching impossible - can anyone else help? Some possible sources - [43], [44], [45] Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:44, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:37, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:37, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:37, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:37, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Since I'm the one who (apparently erroneously) proposed the earlier speedy, I'll inevitably be voting to delete. While I appreciate that it's difficult to find sources due to the generic brand name, it shouldn't be impossible if there are genuinely RS mentions about (and I don't think product catalogues count). As it stands, IMO this fails WP:GNG / WP:COMPANY. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:41, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I'm sure it's charming, but charming isn't an inclusion criteria. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:21, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cooking with Love[edit]

Cooking with Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable television film, has no coverage from independent, reliable sources - just primary sources, blogs and fan pages, does not meet WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 10:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I suggest that we hold on to this page due to this being Brett Dalton's first Hallmark movie as I haven't seen him in any other Hallmark movies. Plus, I did all I could adding a reception section. --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:33, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I suggest that we keep this page since it’s apart of Brett Dalton’s Hallmark movies and it’s a really good Valentine’s Day romance. I will contribute to adding more details on the movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.12.218.181 (talk) 08:15, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - thanks for the reception section, but all that was added was the user score on Rotten Tomatoes, which are not supposed to be used per MOS:FILM. BOVINEBOY2008 15:48, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NFILM, Rottentomatoes citation is user reviews, no critical reviews present. Nothing else found except blog entries. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:40, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:58, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:58, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:NFILM and WP:NFOE. I can't seem to find any evidence of notability. The only criterion the film comes close to meeting is the fact that it stars notable actors. The author of this article brought up that this is Brett Dalton's first Hallmark fim. However, this does not merit inclusion because I don't see how this could have had much of an impact on his career. It's not like this is his first film overall.Scorpions13256 (talk) 04:16, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 FK Banga Gargždai season[edit]

2020 FK Banga Gargždai season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails GNG and NSEASONS Microwave Anarchist (talk) 10:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 10:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 10:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:06, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Argja Bóltfelag season[edit]

2020 Argja Bóltfelag season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails GNG and NSEASONS Microwave Anarchist (talk) 10:03, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 10:03, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 10:03, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:06, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 09:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Men of METRO[edit]

Men of METRO (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

individual college organizations of this sort are not usually considered notable DGG ( talk ) 09:56, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:03, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:03, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:34, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer for soft deletion:? This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Logs: 2020-09 ✍️ create
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted as WP:G11 by User:Jimfbleak. Primefac (talk) 12:41, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Trivikram Ram Pandey[edit]

Draft:Trivikram Ram Pandey (edit | [[Talk:Draft:Trivikram Ram Pandey|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

{{Db-person}} Arunjithp (talk) 06:33, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Arunjithp (talk) 06:33, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:04, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jordanian Arab Party[edit]

Jordanian Arab Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable political party. It exists ([46] [47]), and that appears to be it. Article in arwiki has exactly the same sources as this one—which I don't think are enough—and is also a stub. There was a party by the same name in the early 20th century (see, e.g., [48]), but that one doesn't appear notable either. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:08, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - "It exists" is enough for me per the guideline of Ignore All Rules (use common sense to improve the encyclopedia). This is the sort of information that a comprehensive encyclopedia is expected to have. I favor the automatic inclusion of articles on all political parties, their youth sections, and their leaders so long as existence can be verified. Carrite (talk) 00:20, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not convinced it exists. The two "it exists" references here are simply name-drops with no context, and the reference in the article that works is about an "Arab Jordanian Party". There should be some evidence they've run candidates, had press releases, etc., and I can't find any. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:23, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 12:26, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:20, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:04, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Teoriia Gvaltu[edit]

Teoriia Gvaltu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No claim to any notability. Fails WP:NMUSIC. Mitte27 (talk) 10:21, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 10:21, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 10:21, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosohin (talk • contribs) 14:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment No vote from me, just informing other editors coming across this discussion that Rosohin is the creator of the page in question. Wampagranule (talk) 19:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio 10:14, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's important information for english wikipedia--Nasul9 (talk) 08:51, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. I did a Google search with their native name and couldn't find anything besides databases, retail sites, streaming links, short blurbs about them releasing an album, and blogs. Many sites also copy the biography from uawiki. Even though I don't speak Ukrainian, it was obvious that these are not reliable sources because all of these sites contain only a few sentences. That's not how significant coverage looks like. By the way, @Nasul9: we don't keep an article on Wikipedia just because it's "important information" - we keep an article if there are reliable sources. I haven't found any RS. Of course having important information is important alright, but we need reliable sources as well. Sources that aren't PR, databases, social media pages or streaming service entries, and has more coverage other than the verification of their existence or short blurbs. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:20, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 09:41, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maakhir[edit]

