Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 September 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 7 September	9 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A.M. Abu-Abdissamad[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage. Fails WP:PROF. SL93 (talk) 23:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable low level businessman. Just because you found a business does not mean you are default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 19:37, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MILL and WP:PROF. He's an ordinary consultant and sometime teacher who has published papers with very ordinary titles that would not be acceptable at the community college level. He lacks a doctorate of any kind and has never gotten tenure anywhere. Bearian (talk) 15:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable person. fails WP:GNG. Priyanjali singh (talk) 08:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not a notable person. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Six Reasons Why[edit]

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

Non notable film, nothing found in a WP:BEFORE search to help it pass WP:NFILM. Tagged for notability for 9 years. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The notability hasn't changed since it was deleted in the 2008 AfD. SL93 (talk) 23:34, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability. Balle010 (talk) 01:26, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Films are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist — they need to show markers of significance, such as major film awards and/or enough attention from film critics to clear WP:GNG. But there's no such claim being made here, this is written more like an advertisement for the film than a neutral encyclopedia article (conflict of interest likely, as the article was created by a user named "ImageEnt" and has subsequently been heavily edited by a user named "MattCampagna"), and even on a ProQuest search for decade-old coverage that might not have Googled, I still found only a bunch of smalltown community hyperlocals reprinting the exact same wire service article on the same day (thus combining into one data point, not several) and absolutely nothing from major media. That's not good enough.
I should also note that both Matt and Jeff Campagna also had advertorialized autobiographical articles, with weak sourcing and no notability claim stronger than the existence of this film — see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Campagna (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Campagna. Bearcat (talk) 01:32, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 21:28, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Skála ÍF season[edit]

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

The article fails WP:GNG as I can't see how their would be any references that isn't going to link back to the club via a primary source. HawkAussie (talk) 22:57, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 22:57, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:23, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 23:26, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - along with a few other articles created by the same user; fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS without a shadow of a doubt Spiderone 23:28, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with nominator --FootyMessi9147 (talk) 05:52, 9 September 2020 (UTC) — FootyMessi9147 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - fails GNG/NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 10:50, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per above, does not satisfy WP:GNG. Alex-h (talk) 11:23, 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 17:24, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Cavelti[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV scope_creep^Talk 22:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass notability and reads like a CV. Balle010 (talk) 01:25, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I am inclined to regard the references where his investment advice is referred to, his charity (somewhat primary) and his government board appointments in his field of endeavour all give him notability, independent of the subject as it says on WP:GNG. --Whiteguru (talk) 12:41, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:06, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:06, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:06, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:06, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG, WP:TNT, WP:RS, and WP:NOTRESUME. Beside not being notable, at all, this was written obviously by someone who machine-translated a personal statement/resume. Read the lead. The sources are almost all primary sources dependent on the subject. In 2007, we might have forgiven that, but in 2020, everybody know what an encyclopedia is. Bearian (talk) 15:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable person. fails GNG. Priyanjali singh (talk) 08:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Irving, Marin County, California[edit]

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

Mistakenly called a community on the basis of of the unreliable GNIS database. It appeared for a time on the 1914 USGS Petaluma topo maps and then disappeared. Durhams calls it a locality on the Northwestern Pacific RR and there is a brief mention elsewhere that it was a railroad flag stop. No other evidence that this was ever a community and no indication that it is otherwise notable. Glendoremus (talk) 22:40, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Glendoremus (talk) 23:42, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Glendoremus (talk) 23:42, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence that this meets our overall very broad inclusion criteria for places.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:19, 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. Similar lists should be considered on their own merits. The consensus is to delete this list. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:32, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department officers killed in the line of duty[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a memorial site, nor does it publish lists based on non-encyclopaedic cross-categorisations such as "list of x who died in circumstance y". Much of this list lacks inline citations and is supported only by the three general references, two of which are unreliable self-published or user-generated sources and one of which is a primary source. There's no indication that the subject of this list "has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" as required by WP:LISTN. (Contested prod) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 22:34, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 22:34, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails WP:LISTN, WP:NLIST, and WP:LISTCRITERIA. That there are ROUTINE media reports about Sheriff's Deputies being killed on duty, not a single one of those slain is notable nor, does it seem, that there are sources that discuss this cohort as a phenomenon. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:00, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons of WP not being a memorial site, and other reasons mentioned above. Balle010 (talk) 01:24, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:NOTDIR. We should also consider similar natured articles such as: List of Baltimore Police Department officers killed in the line of duty, List of Philadelphia Police Department officers who died in the line of duty and List of Los Angeles Police Department officers killed in the line of duty. Ajf773 (talk) 02:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I'm tempted to vote delete and not fall to the WP:OSE fallacy, but we do have an entire category here at Category:American police officers killed in the line of duty. So, what do we do with:

Batmanthe8th (talk) 05:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Batmanthe8th: If this discussion results in a consensus to delete I intend to look over the other similar lists and nominate those with similar issues (which I expect will be most of them, if not all). The category only contains five lists of this type though (this one, the three you listed, and List of Honolulu Police Department officers killed in the line of duty); most of the articles in the category are about individuals or their deaths. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 10:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's also another 10 articles at Category:Lists of police officers killed in the line of duty which would be affected by a consensus agreement that lists of police officers who have died in the line of duty are non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations. Surachit (talk) 04:05, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of sad to see these go, but if that's the consensus, it looks like we just have to follow that. Batmanthe8th (talk) 18:32, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that some of the others might be better merged or dealt with through some other alternative to deletion. It's also possible that some of the others might, unlike this one, meet WP:LISTN. But I've yet to look at any of them in any depth so couldn't say one way or the other. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This clearly runs afoul of not memorial. At absolute best we can include the number on the article on the LA Sheriff's department, and maybe name any who have in any way received a little recognition (such as having a school named after them), there is no justification for this list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These were private individuals and I see no encyclopedic value in listing their names and causes of death on Wikipedia. The topic of officers getting killed in the line of duty can be covered in other appropriate articles. -kyykaarme (talk) 09:25, 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 delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Golf, California[edit]

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

Mistakenly called a community solely on the basis of of the unreliable GNIS database. It appeared on USGS topo maps between 1914-1940 and then disappeared. Durhams calls it a locality on the Northwestern Pacific RR and old topo maps indicate there was a rail siding there. No evidence that this was ever a community and no indication that it is otherwise notable. Glendoremus (talk) 22:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete I see the same thing: an isolated passing siding. Mangoe (talk) 00:33, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for above reasons. Balle010 (talk) 01:24, 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 21:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Illusion On-Demand[edit]

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

Struggling to find sources that are not rehashes of press releases or more than incidental mentions. Apparently folded pretty quickly, c. 2008-09. I don't think it meets WP:CORP. Raymie (t • c) 21:07, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 21:07, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with nom. Don't think it meets WP:CORP. Balle010 (talk) 01:23, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about the channel. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 13:30, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per above, could not find much coverage. Alex-h (talk) 11:30, 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. I have given lower weight to the arguments which are based on the suggestion that schools are inherently notable and other similar articles exist, and to those alleging that sources are available without making any effort to provide them. Stifle (talk) 11:32, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sir William Stanier School[edit]

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

Can’t find anything that suggests notability, fails WP:GNG. Devokewater (talk) 20:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Devokewater (talk) 20:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Devokewater (talk) 20:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Devokewater (talk) 20:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Devokewater (talk) 20:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete' has no reliable source of information. Personal Websites are not reliable source of informationAuthor Sanju (talk) 01:50, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are plenty of sources, just as there are for any secondary school in the United Kingdom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:46, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As per the above, there are plenty of references available, esp. in Google News. --Whiteguru (talk) 12:45, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES#3 confirms that Secondary schools are no longer assumed as notable without refs, as per any WP:ORG. I would argue that the Chronicle article is WP:Basic enough to show notability of the schools origins - there is plenty more news stories, especially about poor attainment and being in requiring improvement since 2016 - WP:Before - I therefore would say Keep with work.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 14:52, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An educational institute must not be deleted. There are a number of schools articles on Wikipedia which are not even referenced a single resource but passes notability. Priyanjali singh (talk) 08:44, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Agreed! An educational institute should not be deleted. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:49, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Schools are not inherently notable. They need to pass GNG and Priyanjali singh such articles often get unnoticed, and "they do not pass notability". You should try WP:BEFORE regarding such schools, and if you find significant coverage, then source the article - otherwise get them AfDed. Wikipedia is not a directory. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES says it clearly that "At one time, secondary schools were assumed notable unless sources could not be found to prove existence, but following a February 2017 RFC, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist, and are still subject to WP:N and WP:ORG.". Now that's 3 years before. A school, "secondary school" failing GNG doesn't deserve a place here. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 04:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article does not pass GNG or NORG. Sources in the article do not establish notability and BEFORE showed only routine, run of the mill coverage. Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist. The Keep votes above simply state references exist, but fail to provide any at all, or explain why the school is notable. The lack of providing sources above shows the sources do not exist, if they did they would be listed especially if there were plenty as is claimed. // Timothy :: talk 00:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Created in 2007 by a WP:SPA, the article lacks WP:SIGCOV demonstrating any widespread or lasting notability. Has only routine, WP:RUNOFTHEMILL coverage. Newshunter12 (talk) 19:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete secondary schools aren't presumed to be notable and this one lacks the significant in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources required by WP:GNG and WP:NORG. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:57, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Nokopen, California[edit]