Maakhir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The coverage of this article does not appear to sufficiently justify it passing Wikipedia:General notability guidelines and is built on unreliable sources. Citations mainly refer to tabloid websites e.g. “Markacadeey online” , “ Laasqoray.net” and “Garowe Online”. A google book search also fails to establish notability, although there are passing mentions of “Maakhir state” in some publications. Jacob300 (talk) 10:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Jacob300 (talk) 10:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Jacob300 (talk) 10:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Jacob300 (talk) 10:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Related discussions: 2018-11 Boharo merge, 2007-08 Jibrell Ali Salad Aadan ✓ Keep
Logs: 2007-08 ✗ deleted
  • The edits and the nomination for the deletion of this articles are by the new user are somewhat vandalism and has been reported. There is an overwhelming reference present online about Maakhir State of Somalia. This is a historical and an ongoing political events of this Somalia region, Currently in process again to update the references of the article. Vote to ✓ Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by SultanSanaag (talk • contribs) 09:51, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SultanSanaag: Can you present links here on this page to the three best sources (1, 2, 3) about the subject 'Maakhir'? The sources should discuss the subject in some depth and be reliable sources that are independent of the subject. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:40, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom. This fails WP:GNG with little to no "significant coverage" that addresses the topic directly and in detail, e.g. Google Scholar [49]. Additionally, coat of arms and map appear to be original research user-generated files and not based on any reliable source [50], [51]. --Kzl55 (talk) 12:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vote to ✓ Keep @Malcolmxl5: Here are a number of sources of Maakhir State; President interview with VOA Somali (article) [52], VOA Somali Interview (somali audio) [53], Colonel Jibril Ali Salad, the President of Maakhir State [54], Puntland State of Somalia. A Tentative Social Analysis by Roland Marchal (see p12 point-16, p14 point-6, p18, p28) [55] Maakhir UK Conference broadcasted on Somali nationional TV (Somali Channel) [56], A quick google search on Maakhir State gets 54K hits see this link [57] Another google search on Maakhir former British Somaliland gets 35K hits with online reference/sources [58]. There are 21 reference already linked with the existing Maakhir article, although some links might be dead but those are credible sources as well. SultanSanaag (talk) 13:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I said three, SultanSanaag. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:19, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upon a cursory look at links cited: First link leads to a Somali forum post [59]. Second link leads to a non-VOA Soundcloud page [60]. Third link leads to a self-published Wordpress Somali blog [61]... etc etc. Hardly "significant detailed coverage in reliable sources".
To closing admin: Please note the possibility of WP:AFDSOCK. --Kzl55 (talk) 21:46, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Malcolmxl5: here are just three sources with regards to Maakhir, source 1 [62], source 2 [63], source 3 [64]. On a separate note, I've listed a few more sources previously to argue the claims of some editors and the malicious manner that is intentionally disruptive and in the worst case vandalism. SultanSanaag (talk) 15:06, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have cited four more academic sources in the article. None of them has an enormous amount of coverage, but enough to show a pass of WP:GEOLAND. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:25, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:GEOLAND Thanks for adding sources Phil Bridger. Wm335td (talk) 19:17, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:15, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No significant coverage and poor unreliable citations. Additionally, the only source listed in the start of History section is via the Wayback Machine to a unverifiable source. The rest of the History section seems to be about recent events in the area. Kangdomkome (talk) 22:02, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is poor or unreliable about the four academic sources that I cited in the article? Phil Bridger (talk) 07:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WMS Industries#Solid state pinball. The rough consensus is that it's not independently notable, even after a reception section being added. Content can and perhaps should be merged from page history. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:14, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

F-14 Tomcat (pinball)[edit]

F-14 Tomcat (pinball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. PROD removed by a WP:SPA using edit summary "Laughable! This is an important article!" who is clearly not here to WP:BTE (90% of edits of this account are limited to PRO template removals). Just one of dozens non-notable pinballs in the Category:Pinball stubs we need to clean up (and by clean up, well, I am afraid I mean delete...). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to WMS Industries#Solid state pinball, where it is already listed. None of the sources currently in the article appear to be from reliable sources. Searching for additional sources turned up some more unreliable sources, and a number of sales pages, but no in-depth coverage in reliable, secondary sources. As the manufacturer of the machine has an article, and this particular machine is already included there, a Redirect would be logical. Rorshacma (talk) 15:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to WMS Industries#Solid state pinball per Rorshacma. - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to WMS Industries#Solid state pinball, the only coverage that this pinball machine has ever generated is in unreliable or primary sources. Clear WP:GNG fail. Hog Farm Bacon 02:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I added a Reception section to the article, with a review of F-14 Tomcat from Cash Box magazine. There is also a positive mention of the game in the Top Score newsletter, and it's cited in The Complete Pinball Book (Schiffer, 2011) as a "prime example of how the pinball world had evolved since the beginning of [the 1980s]." I believe that this demonstrates notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:36, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Impressive find. Can we consider the Cash Box magazine reliable? The other mentions are more in passing, through the Rossignoli (201)) (not Schiffer 2011) mention is nice too (but it seems in passing?). Good job, a little more and I think we could consider this pinball notable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:35, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Cash Box was a reliable trade magazine. — Toughpigs (talk) 05:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
... because it was a national, professional trade magazine that was published for 54 years. It's similar to Billboard magazine. I'm not sure how to answer this question; how does one demonstrate that a magazine is or is not reliable enough to publish a review of a pinball machine? — Toughpigs (talk) 03:39, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an exact science, and I appreciate your explanation above which in lieu of other arguments seems sufficient to validate this source as reliable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:11, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 18:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Canadians of Asian ancestry[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of Canadians of Asian ancestry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

At 2008 AfD, there was no consensus (please see 1st AfD for very good arguments both ways). I feel this is too indiscriminate a list, that duplicates other pages. Boleyn (talk) 15:07, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is WP:LISTCRUFT. The topic itself is neither notable nor cited in the list-article. Some editor used WP:SYNTH in the lede to indicate a (false-)notability, which was gleaned from raw census data. To wit: "Asian Canadians comprise the largest visible minority in Canada, at 11% of the Canadian population." The citation says no such thing. Normal Op (talk) 18:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:11, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Combatant Status Review Tribunal. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:19, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Witnesses requested by Guantanamo detainees[edit]

Witnesses requested by Guantanamo detainees (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Short permastub, list with a single entry. References exist but they do not indicate the notability of "witnesses requested by Guantanamo detainees" as a distinct concept. Stifle (talk) 14:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 15:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 15:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 15:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 15:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jio#Jio apps. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 04:57, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JioChat[edit]

JioChat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable chat app. scope_creepTalk 07:33, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:00, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 10:08, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, after extended time for discussion, nor is there any measure of support for draftification. BD2412 T 00:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Brazilian racing drivers[edit]