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

This entry came to GNIS from a philately journal, and while it's easy enough to verify that there was a 4th class post office at the camp for a couple years, that's all there is. GNIS has no idea where it is, and there's no evidence it was anything but a camp. Mangoe (talk) 20:17, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fourth-class post office were established at ranches, hotels, train stations, etc. Presence of one for a few years doesn't imply notability. I can't find anything else about the site. Doesn't appear to be a community and doesn't appear to be otherwise notable. Glendoremus (talk) 23:40, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, minor camp with a minor post office for a few years. Brief post offices don't indicate notability. Certainly not a populated place in the sense expected by WP:GEOLAND. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:33, 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 21:12, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dhruv (Actor)[edit]

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

deleted under name Dhruv Vikram. Not notable. TamilMirchi (talk) 20:17, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 20:17, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 20:17, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notable but too early. Wait for one more film release. Neutral Fan (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one film role does not make someone notable, with very rare exceptions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appeared in one film, clearly fails WP:NACTOR and qualifies WP:TOOSOON.VocalIndia (talk) 07:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NACTOR. Case of WP:TOOSOON. Priyanjali singh (talk) 08:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ENEA AB. There is unanimous consensus to merge (selectively) to the other article. For attribution purposes, the article cannot be deleted. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:14, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Operating System Embedded[edit]

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

There are two articles (this one and ENEA AB) with barely enough sources to support one. I think this should be the one to go, and advocate a smerge, but this is old (2012) so it needs proper discussion. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:13, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:21, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this one with a merge of information to the other. Balle010 (talk) 01:22, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this one with a merge of information to the other. Nixdorf (talk) 20:10, 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. Namcokid47's draft should be merged into this article. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ghosts (Pac-Man)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG as non-notable game characters. Any pertinent sourced information in this article can easily be mentioned in either the article for the original Pac-Man or the series. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:00, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:00, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Saw this in my email inbox. A while back I made a short draft article for the ghosts that I never got around to finishing, maybe some of the sources here could prove useful? Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 20:06, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very much so. We could use more info of that caliber on the articles. I myself felt they should be notable enough for info like that. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 20:12, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see no reason why this can't be integrated into the pacman article. Balle010 (talk) 01:22, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Namcokid47 has sources which, when implemented in the article, will prove it's notability.(Oinkers42) (talk) 14:09, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at that draft, I'm still heavily dubious about the article's notability. It seems like your typical WP:REFBOMB with trivial mentions and many listicles comprising their reception._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:17, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weren’t they considered as the seventh greatest video game villain of all time by IGN? The link of that 100 villain list I can’t seem to find now. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 14:22, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CNN: [1] talked about them. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 14:27, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat misleading, since the video is about the game itself rather than specifically about the ghosts. Which lines up with what I said in the nomination about not needing a separate article. Also, as largely an interview it probably doesn't count towards notability as WP:PRIMARY._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:31, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Listicles shouldn’t be treated as not reliable or notable sources. Definitely when it comes to the “greatest” list. That is stupid if you don’t think they count on improving notability. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 14:45, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:Imperfect. Considered as iconic video game villains in many modern lists. Referenced in popular culture many times. Referenced by media outlets such as CNN and GameRant about their development etc. Overall characters that everyone has heard of in an iconic game. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 14:38, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These sources might help [2], [3], [4] (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:47, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ITSPOPULAR. Do they have an iconic visual appearance? Yes, that is unquestionable. But are they individually notable as characters? There's plenty of trivial mentions but nothing that delves into a deep character study... because there is no character to study._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:07, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Are they notable for being characters, probably not. Are they notable for being icons and figures of gaming, yes. Is The Burger King notable for being a character or for his image? Characters can be iconic and notable for their image. (Oinkers42) (talk) 16:33, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now we are being nit picky on guidelines. I didn’t say anything about popularity outside of pop-culture. Also that guideline talks about the fallacy on not explaining why it’s popular.Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 16:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of fallacies:

Nowhere at WP:NOTABILITY, WP:GNG, or WP:NFICTION is it specified that a character has to have a fully three-dimensional fleshed out backstory to be notable.
Characters also don't have to have Batman-levels of iconic status, or some groundbreaking real world effect (such as curing cancer) to be considered notable. They do, however, need to be written from a real world perspective.
WP:GNG refers only to the sheer existence of coverage (see also - WP:DELREASON). Every deletion policy/guideline also specifies not to nominate articles based solely on the state of sourcing in the References section. Anyone who does this is essentially asking for a Procedural keep at this point. As recent nominations have indicated, the community is finally catching on to those.

Fiction-related topics are frequently nitpicked and held under a microscope (moreso than other topics), but I think that's enough fallacies busted for one comment. Dark knight 2149 00:09, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. (Oinkers42) (talk) 17:05, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Redirect to the main article and build it up from there. It appears pretty much all the information on them could be easily slotted in there at the moment. Should it represent too much weight, it can then be split out at that time. Aside from a few minor adaptations, the ghosts have no character, personality, backstory, or any real information that warrants an article. For those particular appearances, the articles on the adaptations are sufficient to cover that context. TTN (talk) 17:25, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Let this page stay. While being the notable Pac-Man villains, the Ghosts deserve their own articles. Plus, @(Oinkers42): and @Jhenderson777: are right about their claims. --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:27, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per the sources presented by Namcokid and (Oinkers42). Dark knight 2149 18:41, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In addition to the previously identified sources, I added a paragraph to the article from Television Cartoon Shows: An Illustrated Encyclopedia, 1949-2003 (McFarland & Co, 2005), which discusses how the creators of the 1982 cartoon handled the problem of depicting the hero eating the ghosts. I think that this helps to demonstrate notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 20:15, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per citations provided by Namcokid and Oinkers as well as reasoning given above. Captain Galaxy 20:52, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after merging User:Namcokid47/Ghost Gang into it. The current article is still mostly fancrufty PLOT, but Namcokid47's draft is already much better. But it needs to be merged there, otherwise we will end up keeping a pile of mostly garbage again. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:07, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Merge the draft content on over, and its fine. Dream Focus 16:01, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge with the excellent work from User:Namcokid47. Well sourced and on its way to a good article. Definitely viable.Shooterwalker (talk) 16:12, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is clearly notable with reliable sources. I do not think merging is necessary. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:54, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:12, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Khadijah Abdullahi-Iya[edit]

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

Rated B class on the talk page by its own creator, this article is about a subject whose notability derives from her political campaign. Unfortunately she was unsuccessful so the article does not pass WP:NPOL. Mccapra (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being unsuccessful candidates for political office — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one. But nothing else stated here is "inherently" notable enough to guarantee her an article independently of whether she won or lost as a political candidate, the depth and volume of referencing is not enough to demonstrate that her candidacy was uniquely more notable than other people's candidacies, and this is written more like somebody tried to convert her résumé into prose than like a neutral encyclopedia article. Bearcat (talk) 00:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES - local activist and unsuccessful candidate. Generally, for activists to get an article it has to be clearly significant coverage and awards. Bearian (talk) 16:03, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The B-rating is laughable, since there are unsourced statements about the living subject. Bearian (talk) 16:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sadly, in failing to win her election, she is not notable outside of that at this time. Trillfendi (talk) 23:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diane, Duchess of Württemberg[edit]

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

Deposed monarchy cruft, her supposed claim to notability is based on membership of long deposed noble families, very little evidence that she is a successful writer or sculptor. PatGallacher (talk) 19:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is deposed monarchy cruft in the extreme, it mainly funtions to group together even more non-notable members of deposed royal families and says nothing of substance on any of them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added new soruces and more information on her artistic and philanthropic pursuits and removed some of the uneccesary geneolgical information. --Richiepip (talk) 00:38, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Richiepip. Also notable enough for a biography to have be written about her ‘ Diane de France, la princesse rebelle‘. - dwc lr (talk) 13:26, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 'la princesse rebelle' - yes, the article looks fine (now - I haven't glanced on the previous versions), the notability seem o.k. and the sourcing is also o.k.
Keep Looking at some of the new content placed i believe she's notable enough again to warrant a page. --ThatBaileyLad (talk) 21:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:01, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:01, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:01, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:01, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep subject has a book written about her, for one thing. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 02:23, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Although from a deposed monarch family but she has signs of notability. Alex-h (talk) 11:36, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a major royal figure, has a book written about her. VocalIndia (talk) 06:08, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:GNG applies here. Good sourcing as well.BabbaQ (talk) 10:43, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's plenty of coverage. Bearian (talk) 16:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:10, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jemin Jom Ayyaneth[edit]

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

Only in one source.^[1] Yet ti be notable. Created by a paid/blocked user. His grandfather is famous, not him. TamilMirchi (talk) 18:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 18:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 18:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Both WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTINHERITED. EverybodyEdits (talk) 22:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing to meets WP:GNG.VocalIndia (talk) 07:12, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - cinematographers are not automatically notable; to be included here they have to win major awards or get significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 16:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) ─ The Aafī (^talk) 18:14, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ramakrishnan (actor)[edit]

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

This actor/director has not made/acted in notable productions. This is the only source:^[2]. Created by a paid and blocked user. TamilMirchi (talk) 18:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 18:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 18:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - topic clearly passes Wikipedia:NACTOR. Several examples of notability and coverage in English sources, let alone Tamil sources. "This actor/director has not made/acted in notable productions" - lead roles in S. Michael Rayappan and S. P. Charan's studios, with music by YSR, are actually pretty notable. Not even mentioning directorial credits. Kindly request you to think twice before constantly putting articles up for deletion. Neutral Fan (talk) 19:43, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for this one, I did delete vote on your deletion requests for many actors who fails WP:NACTOR, but this one is meets WP:NACTOR . VocalIndia (talk) 07:16, 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Major Byron S. McGuire Sr. Memorial Bridge[edit]