List of Brazilian racing drivers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of German racing drivers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Although there was a clear consensus to keep these "lists" nothing have been changed. The "lists" were abandoned in the day they were created, so I do believe we should move it to the draft space to give at least chance for improvement. In the current state they are clearly don't belong to the article space. Corvus tristis (talk) 07:11, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am also nominating the following related pages because they are related:
List of German racing drivers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).Corvus tristis (talk) 10:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:13, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:13, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsourced, incomplete, someone had good intentions to start the work, but then stopped. No problem if someone wants to at least try and work on these, but nothing would be lost if they were deleted right now. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:06, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 09:12, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.
SSSB (talk) 10:14, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clearly valid navigational lists per CLN and LISTPURP that can obviously be expanded given the number of articles in the corresponding categories. I don’t see the point of starting an AFD here at all. Time wasted on this bureaucratic process would have been better spent developing these further. postdlf (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The problem that for seven years both list have not been developed at all, if we at least move it to the draft space it would have receive at least some attention. Is it possible for you to look at the real picture instead of drawing the imaginary ideal? Corvus tristis (talk) 14:55, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Impatience is not a deletion argument, and we don't delete content based on its current state. Why didn't you start adding entries from the category to expand it, instead of starting your second AFD on this page? What other attempts at "attention" have you tried, can you show me the Wikiproject or talk page discussions you've started? postdlf (talk) 19:49, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Am I the one who propose to conserve this crap? So why should I do it? Why you have not tried any of this? Even now? Corvus tristis (talk) 03:21, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are, in fact, the most significant contributor to the page over the last four years, and you haven't improved it. You haven't even solicited other editors to improve it. You have dragged it to AFD twice in what I can only imagine is an attempt to provoke other editors to improve it. In my opinion this is disruptive. pburka (talk) 03:36, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Encouraging the other editors to do something with it = disruption? Okay... Corvus tristis (talk) 09:38, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Does it pass WP:NOTSTATS? Maybe it should have better inclusion criteria? I assume that such big inclusion criteria prevents desire to start a work because it will never have the end cause it will have months of work (especially if goal is to show the current series of the driver). I putted these tags already but they were removed by someone. I do believe that none of the "keepers" will work with any of these lists and they will be in the current state for the further seven years. Corvus tristis (talk) 15:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You did not add {{expand list}}. You tag-bombed it with {{cleanup-reorganize}}, {{context}}, {{fansite}}, {{lead rewrite}}, {{unfocused}}, and {{unreferenced}}, which, apart from the last, weren't really relevant or helpful. pburka (talk) 22:04, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe that all of these tags are relevant and just noted that {{unreferenced}} hasn't encouraged anyone. In this case the tags can't change the situation, the only solution to resolve it will be the changing of focus from all German racing drivers to something more criteria-based. If we look at the columns, it looks like that the author wanted to create List of current Brazilian/German racing drivers, which is probably more possible to make and update, then creating all-time list of more than thousand German racing drivers (most of the racing drivers won't have actual article at all, because they won't pass notability criteria) with listing note about everyone and their last/current series and team. But in any case the current state of the list cries about these lists to be draftified. Corvus tristis (talk) 07:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This list clearly passes WP:LISTN: it's easy to find discussion of Brazilian race drivers, as a group, in reliable sources. However, the list is so woefully incomplete as to be misleading and of no use to navigation. Some of the most successful drivers of all time, such as Nelson Piquet, Ayrton Senna, pt:Manuel de Teffé, and Rubens Barrichello, are missing. I'm beginning to question our list inclusion criteria, and wonder if lists like this one are actually improving the encyclopedia, especially when there's no corresponding prose article (e.g. Motorsport in Brazil) to provide context. (And yes, I've argued to keep similar pages in the past.) pburka (talk) 15:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify - the subject passes notability but is so severely lacking that it isnt remotely useful. It needs to b draftified where it can be expanded and turned into a half-decent list.
    SSSB (talk) 19:56, 5 September 2020 (UTC)    [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions.
SSSB (talk) 07:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or, failing that, draftify -- at present these lists (incomplete, unsourced and with an arbitrary 2013 cutoff) do the reader a disservice. If anybody wants to make a new list, the existence or nonexistence of this abandoned attempt does not make much difference to them. —Kusma (t·c) 19:20, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Another alternative is to redirect to Formula One drivers from Germany and Formula One drivers from Brazil, the articles that actually contain the information people may want to search for at these titles. —Kusma (t·c) 09:09, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose redirect. A mere fraction of German/Brazilian drivers competed in F1. Such a redirect would be more misleading than anything else
    SSSB (talk) 09:20, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed it is not a great redirect, but a lot better than keeping this draft visible. —Kusma (t·c) 10:27, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both A list is always more useful than a category, it allowing more information to be presented. Being incomplete is never an acceptable excuse to delete an article. Dream Focus 20:34, 6 September 2020 (UTC) And of course, this is a valid list article as it aids in navigation, everyone listed having their own Wikipedia article. WP:LISTN is met. Dream Focus 17:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then again, It's useful is never an acceptable excuse to keep an article.Tvx1 17:29, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The topic of Brazilian or German race drivers is notable, and it would be reasonable to have lists of notable drivers from those countries. However, despite the titles, those aren't the topics of these lists. These are lists of current race drivers (as of 2013). There's no evidence that these much more specific topics are notable, and lists of current things are always problematic because they require continuous maintenance, which nobody is committed to performing in this case. No objection to recreating (or rescuing) lists with the same title as these but different topics. pburka (talk) 22:02, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think the current content would be a loss either, but the problem with doing a reboot of a page through AFD is it implies that the very concept of the list is invalid and leaves any recreations at risk of speedy deletion. And it's just a big waste of time. postdlf (talk) 14:55, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • My concern isn't entirely the current content, but the current topic (active Brazilian racing drivers). Deleting that topic and replacing it with a notable one is akin to deleting a page about a non-notable person and replacing it with an article about a notable person who shares their name. pburka (talk) 15:01, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • It isn't "active Brazilian racing drivers". I already expanded the article to include far more. Dream Focus 17:19, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't even know what the current topic is. The tables still have "current" columns that are just blank for the recently added drivers. (And they're still incorrect; for example, Adrian Sutil hasn't raced in six years.) If the topic is made clear, and if the topic is supported by reliable sources, I'll withdraw my delete recommendation. pburka (talk) 18:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all There is not a policy or guideline based rationale for deletion advanced in the nomination, so this could be WP:SKCRIT. WP:NTEMP is a relevant guideline: if the list was notable when created and it does not lose it's notability because it was neglected. Anyone including the nominator can update the list. According to our policies, WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP - is a valid policy reason to keep. And my opinion is that WP:LISTN is the relevant notability guideline which tells us to keep this list. Lightburst (talk) 01:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 02:22, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Draftifying is akin to deletion, there is zero evidence that moving an article to draft space—where it’s harder to even find—will encourage anyone to improve it. Gleeanon409 (talk) 12:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, if the topic is notable then why none of the lists feature any sources which prove it? I see