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

Yet another non-notable bridge. This one is over a creek so small it has no article. I'm getting a crap ton of Wikipedia mirrors, as well as Wikidata, some primary source government legislation (apparently the state of Georgia slapped a name on everything that was part of the roadway infrastructure), and that's about it. Comprehensive WP:GNG fail. this has been in CAT:NN since 2014. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:35, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:35, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:35, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:35, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

obvious delete There's no real claim to notability, the bridge is small and ordinary, and whoever the major was, the bridge isn't notable simply for being named after him. Really, I think this run of Geogia road bridges could all be prodded. Mangoe (talk) 16:05, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 08:59, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: As the maker of the page, I would like it to remain. Notability should include just the fact that it exists. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 07:18, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:28, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I cannot find historical significance or reliable sources. Lightburst (talk) 19:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It exists, and there's nothing else to say about it. No sourcing to meet notability guidelines. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:33, 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 withdrawn, author moved page to Draft talk:Seax Penz, move to Draft:Seax Penz pending. (non-admin closure). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:30, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seax Penz[edit]

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

Existing references do not support general, biographical, or music-related notability criteria. Recently moved from Draft:. Recommend sending back to Draft:Seax Penz with prejudice that it can only be moved into article space after approval by AFC, Deletion Review, or a similar process. No objection to an early close if sufficient references are added during the next week to establish that this person meets the guidelines. In fact, that would be the best possible outcome. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:20, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:20, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:23, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Kindly indicate necessary corrections to help move this from Draft:Seax Penz to Article page so that I can apply them and prevent deletion please — Preceding unsigned comment added by IPO ARAKEJI (talk • contribs) 18:38, 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 speedy keep per WP:SK#3 North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:54, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Akancha Srivastava Foundation[edit]

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

Created by a paid and blocked user. Couldn't find any sources. Varunvbs (talk) 05:05, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 September 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:01, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Meets GNG. The article was created by User:Shwetamits who is neither a paid or blocked user. "Couldn't find any sources" is curious when the article lists 25, and many more in search. It is possible there is COI editing by User:Archanahrdept (update: looks like no COI), but that is a matter of educating the user and checking the article is verifiable and not overly promo ie. unrelated to AfD. FWIW the nom is a SPA who has made two edits as of today when they signed up, both attempts at deleting Indian cyber-security related topics. -- GreenC 19:47, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Created by a paid and blocked user." some explanation and evidence would be great. Graywalls (talk) 01:46, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Varunvbs will explain himself? There are known rivalries between Mumbai-based cybersecurity industry gangs (not sure what else to call them) who deploy SPA socks to push their favorite guy and attack their competitors often using AfD as a weapon of choice. That's what this looks like, it involves a failed attempt to AfD Trishneet Arora who has a history of this sort of thing (if he is a victim and/or perp never sure). -- GreenC 02:09, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it's possible, but WP:AGF ;) The request for explanation was directed at the AfD creator, FYI. Graywalls (talk) 05:04, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck, they will probably never log in again! -- GreenC 16:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Why people are using AFD as a weapon ????? Susheelgiri (talk) 18:05, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Based on above comments and this nonsensical nomination with biased and incorrect reasoning. You are supposed to conduct WP:BEFORE before nominating. If you want to remain as a good faith user in my books, kindly withdraw this nomination by following the procedure at WP:CLOSEAFD Roller26 (talk) 19:38, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Nomination rationale does not pass any scrutiny per GreenC. There are plenty of sources in this article that satisfy WP:GNG. Nominator possibly a WP:SPA, account sole edits are to AfD this and related article, and account was created 30 minutes before nom. Jumpytoo Talk 19:46, 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 redirect to Taxiwaala. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Priyanka Jawalkar[edit]

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

No evidence that she has starred in notable films. Only starred in one notable film Taxiwala. Too early. TamilMirchi (talk) 18:00, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 18:00, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 18:00, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "No evidence that she has starred in notable films. Only starred in one notable film Taxiwala" is it rightly formed rationale for nominating this? Also, there was an AfD on July about this page which went undecided (keep). --Mamushir (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are not multiple significant roles in notable productions for this actress. No consensus is never the same as keep.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:05, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Taxiwaala: In the previous AfD, there was no consensus if her first film Kala Varam Aaye was notable. But upon further searching, I haven't been able to find enough RS reviews for it. It's a common practice to redirect actors who starred in only one notable film. With other films lined up, she might soon qualify WP:NACTOR. --Ab207 (talk) 16:06, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:44, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It's WP:TOOSOON. -Hatchens (talk) 17:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nomination withdrawn per WP:HEY. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 07:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mother Love (entertainer)[edit]

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

Something doesn't look right. This person looks notable, but I've drawn a complete and total blank on finding sources. The article was created way back in the prehistoric era when IPs could start articles; hopefully it's not a hoax. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A talk-show host by this name does exist: see, e.g., this Publishers Weekly book review[5], or articles in the New York Post, Utne Reader, New York Times. Cheers, gnu 57 18:41, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think this one is pretty clear cut. It was just an old article; I've added sources. She seems to be (or have been) a reasonably successful entertainer and particularly important within the African-American community in the United States. She was the host of this popular television show and even earned a full profile in the New York Post. Her media output has been reviewed in major US publications including Publisher's Weekly, The New York Times, People, etc., etc. More recently she was featured in the Denver Post and the magazine Diabetes Forecast for her diabetes-awareness work. Deleting seems incredibly rash. Brycehughes (talk) 23:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are also lots of additional sources out there along with the ones sited above that are behind paywalls, covering many parts of her career. Easily meets the GNG. A sampling of some of the better newspaper articles. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 03:16, 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 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) 11:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Village of Horror[edit]

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

another non-notable work from Eleftheria Karadimou, no critical (or independent sourcing) at all. Praxidicae (talk) 17:56, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:25, 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. Stifle (talk) 11:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jacquelyn L. Williams-Bridgers[edit]

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG, WP:BASIC or WP:ANYBIO. BEFORE showed routine, mill coverage for a normal government employee / political appointee. // Timothy :: talk 17:48, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 17:48, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 17:48, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NPOL (I guess). We have an article for her post—Inspector General of the Department of State. If the post is important enough to warrant an article, I'd say the person holding it is too. And I know notability isn't inherited, but isn't NPOL premised on the assumption that notability is inherited from certain prominent positions? Also, here's a capsule bio for some of her other achievements: [6] AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AleatoryPonderings, do you need some coffee my friend? :) // Timothy :: talk 18:56, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to the coffee question is always: yes. The answer to the substantive question is: NPOL is, IMO, rather an unusual standard. In my, admittedly limited, recent experience at AfD, it has been held to confer notability on officials largely independent of whether coverage that would meet GNG has been shown. Some examples I can think of offhand are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chandra Kalindi Roy Henriksen, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/T. C. West, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A. D. Duffey. In the first instance, the position was not listed explicitly at NPOL; it was in the second and third cases. My thought on this AfD is that surely if we confer automatic notability on state legislators without any substantial degree of coverage or demonstrated legislative achievements, we should do the same for top-level civil servants in major government departments. An Inspector General of the Department of State meets that standard, in my view. Hence my !vote to keep. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:53, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, NPOL is most certainly not predicated on the idea that some people inherit notability from a political position even if they don't actually have press coverage. In fact, NPOL-passing politicians always do have press coverage — we're not always on the ball about actually finding and using it to make all of our articles about NPOL-passing politicians good ones, but that's not the same thing as the coverage itself not even existing in the first place. So NPOL isn't so much a case of "some roles are so important that people who've held them are exempted from having to clear GNG at all" — it's "some roles are so important that people who've held them will literally always pass GNG even if Wikipedians have been lazy about actually finding and using all of their coverage, so don't waste everybody's time on articles that may be inadequate in their current form but are entirely repairable". But this isn't a role where the existence of GNG-worthy coverage is a foregone conclusion — it's a role where GNG-worthy coverage may or may not exist, so her includability depends on showing hard evidence that she passes GNG rather than just asserting that the role hands her an automatic inclusion freebie. Bearcat (talk) 01:16, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat: Fair enough, but what's the practical difference between (1) keeping an article on State Legislator X because they happen to be a state legislator and their notability is inherited from their position (i.e., the wrong view); and (2) keeping an article on State Legislator X because there is sure to be coverage about them (i.e., the right view)? The article is kept in both cases, and the same amount of coverage (i.e., 0) is actually shown. Most state legislators have far, far less influence on policymaking and the events of the day than inspectors general, and as a matter of fact there is not much coverage about the vast majority of them. By contrast, my search of ProQuest shows that Williams-Bridgers is discussed and quoted in the Washington Post, Chicago Sun-Times, and NYT [7]. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:27, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Most importantly, "quoted in" has absolutely nothing to do with notability at all — to assist in establishing a person's notability, sources have to represent that person being written or spoken about, in the third person, by people other than herself. Sources in which she's "quoted" as a giver of soundbite about a subject do not help to establish notability at all. And she also has to be a major subject of the source, not just have her existence namechecked in an article whose main subject is somebody or something else — so that New York Times link, which is primarily about Jean Kennedy Smith and just happens to glancingly mention Jacquelyn Williams-Bridgers' name a single time in the process of not being about Jacquelyn Williams-Bridgers, is doing absolutely nothing to help, and that's the only specific article you've actually named as evidence.
Secondly, there's no such thing as a state legislator who can't show any press coverage at all. As a Canadian, admittedly, I devote a lot more time and attention to Canadian provincial and territorial MPPs — but they're never, ever unsourceable either, and I've never had any difficulty finding sources for an American state legislator when one's been on my plate (e.g. Wally Straughn, Corey Corbin). I know it's popular to dismiss US state legislators as uniquely unimportant, but they do get coverage whether you personally pay attention to it or not.
Finally, please read WP:NEXIST. As nice as it would be if people always responded to a poorly sourced but improvable article by substancing and reffing it up to FA status right away, that's not a requirement of our process — if sufficient sources are shown to exist, and thus the article is improvable, then we no longer care whether actually getting the sources into the article takes five minutes or five years. Perhaps we should, but we don't. Bearcat (talk) 01:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat: Yes, I admit that NYT article was not very useful. (There are more, to which your objections probably still apply: [8]). Mainly I just find it incredible that a top civil servant at a major federal government department could not be considered notable. (I'd say André Marin, for instance, is roughly, roughly analogous in the Ontario context.) I know: this is probably just an WP:ITSNOTABLE claim, and the closer will likely disregard it. But there it is. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 01:53, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:26, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just because we have an article on a post does not mean every person who held it was notable. No reading of politician notability would extend it to this post. The sourcing here is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:34, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless somebody can show much more evidence that she actually has significantly better sources than this. Just because we happen to have an article listing the past holders of a government bureaucratic job does not in and of itself confer an automatic notability freebie on every single person named in the list — if she were properly demonstrated to have enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG, that would be one thing, but the role isn't "inherently" notable enough to justify leaning almost entirely on her own employer's self-published content, along with just one news story about an incident that would just make her a WP:BLP1E if it's really all the media coverage she's got. Again: if she were much better referenced than this, then sure, but it's not such a vitally important role that she would be exempted from having to have better sources than this just because she held it. Bearcat (talk) 01:16, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the last two delete voters. Although the position has an article about it that doesn't mean it's a guarantee that everyone who held it automatically gets a free pass when it comes to the notability standards. Which in this case, are not met. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Defence Industry Remote Controlled Weapon Station (DI RCWS)[edit]