only wishful thinking from the keeping guys. Corvus tristis (talk) 17:09, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You do not need a reference for a list that links to articles that confirm the information. That would be pointless. Click on any link, infobox has information in it, article about the person. Easier to click a link to their article than to a reference you know most aren't likely to ever actually read. Dream Focus 17:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what about WP:BURDEN? It cleary says that "All content must be verifiable." Corvus tristis (talk) 09:37, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Its verified in the articles linked to. Dream Focus 10:21, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are free to interprete the words from policy in any way you like, but not sure if it is the correct one. Corvus tristis (talk) 11:14, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The information is verified in each of the linked articles. It would be nice, better ever, if it was also cited in the list. Gleeanon409 (talk) 14:40, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think Corvus tristis was referring to sources that prove the notability of the subject, not just routine coverage that proves the drivers exist.Tvx1 17:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. We have loads of half-baked articles and lists stubs so I’m unconcerned about having one or two more. I think adding a few paragraphs of introduction and some thoughtful editing tags could helpful as like all lists this one needs some work, including its definition of inclusion. Gleeanon409 (talk) 14:40, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for closer if this is not kept please merge /redirect to race car driver or similar. Gleeanon409 (talk) 14:40, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fail WP:NOTSTATS. Clearly indiscriminate lists. Not convinced that it satisfies WP:LISTN either. Those who raised this as an argument to keep it have not substantiated their claim. They merely state as fact in their own voice. In reality, I have not seen the subject of all racing drivers being discussed in meaningful reliable sources. Sometimes you see them discussing racing drivers from said countries in a particular very important racing classes, but not all drivers in all categories. Ultimately the nature of the chosen subject is way to vague to have any encyclopedic value. There are so many racing categories in the world, many of which are not notable at all. How can one ever aim to make a list of all racing drivers in all categories from a certain country?? As someone explained before it is even defined. If you go by all drivers you get list that are way too large to have any encyclopedic value and if you go by active drivers you get lists which will perennially be outdated. In the meantime we already have articles like Formula One drivers from Brazil and Formula One drivers from Germany that deal an a much more encyclopedic manner with those drivers that are really notable.Tvx1 17:29, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tvx1. I'm also not convinced that these lists have independent notability. I also feel that the selection criteria are far too broad. We have the Formula one driver lists, and potentially we could have lists like "Grand Prix drivers from Germany" (ie pre-war drivers) or "American Open wheel racing drivers from Brazil" (Indycar, CART etc) etc, since these may be independently notable, and the size would not be pointlessly large. A7V2 (talk) 23:41, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nomination tells us plainly that there's an existing consensus to keep and that nothing has changed. The nomination is therefore contrary to WP:DELAFD which states that " It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome.". These topics clearly pass WP:LISTN and so the following policies and guidelines apply: WP:ATD; WP:CHOICE;WP:IMPERFECT;WP:NOEFFORT; WP:NOTCLEANUP;WP:SOFIXIT;&c. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:45, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Andrew Davidson, waiting three years is not disruptive. People said "Issues can be fixed" three years ago, four years after the pages had been created. Issues have not been fixed. I find it unreasonable to keep around drafts like this in mainspace forever. These pages are miles from being acceptable via AFC; it is surprising how much lower our bar for inclusion is at AFD compared to AFC. —Kusma (t·c) 12:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That's because AFC is quite broken and dysfunctional. It is long-established that Wikipedia does not have a deadline and that poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. As we're at AfD here, then our deletion policy is what counts and that's what I cited. See also WP:IDHT. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Two AFD's in three years is not in any way repeatedly nominating a page. Also, per WP:NOTAGAIN, a previous AFD having taken place is not in any way justification to keep an article. Thus you have not provided any even remotely meaningful argument as to why this content merits inclusion on Wikipedia.Tvx1 17:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no case to answer because the nomination does not provide a reason to delete. The nomination confirms that this is a valid topic and just wants it developed further, proposing draftification as a means of getting this done. That's a daft idea because draft space is a graveyard for articles rather than being constructive. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:42, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1. So, you think that when administrator User:Victor Schmidt without further ado draftified the article about the current topic he wanted to move it to the graveyard? 2. If the lists are really notable and neccessary for our community then why they should die in the draftspace? F1 for example had drafts about future seasons and all of them were returned to the article space. Corvus tristis (talk) 13:55, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note, I am not (yet) an administrator. Unsourced stuff will be draftified by me; except for CSD-siutable stuff. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:23, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Of course nobody actually believes relisting an article after three years is disruptive. "Consensus can change" is policy after all. Such accusations are only made to be annoying and dismissive. Reyk YO! 10:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftification is certainly disruptive. In the example given by Corvus Tristus above, the movement of that other article between namespaces did not go smoothly and so a history merge had to be done. There are other technical problems with drafts such as the disabling of categories. And the process adds no value at all -- just extra complication and confusion. I attended a meeting of experienced UK editors on Sunday and there was general agreement that AfC was broken. Keep it simple. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete- Both of these articles are incomplete segments of an excel spreadsheet. There's no real information there and not much navigational value. The keep result at the previous AfD was contingent on the article being improved and in over three years that hasn't happened, which looks a lot like evidence that there's no way of getting these into an acceptable state for an article. Reyk YO! 10:36, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redundant to a self-maintaining category. Stifle (talk) 09:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The guideline WP:NOTDUPE states clearly that "arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion". And the idea that categories are self-maintaining is incorrect. Currently, there are just 19 lists at AfD while CfD has 530 open discussions and is so overwhelmed that there's a backlog of 274 waiting to be closed. The category system is a kludge that was bolted onto Wikipedia. It doesn't work well for searching and, because it doesn't support citations, it is not compliant with fundamental policies like WP:V. Wikidata is doing a better job of creating a searchable database of items and attributes and so we can expect it to make the category system obsolete. Lists will be more enduring because they are more like articles, supporting prose, citations, pictures, &c. That's why we can have featured lists but featured categories are defunct. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:30, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Andrew Davidson, your link goes to Wikipedia:Featured topics instead of Wikipedia:Featured categories. FT seems to be alive. Featured Categories have never existed. —Kusma (t·c) 15:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - to the several editors saying these lists clearly satisfy WP:LISTN: then why is there not a single reference or link on either article or in either AFD discussion which gives any example of a reliable source discussing (not just listing, as is required by LISTN) drivers from Brazil (or Germany) as a group (and not specifically F1 drivers for example)? I couldn't find any such source online, and I don't know of any books which include such discussion. A7V2 (talk) 09:00, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou both. However I remain unconvinced. Pburka's first example is a history of motor racing, not so much racing drivers. The second discusses only F1 drivers (but see my comment at the end), third example didn't work (just a google search results page) but from the quote that doesn't say much without further context since "racing drivers" could well just mean F1 drivers, and mere mention of the term doesn't confer notability. Andrew Davidson's example specifically talks about F1 drivers, then briefly discusses CART drivers. As I said in my "oppose" earlier, I do think that there is potential for an article about Brazilian CART/Indycar drivers (some of the drivers mentioned in Pburka's second example were perhaps more noteworthy as CART drivers). I'm sorry to say I remain unconvinced that this satisfies LISTN. A7V2 (talk) 22:36, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 00:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nieuw Ensemble[edit]