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG. Article sources are two facebook pages and two pages about the item this was based on, not the item itself. BEFORE showed no SIGCOV that addresses the subject directly and in depth. Item is listed in a couple of places, but I found no merge targets where this would be an improvement. Material is basically unsourced and wouldn't be suitable for a merge without proper sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 17:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 17:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 17:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS so fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 10:51, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This page should not be delete because the page creater want to share the real up to date information of Myanmar Navy.But,his main problem is having a few reliable links and not skillful in page creating.For developing the Wikipedia,the page like this must not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myanmar Navy (talk • contribs) 15:50, 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 redirect to Adaptations of The Chronicles of Narnia#Games. Tone 17:24, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Narnia in video games[edit]

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

LISTCRUFT meets FANCRUFT. Does not meet WP:LISTN or WP:GNG. Considered different merge targets, but didn't find one where I think this would be an improvement. Much of the article is unsourced WP:OR which should not be merged in any case. WP:NOTEVERYTHING needs a list. // Timothy :: talk 17:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 17:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The topic is already covered in greater detail at Adaptations of The Chronicles of Narnia#Games, and neither that article nor section is long enough that a WP:SPLIT is appropriate. This article is also almost completely unsourced, and I question the validity of most of the information included in it (studios that did not exist until the 90's are being credited with developing games from the early 80's, for example). So none of this unsourced material should be preserved or merged anywhere. Rorshacma (talk)
Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be an indiscriminate list of everything. There is not enough sourcing to justify this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:17, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Adaptations of The Chronicles of Narnia#Games: The content here can be safely merged there and the page redirected. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:09, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to Adaptations of The Chronicles of Narnia#Games: not enough substantial information on video games as a whole.Blue Pumpkin Pie ^Chat ^Contribs 23:49, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Adaptations of The Chronicles of Narnia#Games, as Piotrus said. The main issue is that there's no information on the development of the games, I think. There's a lack of reliable sources for them, too, to discuss the path of development, shifting studio involvement, like in Harry Potter in video games. Imaginestigers (talk) 13:00, 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 17:24, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chrysler West Coast Rally[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSOFTWARE. BEFORE showed no SIGCOV that addresses the subject directly or in depth and the sole source does not meet WP:IS // Timothy :: talk 17:11, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 17:11, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unless better references are found (if so, please ping me). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:08, 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 17:24, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Naomi Hunter[edit]

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

Local coverage which doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG, and does not meet WP:NPOL, was discussed briefly on talk page, but one editor insists on re-creating. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:03, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:03, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Leader of a provincial political party in Canada. Notable enough for me. Me-123567-Me (talk) 17:06, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Deletion alerts! at WikiProject Green Politics. Me-123567-Me (talk) 17:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I agree with Onel's assessment regarding notability, the best coverage I was able to find searching online was this local coverage. It's possible that it may be more appropriate to redirect the page to Saskatchewan Green Party, but this is complicated by the existence of a Naomi Hunter in the Metal Gear Solid series. At this point in time, deletion to allow for search results is probably the best option. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:30, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet WP:NPOL. Hunter is the leader of a small provincial political party. LefcentrerightDiscuss 17:38, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While my own personal opinion might be a little more flexible on this, the past several deletion discussions we have had about provincial Green Party leaders has led to deletion. At this current point, fails NPOL. Bkissin (talk) 18:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I haven't searched rigorously for sourcing myself (on mobile, might do it later), but the author of the article has a number of user boxes declaring their support for the party this person is involved with. I do not mean to imply that there is anything rising to a COI, I'm a member of a party myself and don't consider myself to have one, but it's possible that their view on whether the subject's high office within that party offers a route to notability might be somewhat clouded. I'd urge them to ensure that their arguments are well-grounded in specific policies or guidelines and supported by excellent sources, rather than assuring us that it's 'notable enough for them'. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:43, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the article actually sees improvement. Being leader of a minor political party without legislative representation is not an "inherently" notable role per WP:NPOL, so it does not singlehandedly exempt her from having to get over WP:GNG on her sourcing. But all we've got here so far is one primary source that she wrote herself, and the initial same-day blip of "party selects new leader" coverage, with not a single source dated either before or after March 1. No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when there's much more substance that can be written about her, and much more sources that can be brought to bear — but this, as written, is not yet enough. Bearcat (talk) 21:38, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no reason to treat leaders of parties with 0 seats as default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Oppose - Coverage of Hunter does not seem to be overwhelming, but there is some coverage. There was some election coverage concerning her unsuccessful federal run (eg. [9], [10], & [11]. There is also some coverage of her leadership victory one of which is included in the article and others (eg. [12] & [13]). There are only two parties in Saskatchewan that are currently represented in the legislature. Based on the 2016 election results, the third largest party is the Saskatchewan Liberal Party, which received 3.59% of the vote (and no seats). The fourth largest is the Green Party of Saskatchewan, which received 1.83% of the vote (and no seats). While WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments are not determinative of anything, it is worth noting that both the current Liberal leader, Naveed Anwar, and the former leader, Darrin Lamoureux, have their own articles despite failing WP:NPOL. I am not sure whether the Green leader is notable enough for an article, but I would probably err on the side of caution this close to an election (one is required before October 26, 2020). If she is included in election debates, I think that would buttress her claim to notability.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:05, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of an unsuccessful candidacy for political office does not assist in bolstering a person's notability — every candidate in every election everywhere can always show some evidence of campaign coverage, but every candidate in every election everywhere is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. To be encyclopedically notable just for being a candidate, a person has to either (a) pass another notability test completely independently of her candidacy, such that her failure to pass WP:NPOL is irrelevant because of her preexisting notability, or (b) show that her candidacy was so much more special than everybody else's candidacies, in some way that would pass the ten year test for enduring significance, such that she has a credible claim to being a special case of greater notability than most other unelected candidates. Simply being a candidate, however, is not a notability clincher, and neither is being the leader of a minor political party without legislative representation. Bearcat (talk) 00:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of a losing campaign can certainly add to WP:GNG. None of our policies say that we can't consider it, only that it may not on its own amount to notability. You say {tq|Simply being... the leader of a minor political party without legislative representation" is not a notability clincher. Perhaps, not but it is certainly a significant factor. The Greens are not just any other political party. While they do not have "legislative representation" in Saskatchewan they are the official opposition in PEI, are in a supply and confidence agreement with the government in British Columbia and have three elected MPs federally, one MPP in Ontario and two in New Brunswick (or did at dissolution). They also have elected councillors in Vancouver and Burnaby. Liberals Naveed Anwar and Darrin Lamoureux, who I mentioned above, have little notability except as unelected leaders of the Saskatchewan Liberal Party (which hasn't held a seat since 2003). If they are notable it is only because of the historical status of that party, or the Liberal brand federally and in other provinces. The Greens are a party which has been gaining significance federally and in many provinces. Neither you nor I know where they will be in ten years or how Naomi Hunter will be viewed at that time, but this regular "leader of minor political party without legislative representation" shtick is particularly unhelpful.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:15, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the minor political party argument is a bit of a red herring, considering that NPOL doesn't include any provisions for establishing notability on the basis of positions in party leadership. If additional coverage can't be found for Anwar or Lamoureux, those articles should probably be deleted too. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be a naive omission. But sure, if we are going to delete any unelected politician who has led a party (regardless of the significance of that party), let's at least be consistent. I have nominated Darrin Lamoureux and Naveed Anwar. Score one for the deletionists.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:06, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I usually wait until there's a consensus in the first discussion, and until I've completed a proper BEFORE, before actually nominating the articles. My comment was simply intended to state that those articles, as written, do not clearly make a case for meeting notability guidelines. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES. We've been over this many times. State/provincial leaders of minor parties are almost never notable. Bearian (talk) 16:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 17:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Outlaw Platoon[edit]

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

Article about a book, not properly demonstrating enough reliable source coverage to pass WP:NBOOK. Two of the six footnotes here are primary source content from the author's own former employer, and two are Q&A interviews in which he's talking about himself in the first person on a limited circulation local-interest television talk show and a podcast, which means fully two thirds of the footnotes here are not notability-supporting sources. And of the just two acceptable third-party third-person media footnotes, one is a piece of "local guy does stuff" human interest coverage in his own local media market, which is not evidence of nationalized significance. So the only source that's actually starting to get somewhere is a capsule review in Kirkus Reviews, but that isn't enough coverage to singlehandedly get a book over the notability bar if it's the only source that's actually contributing any real notability points. Bearcat (talk) 16:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There's also Publishers Weekly, it reached at least #14 on the NY Times bestseller list, and it's referred to in The Routledge Handbook of Language in Conflict, among other brief mentions in books published by reliable publishers. It's reviewed in some military journals/periodicals, but I'm not sure how independent they are of the military. Tiny review in the Washington Times, which, well, ain't the Post. I always hope to find stuff beyond Kirkus and Publishers Weekly... Caro7200 (talk) 17:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I wrote the page, so of course I think it's notable. But NBOOK says you need two or more reliable sources, and bestseller lists count as a reliable source. So [14], [15], good to go. --Cerebellum (talk) 05:43, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely a spinoff of the AfD for the author. Clearly meets GNG per the above sources and [16] [17] [18] [19]. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 13:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NBOOK. I happen to think it's rather too permissive a guideline, but we have 2+ reviews here so that's a pass. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Enterprise Magazine[edit]

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

More promo related to Pear Media and lacking in any coverage. A dig into sources reveals nothing of value. Praxidicae (talk) 16:29, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:49, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:49, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:29, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:29, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Barely found anything about the magazine. Search results return various magazines bearing part of that name. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 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 delete. Tone 17:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edouard Lapaglie[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Possible redirect as ATD, but unsure to where, perhaps Radio Aire? Boleyn (talk) 16:15, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:39, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:39, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:39, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Barely found anything about the him. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - literally zero independent sources. Bearian (talk) 16:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per Superastig and Bearian. I too couldn’t find in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Celestina007 06:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Passes WP:GNG as highlighted in the discussions (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 16:14, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Permian Basin International Oil Show[edit]

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

This may be a well known biennial event that occurs in the Permian Basin region of Texas, but has been tagged since April 2018 as needing additional citations for verification. And I’m not sure if it were to get some citations for the event and its history it would be worthy enough to prevent deletion and the way it looks now leans towards it being deleted. Pahiy (talk) 00:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 00:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 00:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 00:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pahiy, there's extensive coverage in local newspapers for the current show, and its predecessor held in 1940 and 1941: [20] [21]|[22] Raymie (t • c) 03:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:59, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per additional sources. Zoozaz1 (talk) 04:35, 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 Fairfax, Vermont. Consensus that this topic does not meet WP:N. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 09:13, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bellows Free Academy, Fairfax[edit]

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

Per WP:NSCHOOL this article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. WP:BEFORE revealed only WP:ROUTINE coverage and brief mentions, nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV which addresses the subject directly and in depth and is an WP:IS // Timothy :: talk 07:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 07:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 07:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:15, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 10:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Fairfax, Vermont. Too small and little noted to justify a stand alone article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:58, 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 11:33, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dave McCaig[edit]

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

This article should be deleted. It cites a single source, which is the page of the award he won. This is not WP:SIGCOV. I cannot find anything else about him, and the article's content is almost all unsourced, not allowed under the WP:BLP policy. This should be deleted immediately. I-82-I | TALK 01:37, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. I-82-I | TALK 01:37, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. I-82-I | TALK 01:37, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. I-82-I | TALK 01:37, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep This appears to be an autobiography. The creator, Dmccaig is also the uploader of File:Dave McCaig in his vancouver office.jpg which says in the summary: "self portrait photograph", and left an edit note that says: page creation. compiled by the subject. :) He does appear to meet WP:NARTIST however, since he's won two notable awards: the 2015 Inkpot award and the 2008 Joe Shuster Award for Outstanding Colourist. The problem I have with the article is that there's almost nothing to say about the subject because there appears to be very little SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources, so the article is likely a permastub. Vexations (talk) 12:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Vexations. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Joe Shuster Award is a good start but is it sufficient, in the abense of other coverage? I am afraid he fails WP:NCREATIVE, since there is no indication getting this award is sufficient to make him encyclopedic, if no other sources are cited that discuss the fact he won it. PS. Considering WP:ONEEVENT, best solutioin would be to redirect this to the list of award recipients. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:07, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BIO due to lack of independent WP:RS. Also clearly an attempt to use wikipedia for self-promotion. Almost certainly WP:UPE. A commons category for two images? With a wikidata box? These are not the hallmarks of a user with 18 edits worth of experience. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:59, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:26, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep award winning colourist. Artw (talk) 02:23, 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 speedy delete. Deleted under G5. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 03:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shayea (rapper)[edit]

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

Doesnt appear to meet WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. All sources currently used in the article (examined version) fail WP:INDEPENDENT either because it's the subject's instagram/youtube/facebook/spotify-account, such as that one or because they are otherwise user-generated (such as the imdb page). A google search, even if you use the real name, doesnt bring up something that looks like notability-giving, yust more subject-controled accounts or directory entries. The newspaper search has no results whatoever. (This is my fist NMUSIC nomination. Please don't yell at me if I missed something) Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:20, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:20, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:20, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is straight up vanity spam with 0 actual reliable sources here or in existence anywhere else. Praxidicae (talk) 15:40, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that rap is not allowed in Iran and domestic sites and newspapers do not cover rappers.And the next case, this person had kept his face hidden for years until 2019, when he showed his face by playing his album.--IMani (Talk) :) 15:42, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there just doesn't exist any coverage of him. (While the sources cited here are ones you usually see on vanity pages, the subject does have one relatively popular song on YouTube [23]) – Thjarkur (talk) 15:49, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In my opinion, as the author of the article, it should be deleted.Because it does not have the necessary reputation yet.--IMani (Talk) :) 16:32, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notable associated acts and only 3 albums. No WP:SIGCOV. Batmanthe8th (talk) 05:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete spam, and created by a banned user; I have since tagged it as a G5. --◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 02:49, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:SNOW. Actually, already deleted. Bearian (talk) 16:50, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

St. Paul's Presbyterian Church (Leaskdale)[edit]

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

Church that fails WP:NBUILD (I don't think WP:NORG is relevant for this local church, but perhaps it is?). The Commons category suggests that it's a listed building, but it's not. Rather, it is very close to a listed building. The listed building is Leaskdale Manse (listing: [24]) and I don't think there's content here to merge into that article. It would be good to get consensus on this in some way or another in any event, since it's been sitting in CAT:NN since 2009. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:41, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:41, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:41, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:45, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 15:38, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, in fact pretty obviously. As for other church articles, the article should be understood to cover the Presbyterian church congregation, founded in 1860s, any original church building(s), the former church building which is historic and survives and is included in a local museum site, and the modern, current building. The article is separate from the manse building. It seems to me that having two articles here is right: one focused on just the manse building where Lucy Maud Montgomery lived and wrote, and another focused on the church and/or the larger museum site which includes the former manse and the former church building. The former church building is notable as "the church where Lucy Maud Montgomery's husband, the Reverend Ewan Macdonald, served as pastor from 1911-1926." This is enough to establish significance. There are sources about this, and some about the later, current church building and current congregation, and there are sources about the original founding of the church and so on. Perhaps three or even four articles could be justified, but I prefer just one focused on the manse which is the Canadian historic site, and one combining coverage on the church buildings and church as an organization and completing out coverage of the museum site (former church building, former manse, perhaps more). --Doncram (talk) 01:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious -- It looks a rather ordinary local church to me. I assume that a history dating back to the 1860s is not that unusual in Ontario. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:19, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to relation to historic building (Doncram's arguement)--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:42, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Epiphyllumlover and Doncram: As far as I can tell the only argument for notability of this building thus far provided is that it is "the church where Lucy Maud Montgomery's husband, the Reverend Ewan Macdonald, served as pastor from 1911-1926". If the government of Canada had wanted to list this building along with Leaskdale Manse, it surely could have. Similarly, it could have defined the historic site to include this church, which AFAICS it did not. So frankly I'm at a loss as to how this building, which is two degrees of remove away from Lucy Maude Montgomery herself, is notable by virtue of that tenuous association. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See Google News' it seems this church meets GNG.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:57, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Epiphyllumlover. I disagree that these sources establish GNG, but I can see how one would think differently. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 22:02, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quebec 5Km Road Race Championships[edit]

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

Article about a local/regional running competition, referenced entirely to directly affiliated organizations' self-published primary sources rather than any evidence of notability-building third party reliable source coverage about it in media. Something like this isn't "inherently" notable just because it exists, and isn't an event that can confer permanent encyclopedic notability on its winners under WP:ATHLETE -- so it isn't automatically entitled to have an article if it can't be sourced over WP:GNG on real media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 14:48, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:48, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:48, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:12, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bub Styles[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a musician, not reliably sourcing any serious claim to passing WP:NMUSIC -- the only notability claim even being attempted here is that he and his music exist, and all of it is referenced entirely to his own music's streaming pages on Spotify or SoundCloud. As always, however, musicians are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their music technically metaverifies its own existence -- the notability test requires distinctions, such as awards or charting hits, and it requires journalists to pay independent attention to his accomplishments in media. So no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when he has a stronger notability claim and better sourcing for it, but he's not already entitled to have an article now just because Spotify proves that his songs exist. Bearcat (talk) 14:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bearcat, and I did not found anything reliable about him. All I found were the usual social media pages, streaming service entries, blogs, press releases and lyrics sites. Oh, and I found some interviews too but I don't think they are enough to prove notability. WP:TOOSOON Btw, I have asked this before and I ask it now: When will people get used to the fact that just because they have a SoundCloud/Spotify/Facebook/Pinterest/Amazon/Youtube/Twitter etc. page, does not qualify them for a Wikipedia article? Wikipedia is meant to be built on reliable sources, not trash like these. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One major problem is that anyone can create a Wikipedia article even when they know nothing about our notability policies, such as an unknown musician or his one fan who see Wikipedia as just another promotional service like Bandcamp etc. This process here is the solution... eventually. ––DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:57, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doomsdayer520: Yes, I know, but it is horrible. Too bad we can't stop this. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 06:37, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A probable promotion attempt for musician who has not progressed beyond uploading his own stuff to streaming services like anyone else could. He has not yet been noticed by anyone in the reliable media. ––DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable rapper. Also per the well reasoned argument of the nominator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:20, 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 14:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kalabham[edit]