Nieuw Ensemble (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Borderline (hence it sitting in CAT:NN for over 11 years.) I couldn't find the significant coverage to show that it is notable. Possible ATD could be redirect to the principal conductor's page. Boleyn (talk) 07:07, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is this and this from the Guardian, this and other similar reviews, and finally this confirming that the ensemble wound itself up at the end of last year. A google books search for 'Nieuw Ensenble review' brings up nearly nine pages of review, but almost all of it is snippet view. Mccapra (talk) 11:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BAND#1 (i.e., GNG)—think it's established by Mccapra's sources. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:55, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nomination per excellent points above. Boleyn (talk) 15:00, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:12, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Spikes[edit]

Jesse Spikes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

He has the coverage you would expect of an unsuccessful political candidate, but I don't see that he meets WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Possible WP:ATD is redirect to 2009 Atlanta elections, I wouldn't say a merge would be helpful, as it would be too much information on this individual for the article. Boleyn (talk) 06:52, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:02, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:02, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Failed political candidates fail WP:NPOL. Bkissin (talk) 17:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unsuccessfully running for mayor of a city is not an inclusion-clinching notability claim in and of itself, but this features neither the depth of sourcing nor the substantive analysis of his candidacy's importance needed to demonstrate that he should be treated as a special case. Bearcat (talk) 18:32, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete merely running for the office of mayor does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 18:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Taos Institute[edit]

Taos Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It exists, but it doesn't meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Nearly all sources I could find are primary. No suitable ATD. Boleyn (talk) 06:49, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:01, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:01, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I suggest we add this nomination to the delsort lists for behavioural science, education, psychiatry and social science (not sure how to do that once a nomination has been posted). The fact that it offers a Masters and PhD programme would surely indicate pretty strongly that it is notable. The reason for not clearly !voting 'keep' is that it is a group of practitioners who will have come and gone over the last 25+ years, and without knowing who they all are, it is effectively impossible for me to pick through all the papers, citations and refs to be certain which ones are genuinely independent and for this same reason, not an article I'm going to try to improve. Mccapra (talk) 12:11, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and WP:SIGCOV specifically. This is not the same as the notable Taos Art Colony in New Mexico. Granting degrees is not a reason to keep. This does not appear to be accredited. Please ping me if you find anything. Bearian (talk) 17:05, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 07:51, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Allan Kilavuka[edit]

Allan Kilavuka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I prodded this with "No evidence of in-depth coverage, there are just press releases mentioning his name and their rewrites. Fails WP:NBIO.". PRO was declined by the creator with a comment that this ref is sufficient. Unfortunately, I disagree - it is a podcast WP:INTERVIEW. If this is the best, well... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:25, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:25, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:25, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE. As the CEO of Kenya Airways, I'd say he ranks with Fortune 500 CEOs, etc. Alternatively, could be merged to a "Leadership" section in Kenya Airways. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 06:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @AleatoryPonderings: I am a bit confused. NB says that people listed in " listed in the Fortune 500 (US) or the FTSE 100 Index (UK)" are notable. Is he listed in one of those? If he is not, well, then it is just your subjective view that he is "of similar importance". I actually think that there are other rankings for other countries that may have similar importance, but first, did you find that he is ranked in such an alternative ranking, and b, what makes that alternative ranking comparable? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here
      • I was making an argument by analogy. If we accept CEOs of Fortune 500/FTSE listed companies—i.e., large, prominent companies in the US and UK, respectively—as notable by virtue of the companies they work for, we should also accept CEOs of companies such as Kenya Airways (a major Kenyan company) for the same reason. So it's an opinion, but it's not merely subjective: I'm attempting to extrapolate the reasoning grounding the relevant WP:OUTCOMES into this situation. The argument stands or falls by how similar Kenya Airways is to, say, American Airlines or International Airlines Group. I happen to think it's similar enough to confer notability on the subject of this article. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair argument, through I'd also say that we should check if being a CEO of a comparable airline is indeed enough to get one on those US/UK lists. Sure, airlines can be big, but is being a CEO of one good enough to get one such a spot? And is each and every CEO of let's say American Airlines on such a list, of every 2nd or 3rd? Etc. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 06:33, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to The Mysterians. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:18, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moguera[edit]

Moguera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I prodded this with " No evidence of passing WP:NFICTION/GNG. Plot summary + list of appearances in media. No discussion of reception/significance. BEFORE fails to show better sources (but maybe they exist in Japanese? Unfortunately ja wiki entry on this is even more barebone than ours)." And to be clear, the few mentions of this I see in Books and elsewhere are PLOT summaries. It was deprodded with a merge suggestion, but IMHO at best this could be redirected to The Mysterians; there is not much to merge since the article is 99% unreferenced PLOT summary, the existing references are 1) movie itself 2) a reference for the translation of his name into English and 3) a book reference that is, as I said, 100% plot summary and does not analyze this character or discuss any reception. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:21, 5 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 05:21, 5 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 05:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Mysterians, and then either create a hatnote on that page sending people looking for the M.O.G.U.E.R.A. version to Godzilla vs. SpaceGodzilla or just create a separate redirect for that. Neither version of the robot are particularly notable, with each one only appearing in a single film. And as mentioned by the nom, the handful of reliable sources that mention them discuss them only in terms of plot summary, which is already covered in their respective film articles. There is nothing to merge, as outside of plot summary, there is nothing but the unsourced list of appearances and "cultural references" (the latter of which is almost certainly wrong/WP:OR, as the creatures described within are very likely not references to this robot, but merely also being based/named after the actual word for mole, mogura). Rorshacma (talk) 16:37, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Mysterians per Rorshacma.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:01, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:11, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Red Vox[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Red Vox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet any of the criteria at WP:BAND. The album did not chart, despite the appearance in the article. It actually charted on the Top Heatseekers, which is not sufficient to meet criteria no. 2 of WP:BAND. Additionally, there is nowhere near enough coverage in reliable sources. Please see also the deletion request on the Simple English Wikipedia. --IWI (talk) 05:14, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --IWI (talk) 05:14, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NBAND. The cited sources all have the appearance of paid promotion or copying from band materials. No chart performance worth mentioning. Binksternet (talk) 05:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:41, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 18:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crowne Plaza Hong Kong Causeway Bay[edit]

Crowne Plaza Hong Kong Causeway Bay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A recently constructed, run-of-the-mill hotel in Hong Kong that does not appear to have significant architectural or other features that would allow it to pass WP:NBUILD. There are some distant namedrops like [69], but no WP:SIGCOV I can see. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:40, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:40, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:40, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - for any global city, a hotel with "263 rooms, of which 10 are suites" and built in the modern style is totally run of the mill. Bearian (talk) 17:00, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:11, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Osuolale Farouq[edit]

Osuolale Farouq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

pr. The apparently impressive references are PR or copies of pr, and do not show notability DGG ( talk ) 04:06, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 04:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 04:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A first-year university student who redesigned a logo. Although they got some coverage, WP:BLP1E applies.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:59, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Now he's a proud Graphic and Brand Identity Designer with more than 2 years of experience transforming brands, from designing flyers to creating brand identities." Good grief. Vexations (talk) 12:16, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. Nika2020 (talk) 22:04, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 06:06, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings and structures in the Lehigh Valley[edit]

List of tallest buildings and structures in the Lehigh Valley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability and fails WP:LISTN. All but four of the items on the list are either transmission towers or smokestacks. Unlike most lists of tallest buildings by city, this one is the tallest buildings and structures in a census defined region. No indication this has been discussed as a group or that the area is notable for tall buildings. The items on the list are not notably-tall so this is trivia and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Since there are only two links on the page and ordinary transmission towers and smoke stacks are not notable and won't be getting their own articles, this is not useful for navigation and cannot be considered a building block per WP:CLN.   // Timothy :: talk  03:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  03:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  03:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  03:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  03:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per nominator. Aasim 04:04, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence that this has been discussed extensively by reliable sources Spiderone 08:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split into two lists for Northern and Southern Lehigh Valley, no, better Delete, bordering on indiscriminate collection of information. Geschichte (talk) 21:13, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Not INDISCRIMINATE. Though I wouldn't be opposed to a Tallest buildings in Allentown, the region's largest city. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 22:16, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:16, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Waldo, Marin County, California[edit]

Waldo, Marin County, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Several places in Marin were named after Captain William Waldo, including Waldo Point, Waldo Grade, Waldo Tunnel, and a Waldo train station.[70] None of them appear to be a community. The Waldo in GNIS is probably the train station, an identification confirmed by Durham. Nothing notable about the train station. Glendoremus (talk) 02:34, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:40, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:40, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:16, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Landing, California[edit]

Vincent Landing, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another landing on Tomales Bay mistaken for a community. Doesn't appear to be anything there now. Named on old topo maps in 1954 and even then there doesn't appear to be anything but a nearby oyster bed. I didn't turn up anything else. Appears to be non-notable. Glendoremus (talk) 02:14, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of Kansas Civil War units. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14th Kansas Militia Infantry Regiment[edit]

14th Kansas Militia Infantry Regiment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Marginally passes WP:MILUNIT as a regiment, although MILUNIT is not a hard-and-fast rule, and there's examples where it's overruled. For instance, artillery batteries in the American Civil War are generally considered to be notable per MILUNIT, but see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zesch's Militia Battery Kansas Light Artillery, which was deleted (and later redirected). From what I've seen with the military history articles, militia units are also generally considered to be below regular units because of their more temporary nature. This regiment appears to have been a very temporary one: It was in service for about three weeks during Price's Raid and never saw combat. The only thing I can turn up in reliable sources is the two-line entry in Dyer's Compendium here. this book is complied from Wikipedia content. Note that this is unrelated to the 14th Kansas Volunteer Cavalry Regiment, which easily passes notability. I think ACW units are interesting, and I have quite a few GAs on these units, but I don't think this one is notable. Hog Farm Bacon 02:13, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 02:13, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 02:13, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 02:13, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Kansas Civil War units. Not notable, saw no action, fails GNG. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:27, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per peacemaker. Only existed 20 days, so not much to say about it I would guess. (t · c) buidhe 02:37, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with List of Kansas Civil War units: As Hog Farm mentions, many of the units listed at List of Kansas Civil War units#Militia saw no combat. To avoid losing context, I suggest merging all the units that are in the same situation as this one to the list (all units with little coverage would be merged). I don't think there's enough to justify stand-alone articles, but we don't have to leave readers with no information at all. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:12, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- The list article might be better for being divided into unit types each with a sentence or two about their service - dates of raising and disbandment in all cases and details of service for those that do not justify an article. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. Usually I would support standalone articles on battalion-sized units per WP:MILUNIT, but this unit only existed for twenty days. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:55, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge; on a related note, perhaps we need a consensus on how long a unit that saw no combat could exist and still be notable. I would suggest an upper limit of 89 days or less, as many ACW units were raised for three months' service. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 04:38, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. This seems common-sense. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:41, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect seems to be the best answer here. A sensible "search term" for redirect but lack of real detail and sourcing points to merge.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:56, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- I support Peterkingiron's idea of making a single article of the Kansas state militia units. Although little online information may be found about them, that doesn't necessarily indicate that they have no interest to modern scholarship (Zesch's Battery, for example, was an African American artillery battery; unusual for Kansas at that time). The muster roll records for the militia regiments are available online through the Kansas State Historical Society's Kansas Memory project at: 14th Kansas Militia Infantry for example. Spacini (talk) 17:44, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:10, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shafter, Marin County, California[edit]