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

Non notable film, nothing found in a WP:BEFORE search to help it pass WP:NFILM. Only things found were film database sites and videos. Tagged for notability for 8 years. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:30, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:30, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:30, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to concerns around WP:NFILM and WP:GNG and nothing of value worth keeping here Spiderone 14:15, 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. Tone 14:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bartolomeo Campomenoso[edit]

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

Can't find enough coverage to show how this merchant/priest passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:29, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:29, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:29, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This was next on my list to nominate. The creator of the article appears to be the author of the two academia.edu sources cited. Mccapra (talk) 16:20, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article does not seem notable. --- FULBERT (talk) 13:51, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sources discuss subject directly and in depth. // Timothy :: talk 19:51, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The author appears to be an academic, citing his own published academic work. This is potentially WP:RS. One of the works appears to translate as the Italian Colony in Antwerp. This person looks very much like a failed merchant, so that I doubt he is notable, though I regard sourcing as adequate. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - difficult to source since he's long dead and appears in no major secondary sources. Bearian (talk) 16:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dishant Mayurbhai Pancholi[edit]

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

Assistant prof, previously PRODed. Deprodded as "WP:ANYBIO #1?", but based on http://ssbprize.gov.in/Content/prizes.aspx I'm not convinced it's a "well-known and significant award or honor", ~~sounds more like a relatively early career prize,~~ with not a very high monetary value. Announcement of the award is covered in a few places. As an academic, I found [25], which may be incomplete, but I don't see enough to warrant a pass of WP:NPROF. Kj cheetham (talk) 13:26, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 13:26, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 13:26, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 13:26, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete' does not follow the general guidelines for academicsAuthor Sanju (talk) 01:39, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The subject seems to have received the Bhatnagar prize for the paper Almost contact 5-manifolds are contact, which was published in the Annals of Mathematics in 2015. Although the Bhatnagar prize is awarded to people under 45, it doesn't appear to be at all an early career prize. (After all, the prestigious Fields medal is also restricted to under 40.) So this tends to suggest that WP:NPROF C2 is met. I'd normally expect to see a few more citations, even in a low citation field like mathematics (or otherwise a bit more evidence towards NPROF C1). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:04, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Good point, I'll strike the early career comment. -Kj cheetham (talk) 07:54, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Originally I thought it was a one-off Rs 5,00,000 prize (under $7000), based on the official website. The Bhatnagar prize artcle says "In addition, recipients also receive Rs. 15,000 per month up to the age of 65 years", which is more impressive. Also mentioned at [26], and saying "They receive an award from the Prime Minister", which makes me think this article does have more merit... -Kj cheetham (talk) 07:55, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. WP:NPROF C2 is supposed to be a proxy for WP:NPROF C1, and there should be some other indications of progress towards that. Apart from the prize, it looks like a pure case of WP:TOOSOON. Since the recognition is only for the single paper, I'm very weakly arguing delete per WP:BLP1E, with shades of WP:TOOSOON. Since the article is a fairly minimal stub, we're not losing much by deleting and recreating in 5 years or so, assuming the subject's career continues to progress. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:42, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TaBJ[edit]

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

Unsourced non-notable software. A search for TaBJ gives several results, however none of them are about the software. Praxidicae (talk) 13:18, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Un-sourced article must be deleted immediately. INDIAN DUGS (talk) 07:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear WP:PROMO article written by the software’s developer...or a WP:HOAX. Either way, no sourcing exist to confirm the existence of this software. KidAd talk 07:19, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 10:42, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 03:10, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Al-Husary[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable businessperson--references given are primary sources/mention him only in passing/in context of the business he started. Starting a business in and of itself is not notable, though, and the business appears to similarly have extremely minimal coverage in secondary sources. His association with other business entities does not in and of itself make him separately notable. All in all, nothing about his career rises to the threshold of WP:NBIO. The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 14:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 14:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 14:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Found few coverage on reliable resources such as Arabian Business, AsiaTimes, WAM.ae, Sports360 and MEBAA. His honor-ship in UAS International Trip Support organization and membership in some notable organizations such as International Aviation Services Organization, Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum Foundation, Young Presidents' Organization could be a notable factor too. Priyanjali singh (talk) 06:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As Stated by Norm, the sources provided and accessible are but only passing mentions of the subject. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Lapablo (talk) 09:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mohammed Al Husary is a notable businessman, founder of UAS International Trip Support, a notable organization and having positions in many reputable organizations such as International Aviation Services Organization, Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum Foundation, Corporate Sports, Young Presidents' Organization and many others. I have also added more information about the subject with reliable references.ULTan2 (talk) 07:06, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:12, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:27, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG and WP:TNT. It's entirely unclear what he's done that has been notable, or even what he does. Bearian (talk) 16:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks like a notable businessman and CEO from the region.INDIAN DUGS (talk) 07:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG as a likely WP:PROMO piece. KidAd talk 07:16, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:39, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome A. Prince[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:BLP1E. This individual is not known for anything other than being elected mayor of a small city. Gary isn't a major city any more, and hasn't been for over 20 years. John from Idegon (talk) 15:06, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:47, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:47, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Chicago Tribune and AP News pieces are enough to satisfy WP:GNG. WP:BLP1E is a nonsensical policy to invoke here; how many U.S. senators or congresspeople are notable for anything other than being elected to the House/Senate? It is the notability of the office in question here. KidAd talk 15:52, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Congresspeople do notable things in the House or Senate, such as passing national laws. The simple fact of being elected is not, in and of itself, the sum total of their notability. Bearcat (talk) 21:35, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, KidAd, that's it exactly. Gary has a population of ~80,000, and isn't even the major city in its county any more. John from Idegon (talk) 16:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Gary probably hasn't been a "major city" in closer to 35 years...but for many, in the Midwest particularly, it looms large in the historical, sociological, and cultural memory. I think the bigger issue is that Prince hasn't had enough time to really accomplish much... Rereading NPOL and Common Outcomes, I think he passes. Caro7200 (talk) 20:05, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a city overshadowed by other cities around it, Chicago Tribune coverage is not enough because Gary is in its circulation area. There is just not the sourcing to show Prince is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:48, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I find the policy that states reliable sources are negated based on their location? This is not a local blog. It is the Chicago Tribune. KidAd talk 20:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Every mayor of everywhere is always simply expected to have some coverage in his own local media market, but not every mayor of everywhere is automatically accepted as notable, so a mayor has to show a lot more than just a small smattering of local coverage to clear the notability bar: nationalizing coverage, the ability to write a really substantial article about his political impact rather than just documenting the fact that he exists, and on and so forth. Bearcat (talk) 21:23, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Page needs further improvement in content by other editors. Suggest to keep. CanadaMaple123 (talk) 06:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: My sense is like above, Prince has not had enough time to achieve anything. Saying Gary, Indiana is a small town with no relevance would put you in the sights of railfans. It is an important town from that point of view. --Whiteguru (talk) 12:59, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of mayors of Gary, Indiana. I don't see that he's achieved anything notable yet and to establish WP:NPOL, we expect both coverage outside of the region and outside of the election that indicates they are notable, coverage that I don't see. While Gary, Indiana was a prominent town, and may still be to railfans, the fact of the matter is that it isn't large enough to lend de facto notability to its present mayor (mayors in the past-- probably it does). Several of the !keep voters hit the nail on the head in saying that "Prince has not had enough time to achieve anything"-- he hasn't done enough to be notable yet. A redirect will allow ease of recreation if and perhaps when he does become notable. The AP article is good coverage, but I'd expect more in the same vein. Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:53, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Several of the comments above are exceptionally lacking in any policy-based logic. Ignoring them, there's not enough left to base a consensus on, so relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:11, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - mayor of a fairly large, notable city. Bearian (talk) 16:58, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable politician from Indiana. Passes WP:GNG. INDIAN DUGS (talk) 07:10, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shelly Jamison[edit]

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

BLP1E. Basically, appeared in playboy, quit her job as a result & got a very short presenting gig as a result of the notoriety That's it. Its far too little information to base an article on and is a classic 1E Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First of all, it was certainly two reported events at the time of the nomination; appearing in Playboy and then the sideline reporter job for Rollergames. WP:BLP1E is not a valid excuse. I have added and sourced additional information about her later career as the first female Assistant Fire Chief in the fifth largest city in America. Trackinfo (talk) 07:19, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First female assistant fire chief in the fifth largest city in the USA seems a stretch for notability though significant achievement, especially when the department has a female chief. Aside from that, this is a truly deceptive contribution with blatant refspamming in the article. Basically the sources about the subject are either non-independant or not reliable or both. The reliable sources are about the chief and any mention of the subject is a quote as an official spokesperson which adds nothing to notability. So basically, everything verifiable about her fire career is a primary source. Very poor. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:58, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination could be regarded as a response to not reading the article in detail. Now you are being disingenuous in order to win a deletion. The Arizona Republic and KPNX are major news media in Phoenix, otherwise known as WP:RS. Note: KPNX was not the TV station she worked for early in her career and in that article she was acting as a fire department spokesperson. The City of Phoenix's own website and the Fire Department's website are not anything the subject controls. Plus she was (sourced) on the cover of Playboy, controversy reported by the Chicago Sun Times, Phoenix New Times and USA Today AND she was a lead personality on a nationally distributed television program as reported in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. So what exactly is non-reliable or primary? Trackinfo (talk) 15:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a very clear violation of our one event rules.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 18:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The information added about her being purportedly an assistant fire chief was incorrect and has been removed. No opinion about this nomination, I see two good sources counting towards GNG in the footnotes so it is a close call. Carrite (talk) 02:47, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think this lady has had a strong journey from Playboy appearance to Deputy Fire Chief and instructor in Emergency Management. More than one event notability. --Whiteguru (talk) 12:48, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Calling this NC at this point would be easy, but given the WP:BLP concerns, I think it's worth another week for a closer analysis of the sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:07, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks like enough works to justify notability.INDIAN DUGS (talk) 07:08, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:39, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Caledonian Crescent[edit]

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

Fails WP:N Angryskies (talk) 12:59, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:26, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:32, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable; does not warrant its own article. (Was going to say merge into the Auchterarder article, but I can see it already exists there.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:13, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable enough to justify an article - coverage at Auchterarder article is more than sufficient. Dunarc (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. fails GNG.INDIAN DUGS (talk) 07:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:39, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

West Hills Mall[edit]

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Subject does not have coverage that meets significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. WP:BEFORE revealed advertising, WP:ROUTINE coverage of events and directory style listings. // Timothy :: talk 02:57, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 02:57, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 02:57, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Salvio

10:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Around 300,000 sqft, 40 stores, claimed to be the biggest mall in Ghana. Coverage here [27] and [28] calls it a "megamall". MB 00:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm sure you can find lots of routine run of the mill coverage and announcements. These do not establish notability. // Timothy :: talk 02:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for closer: since there is an RfC currently under discussion at AfD about what is considered proper sourcing for determining mall notabiity, it may be worth holding these open until that is finished. If a close is made, it would be very helpful for the RfC if you could explain how you evaluated the sources in terms of notability, routine, run of the mill coverage, and how you feel voting and !voting influenced this AfD. Thank you, // Timothy :: talk 09:13, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 12:41, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a major mall for the region and it's easy to find detailed sources such as this. Applicable policies include: WP:ATD; WP:NEXIST; WP:NOTPAPER; WP:PRESERVE. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a location article. must not be removed from wikipedia. A known mall in the region.INDIAN DUGS (talk) 07:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:39, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of rumored video games[edit]

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

We already have lists of the cancelled and unreleased games. This goes beyond that into pure rumor, violating WP:NOTRUMOR. Also goes into WP:INDISCRIMINATE as just because anyone in their basement made up a hoax video game doesn't mean it's notable enough for Wikipedia. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Obviously WP:NOTRUMOR. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 12:50, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"WP:NOTRUMOR" is inappropriate because the article does not list unverifiable information as it stands in "WP:NOTRUMOR". The article does not say that these games exist or not, this would be "WP:NOTRUMOR" because this is not verifiable, it only says that there are rumors about the existence of these games which is verifiable (see sources). "WP:INDISCRIMINATE" is very subjective in this context. I personally think that a list of rumored video games can be interesting for many people and can have added value, for example if someone wants to gather more information about these games to find out more about their possible existence.--User:Maxeto0910 14:53, 8 September 2020

The rumors may have been written about on some website, but by definition, a rumor cannot be truly verifiable. Otherwise, it would be confirmed and not a rumor._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is about a rumor, we're not concerned with whether it's true, only whether that rumor has been noted. postdlf (talk) 22:20, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, but this doesn't violate "WP:NOTRUMOR". The same applies for articles like List of conspiracy theories.--User:Maxeto0910 15:07, 8 September 2020
Delete It would be one thing to try to confirm something through rumors, and another to verify that it was a notable rumor/speculation. I believe rumors can be covered if it was more than just a rumor and the rumor itself has to be notable on its own. With that said, i don't believe it is a good idea to have a list of rumored video games. There are no well-known reliable sources used at all to verify these rumors, and the list is far too small to be considered a valid topic. So i recommend delete.Blue Pumpkin Pie ^Chat ^Contribs 15:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Based entirely on rumours, and is very fancrufty if you ask me. Foxnpichu (talk) 16:11, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This list has no real basis. There may be a broader op for a list like "Urban rumors related to video games" among which Polybius would be one, and something like the volume of games buried at the Atari video game burial could be another, but I don't know if there are much more to support that. --Masem (t) 17:15, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - None of these supposed games are notable, save for Polybius which is already covered extensively in its own article. None of the sources being used to discuss these are from reliable sources, save maybe the German source on Mr. Mix, which, upon translation, flat out says that the story on the game is fake. Rorshacma (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I cannot find the list of unreleased video games mentioned by the OP, nor a list of cancelled video games? The current title is problematic, but we should compare the lists to see what could be merged, etc. And if the targets are not given, well, then the argument that this is a POVFORK or such is not easy to verify. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Video games by development status, which includes a heavily populated Category:Cancelled video games. postdlf (talk) 12:41, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, but there is the argument that list can supplement a category. In this case, since there are sources, it seems feasible to have a list of such games. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:04, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: I'm against the idea of trying to spin this list into unreleased/cancelled video games. The big difference is that those lists would have to verify and confirm the video game was in the making, and that is not tangent to a list of video games that were notable for being speculation.Blue Pumpkin Pie ^Chat ^Contribs 15:47, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question The article is presenting "famous" video games from the 1980s and 90s etc.. that were rumored to exist but never released. As such, their notability is entirely in their lack of existence. They might even be called fictional games, or games that are famous/notable for never being released. Is this a correct understanding of the cultural phenomenon? Sort of like cryptozoology and List of cryptids. -- GreenC 14:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenC: to be famous they had to be verified by strong reliable sources. which there are no reliable sources or impact that is verified. its a list of some rumors that were verified once from questionable sources. Polybius is the one and only game that is verified to being famous. Let's also not forget that the list is very short.Blue Pumpkin Pie ^Chat ^Contribs 16:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lengthy article about the phenomenon of unreleased computer products, including games:

George Kopp (December 12, 1983). "Now You See It.. Now You Don't". Electronic Fun with Computers & Games. 2 (2): 38-41 and 100-101 – via Internet Archive.

This is an old source. It demonstrates the topic of the list has been discussed for a while and can be sourced at the topic-level vs. individual games. -- GreenC 03:27, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenC:The topic in the source provided isn't really talking about "rumored" video games, it's talking about confirmed and unreleased video games. The list in question is talking about a list of video games that were speculated to be in the works but had no official confirmation. I do think this list could exist but the evidence currently provided isn't good enough.Blue Pumpkin Pie ^Chat ^Contribs 15:47, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see. We have List_of_vaporware#Video_games but this article takes it to a different level of a mere rumor of a game being in existence. Difficult for Wikipedia reliable source purposes. -- GreenC 14:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:HAMMER. Lots of games and videos and LPs are rumored. Bearian (talk) 16:57, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTRUMOR with lack of reliable sources discussing each entry in-depth. The descriptions are basically speculation and OR based on just single mostly-questionably sources. There ought to be significant sourcing for each item to even include the mentions, otherwise it's just routine rumor-mongering. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:28, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:39, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jugni Yaaran Di[edit]

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

The film fails WP:NFILM. I have found no reliable sources that would cover the film in depth. Less Unless (talk) 12:17, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 12:17, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 12:17, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 00:29, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to concerns around WP:NFILM and WP:GNG Spiderone 14:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Rogermx (talk) 21:40, 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 delete. Tone 14:39, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian Engineering Agencies[edit]

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

Thinly sourced article on a company that appears to fail WP:NCORP. I expected to find more sources in arwiki but they are exactly the same as the ones in the English article, and I don't think they're sufficient to establish notability. WP:BEFORE turned up a few namedrops in reference works, but nothing significant. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 06:04, 1 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 11:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:04, 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 delete. Stifle (talk) 11:35, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Moore (photographer)[edit]

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

BLP with no external references. Rathfelder (talk) 22:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 22:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 23:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 23:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't understand the nomination. Has it been made in error? There are two "external references". --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Both of the references are to his own work - his book and his website. Rathfelder (talk) 16:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Comment - of the three collections listed, only the first is verifiable - the National Library of Wales which holds some of his postcards. That is not the same as a museum collection, so it is doubtful that contributes to notability. I'm leaning towards delete, but will continue to look for the time being. Netherzone (talk) 18:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC) I also found one review and added it to the article, but could find nothing else other than a couple press releases and sites selling his books. Does not pass WP:ARTIST nor WP:GNG criteria for notability. Netherzone (talk) 18:13, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. He was described in the Wales Arts Review as "arguably Wales' finest nature photographer" ([29]) and exhibited at the Aberystwyth Arts Centre ([30]). The exhibition book from the AAC exhibition was then subsequently reviewed ([31]). I'd like at least one more good source before switching to a regular-old keep, but these are promising. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:15, 7 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 11:35, 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 keep. There is consensus that there is an encyclopedic topic that meets our criteria to cover here. There is also consensus that it needs to be reformed (limiting it to first cousins being the most popular suggestion) however that is beyond the scope of AfD and may be done as normal article improvement/discussion. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:30, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of coupled cousins[edit]