Shafter, Marin County, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looks like another railroad facility mistaken for a community. Durham calls it a locality on the Northwestern Pacific RR. I don't see anything else that says it was ever a community or that it is notable in any other way. Glendoremus (talk) 01:50, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Glendoremus (talk) 01:51, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:51, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Mass-produced junk. Reywas92Talk 03:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am familiar with this area, which is in the community of Lagunitas, California adjacent to Samuel P. Taylor State Park. The name Shafter comes from James McMillan Shafter, a 19th century politician and landowner who served in the state legislatures of Vermont, Wisconsin and California. He was among the founders of the Northwestern Pacific Railroad which still exists in part. I can hear their train whistles from my house in the Napa Valley. Shafter owned 75,000 acres of land in that area. There was an unusual highway bridge called the Shafter Bridge near there and a hiking/mountain biking trail nearby is called the Shafter Trail. But I can find no evidence of a community called Shafter. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:51, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence that this is a notable place.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:22, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nairametrics[edit]

Nairametrics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not pass WP:NCORP. 1292simon (talk) 01:44, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:50, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:50, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:50, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:50, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The consensus is rather divided, though there is general agreement that the content should exist somewhere (such as List of solar eclipses in the 21st century). There is no real agreement whether it is too soon for an article on a known future event. We have quite a few articles on these future eclipses, so any merger discussion, or wider discussion on their notability can take place but should discuss all of the future eclipses. There is, however, little support for outright deletion. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Solar eclipse of September 12, 2053[edit]

Solar eclipse of September 12, 2053 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No coverage or importance of this event at all. The only sites for a Google of this eclipse is this article, a 2013 Google x NASA page with no content other than a computer-generated trajectory, this timeanddate.com automatically generated page, and passing mentions in lists ("the next eclipse visible from the Philippines will be in 2053..." or "Here are the next 50 eclipses!" sort of stuff). The idea that we should keep this article for the sole purpose of an "article that can be expanded in the future" is nothing more than crystal ball predictions of editorial patterns over the next 3 decades. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 01:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 01:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:29, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and? Just because something is in a Wikipedia template isn't really reason enough to keep an article on it. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 02:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:TOOSOON. Way too soon. A lot can happen in 33 years to prevent this from happening. Foxnpichu (talk) 09:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Like what? LOL! Oleryhlolsson (talk) 12:59, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the Sun, Earth or Moon are destroyed in the meantime, or orbits significantly change, I would suggest we would have rather bigger problems to tackle. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:40, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in that case we wouldn't even have to worry about notable articles on Wikipedia or not, because both we and Wikipedia would most likely have vanished.... Oleryhlolsson (talk) 18:41, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Both of you are missing the point... Foxnpichu (talk) 22:50, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Foxnpichu: OK, what else *could* "happen in 33 years to prevent this from happening"? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2053 is in 33 years, and because orbital mechanics is a pretty predictable science, we have thousands of events for the next couple of centuries we can predict with reasonable accuracy. If “the world may end” is a justification for deletion of an article for something 33 years in the future, that can be predicted with math, it’s just as valid a justification for deleting an article on something happening next week, or next month, that we have no reasonable way to accurately predict e.g. the fourth season of The Crown or the 2020 US presidential election, which will (maybe) happen in November, assuming the world doesn’t end in the next few weeks. This is 2020, after all. - TimDWilliamson speak 01:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Even though it's somewhat likely to happen, that doesn't necessarily mean we need to have an entire article on something that may happen in 33 years. This is a WP:NOPAGE thing. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 03:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ItsPugle: I can't see how WP:NOPAGE applies. From a scientific standpoint, we already know what will happen, so there is plenty of context and scientific sources available. Compared to articles on past eclipses, we're missing the photos of the event, but they will come in 33 years time. The article already includes much more information than can easily be included in List_of_solar_eclipses_in_the_21st_century, so I don't think merging to the list is appropriate. WP:TOOSOON doesn't cover predictable astronomical events, and the only part of WP:CRYSTAL that applies is "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place" - here the event is notable and certain to take place. For WP:GNG, the event has significant coverage in the NASA references, which are independent from the subjects in this case, i.e., the sun and the moon. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Peel: Again, saying that we should keep an article for 33 years in the hopes that someone will update it's page then is somewhat absurd (this article can always be recreated if it becomes notable between now and then, or when the event actually happens if it meets the criteria then). And again, there's no major question here really about if the eclipse will happen, but if it's notable in itself currently as per the GNG. A lot of the information is so technical (What the hell is a magnitude when we're talking about eclipses? What the hell is a saros or metonic series?) and is already covered (related eclipses etc). There's also no significant courage - there's only three NASA references: two seemingly automated pages with no actual content other than a broken Google Maps simulation, and one low-quality graphic made in 2004 and not used elsewhere. There's no significant HQRS for the eclipse that meets the GNG. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 09:48, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ItsPugle: We'll have to wait 33 years for a *photo*, but that doesn't mean that the article won't be updated for 33 years. There are links to explanations of the technical phrases, you could expand the description in this article if you want. I think it easily meets notability with just the NASA references, you can find others if you want, e.g. [72] and [73]. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Peel: We're not a resource for astronomers though. So what about the technicalities like the "saros" or "metonic series" (whatever they are)? Is their any importance to this event? And again, both of those pages are just calculations and seemingly automatic computer-generated simulations on specialised sources with no content beyond such. Are their any mentions of this event in any resources the general public would come across? ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 10:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See Saros (astronomy) and Metonic cycle. There are mentions of this eclipse in newspaper articles, mostly passing mentions, and of course it's on Wikipedia where the general public might come across it. ;-) Plus I think the general public tends to use the NASA website.. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:22, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Unless we plan on deleting the articles for the eclipses in 2055, Jan 2057, Dec 2057, 2059, 2060, 2061, 2063, 2064, 2066, 2067, 2068, 2070, 2071, 2072, 2073, 2075, 2076, 2077, 2078, 2079, 2081, 2082, 2084, 2086, 2088, 2089, 2090, 2091, 2093, 2094, 2095, 2096, 2097, 2099, 2100, 2114, 2126, 2132, 2150, 2168, and 2186. Not to mention (because I know you didn’t read that whole list) all the annular eclipses. What did the eclipse of 2053 do to deserve being singled out for deletion, that the dozens of other future eclipses managed to avoid? Yes, this eclipse is on a big list of future eclipses, but only the individual articles house the eclipse maps showing the exact path of the eclipse. The only total eclipse I ever viewed, I started preparing for 18 years ahead of time. It wouldn’t shock me to find out that more active and organized eclipse chasers prepare decades ahead of an event, especially if they can see the path will be within easy traveling distance. Also, as someone already said, anything that could throw off the prediction by more than a few minutes would be an extinction event, and then Wikipedia would be the least of our worries. But if anyone is still concerned, if the Moon or Earth are knocked out of their orbits, I will volunteer to nominate all pending eclipses for speedy deletion. - TimDWilliamson speak 01:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of other content is not a valid reason for an AfD discussion. Neither is anecdotal, personal experiences. Do you have any other objections, rather than just the fact other articles exist and that you find the topic of interest? ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 01:50, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think most of those pages should be deleted too. Foxnpichu (talk) 10:23, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. They're purely extraneous and unnecessary. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 10:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, I think that they are core encyclopaedia material, being significant astronomical events with reliable and notable predictions. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for all the reasons above. Tom Ruen (talk) 16:16, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think that this discussion is being lost about whether or not this eclipse will happen, which it almost certainly will... but that doesn't mean we need an entire article about it. It's ridiculous, there's no notability to it (you can see this in the citations - there's literally no sources, beyond automatically generated crap, that cover it), and the article's content itself is too technical for the general audience. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 01:50, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the TOOSOON comments are misguided by a misunderstanding of what TOOSOON is (it's an essay after all): please rely on notability guidelines for actual determination of notability. Regardless, they come to the right conclusion because the solar eclipse is not mentioned significantly in reliable sources. Sam-2727 (talk) 02:44, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Solar eclipses are inherently notable. There's nothing that would "prevent this from happening" - eclipses are predictable for millennia in the future and past. How far in the future would not be "too soon" to satisfy you? Statements like "it may happen" are pure nonsense. - Parejkoj (talk) 18:46, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How are solar eclipses inherently notable? It quite clearly fails GNG... ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 09:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable future event. And definite. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:01, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another comment A number of editors here seem to be making blanket statements about notability without any regard for policy or evidence. If you're adding a comment about notability or anything of the such, please make sure that you explain your reasoning and give evidence to support your claims, rather than just asserting claims. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 09:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could these be merged to some kind of list or compilation article? Eclipses of the 2050s, Eclipses of the 2060s, etc, or something like that? It would be a compromise between having a bunch of little articles for future events based on not that much sourcing, and also deleting them all wholesale. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:14, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Booster Gold. czar 06:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Skeets (DC Comics)[edit]

Skeets (DC Comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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 no rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD). Sigh. Pure plot summary and list of appearances, and all sources I see are just plot summaries as well. Does anyone see anything better that we could use to salvage this? If not, the best I can think of is a redirect to Booster Gold or Booster Gold (comics). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:13, 5 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 01:13, 5 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 01:13, 5 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 01:13, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective merge: This character is intrinsically linked to Booster Gold. Darkknight2149 02:12, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Booster Gold. The most logical option. Rhino131 (talk) 03:06, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/Selective Merge to Booster Gold. I haven't looked into how much is present here that is not already at Booster's article, but the two should definitely be covered together. As Darkknight2149 said, Skeets is tied completely to him. Rorshacma (talk) 03:07, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Booster Gold: per above   // Timothy :: talk  17:18, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge due to logical target as a WP:ATD. Archrogue (talk) 19:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Although it saddens me to delete an article that included a citation for "Baker is considered curvaceous" under the "Career" heading. Peak unintentional COI comedy. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Baker[edit]

Melissa Baker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I guess this discussion hinges around whether we consider a Sports Illustrated swimsuit model to be de facto notable and meeting WP:NMODEL. I don't, but am not well versed in the field. I found no coverage to suggest that WP:GNG is met, and consensus is divided as to whether SI meets notability by itself. See 1 2 and 3, all from around ten or more years ago. I propose a redirect to List of Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue cover models. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:03, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:16, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:16, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:16, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No evidence of enduring notability here. Needs to have significant coverage unrelated to her single association with SI. - hako9 (talk) 04:52, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No. Neither Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue, Victoria’s Secret, nor Playboy are de facto claims of notability for a model on Wikipedia. Trillfendi (talk) 13:51, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete having a photograph of her appearing in the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit edition is not a default sign of notability. When I came across this article a few days ago I considered nominating it for deletion, but had not gotten around to it yet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:32, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2020_September_5&oldid=978972429"