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

An enormous amount of people in history have married their cousins, its not worth listing people after. This list doesn't even stick to first cousins, when we go to stuff like fourth and fifth cousins it could likely include about half of humanity before the modern travel. ★Trekker (talk) 01:31, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ★Trekker (talk) 01:31, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - whole swaths of it are unreferenced WP:SYNTH (and close to half of the references aren't sources, just set-off further explanations). WP:NOTEVERYTHING and in particular WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Even in the cases where it is documented, it is like having 'List of people with blood type O+' - a list based on a characteristic that in most human cultures over time has been entirely non-noteworthy. Agricolae (talk) 02:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP but reform. A list of coupled cousins is of sociological and psychological interest. People, after all, become involved with persons they know, and it may be of interest why a fair number of notable persons have preferred involvement with a more or less close relative. For many cases involving royalty and aristocracy, where a principal consideration may be merely the consolidation of political power, I would set up a separate list of "coupled royal and aristocrat cousins", with provision for discussion of appropriate notability criteria for inclusion. And, of course, all retained couples, whether commoner or aristocrat, should be documented with reliable sources. Nihil novi (talk) 03:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Its not notable as a list, its just a collection of geneology cruft. A list like this completly fails to cover anything noteworthy at all about the history of the subject. Cousin marriage is alredy a far better overview of this as are Cousin marriage in the Middle East and Cousin marriage law in the United States.★Trekker (talk) 12:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Nihil that some sort of list would be appropriate (but not this one). First I would restrict it to first cousins and to formal relationships (marriage, civil union/partnership). I live in a country where cousin marriage is no big deal but I see the US has got itself into a considerable tangle: Cousin marriage#United States and Cousin marriage law in the United States so the matter is certainly noteworthy. The thought of same-sex marriages crosses my mind but I'll let that pass. So, we should keep the article and let the talk page be used to sort out scope and, probably, article title. Thincat (talk) 09:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how a list is helpful. The topic of cousin marriage can be far better covered in actual prose articles.★Trekker (talk) 12:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  I'm sorry you don't find it helpful – I would find it more helpful if it were pruned but kept in list form. But there we are. Thincat (talk) 12:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - - I just can't see how a list like this would teach people about the controversy over cousin marriage better than a prose article would. Like I said below, thousands upon thousands of people would be on this list even if only kept to first cousins, and it was not a noteworthy part of 99% of these peoples lives, so why list them after that aspect?★Trekker (talk) 12:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a bit of an odd one, but I agree with the above two editors, may be this could be changed to first cousins, which is more notable. First cousing marriage is a big deal in some countries, and not looked well upon. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- First cousin marriage is a big deal in some places yes, I don't see how a list of random people trought history depicts that well. It would be better to create Cousin marriage in ____ to cover that instead. Even if only a list of first cousins it would become unmanageably long.★Trekker (talk) 12:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily "unmanageably long", if it is kept to notable persons. The article's "Notable people" section, containing some very notable and interesting persons, even after all these years is of modest length. Nihil novi (talk) 15:33, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it would only be kept to notable people. It will still be unmanageably long. The only reason its "modest" as of now is that's it's laughably incomplete. In a lot of human history marrying your first cousin was not noteworty and most of these people never had it commented on during their lifetime, it's not good to list people after something which was not a defining part of their notability.★Trekker (talk) 16:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Looking up "List of people..." and "List of persons..." on Wikipedia yields dozens of lists, many of which seem of less moment than our "List of coupled cousins". Nihil novi (talk) 14:46, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an incredibly poor idea when dealing with AFDs.★Trekker (talk) 15:07, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NLIST Creating other lists as suggested by Treker is also a good idea. If this list focusses on notable persons, the list is worth keeping. Wm335td (talk) 16:54, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not suggest creating other lists, I want prose articles. Also, just because a list lists notable people it doesn't mean its ok, famous people get listed after dumb little details of their lives all the time, List of Chevrolet Corvette owners was a thing that once existed.★Trekker (talk) 17:22, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete Yeah, having a lists of owners of a particular car model was a bad idea too, whose time has now gone. The message of this long list is that this degree of consanguinity was either unremarkable or was a weak enough taboo to be easily defied, or was even expected practice among certain elites. All this says, "not notable." Mangoe (talk) 19:29, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete considering that we are including third cousins this is just absurd. If it was limited to actual first counsins it might almost be worth noting, but even a very avid tracer of family history like myself has no clue who their third cousins are.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (renamed) but heavily purge. Cousin marriage is not all that unusual, though slightly frowned upon. This list should be limited to First cousin marriages. Indeed in parts of south Asia cousin marriage may even be the norm, aimed at preventing the fragmentation of family property. The Catholic church formerly sought to prevent consanguinity within the fourth degree, meaning that royalty frequently had to ask for a dispensation to marry. This should not however be used as the basis for a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:34, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I still don't see why a list is helpful. Since it is the norm in some places listing those people is just pointless, and if it is taboo then an article with prose is better to cover the subject.★Trekker (talk) 15:55, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wonder whether, by that reasoning, it is necessary to record winning sports teams, since it is obvious that someone generally wins, and who cares which those teams are? Nihil novi (talk) 00:21, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's a laughable comparison. Marrying is something the vast majority of adult human beings in history were expected do, only a small minority of all people have ever been part of a professional sport. And again, OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't help this page.★Trekker (talk) 03:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's not merely the infinitesimal minority that play sports professionally who are interested in who wins – but the millions who watch them play. Nihil novi (talk) 06:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Not sure how you think that helps your case here but ok. If anything it makes your case weaker, I doubt a list of people who married their cousins is remotly as interesting to even a fraction of a milion people as sports is to millions.★Trekker (talk) 13:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough to get coverage for this, as well as notable enough to have a Wikipedia article for other things, makes it a perfectly valid list article. Dream Focus 20:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:12, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but ONLY close relations, maybe just first cousins. "Alphonso Taft and his fourth cousin twice removed" is ridiculous. Also remove "romantically coupled". Clarityfiend (talk) 22:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just an observation, but I think there is a general leaning to keep, as long as the page is restricted to first cousins, otherwise the pages's covereage is sort of infintite and not very meaningful. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:29, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have reviewed the last 4 years' activity on List of coupled cousins since 10 September 2016. I found that virtually all the activity during that period was in the "Royalty in Europe" section. This confirms two of my impressions: that the "Notable people" section has not become excessively long and shows little prospect of becoming so; and that the article would definitely become more manageable – and, I believe, more interesting – as a whole If the massive "royalty" and "aristocracy" sections were spun off as their own articles. Nihil novi (talk) 07:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP but reform - I don't feel strongly either way, but I definitely do not have an argument for keeping the article the way it is. If the article is to be kept, I fully support posting some strict inclusion criteria, such as only including marriages between first cousins (as Thincat suggested) and that a listing must have a citation. I think it would then be appropriate to retitle as First cousin marriages as Peterkingiron suggested. Those all seem like reasonable criteria, which would call for purging parts of this list that make it too long. If keeping this list, I would support moving the royalty and aristocracy lists into (a) separate list(s) (as Nihil novi suggested) referenced in this one. Having said all that, I'm not a strong opponent to deleting this article either, given the limited appeal to basic curiosity and historic interest it offers. -Dugan Murphy (talk) 15:28, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DELREASON#14: Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia. WP:Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Wikipedia is WP:NOTGENEALOGY. I agree with the nominator that this is not notable or helpful as a list. This is pure WP:LISTCRUFT. The leap from cousin marriage being a notable topic which is appropriate for an article to List of coupled cousins (which includes multiple instances of "sixth cousins once removed", one instance of "eighth cousin thrice removed", and one instance of "tenth cousin once removed") being appropriate is kind of like saying that because climate of London is a valid article, so is list of rainy days in London. Some people above have argued that it should be kept but changed to such an extent that it would basically be unrecognizable compared to its current form. To that I say that even if consensus determines that we should have some kind of heavily modified version of this list, WP:TNT applies and it should still be deleted. TompaDompa (talk) 16:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Articles are expected to be imperfect, and AfD is not cleanup. Nihil novi (talk) 08:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: It appears that the greatest exception is taken to this list article's "royalty" and "aristocracy" sections. Therefore, improvements being allowed during "article for deletion" discussions, I propose within the next few days to improve this article by deleting those objectionable sections. Should any among the largely (at least, within the last 4 years) nameless, numbered editors who have worked on them wish to set those sections up as a separate article or articles, they are, so far as I am concerned, welcome to do so.

Nihil novi (talk) 11:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Reform make it a list of a notable, royal and aristocratic individuals who married their first, or maybe even second, cousins. List individuals who married their "fourth cousin twice removed" or "sixth cousin" seems absurd. --Richiepip (talk) 18:13, 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 delete. The content may be made available in userspace by request at WP:REFUND if this is needed by someone desirous of using it. Stifle (talk) 11:42, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Religious conversions in Pakistan[edit]

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

This page should be deleted as an attack page. The page seems to exist primarily to disparage Islam in Pakistan, and contains material that is entirely negative in tone. It is superficially well-sourced; but much of the material appears to have been selectively harvested from other Wikipedia pages - this is shown by reference names (ref name=), access dates, and that some of the URLs are dead. If the creator had looked at the URLs he/she would have seen that they were dead and either not used them, or used a web archive to find the contents.

The real subject of this article is forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan. Other articles already cover this topic from a neutral point of view (e.g Religious Minorities in Pakistan and Hinduism in Pakistan).

The logs show that pages called Forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan were deleted on 28 November 2019 and 5 June 2020. The logs show that a page called Religious conversions in Pakistan was started in February 2020, but later changed to a redirect and deleted on 5 June 2020. -- Toddy1 (talk) 13:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article should not be speedy deleted as an attack or a negative unsourced biography of a living person, because... (all the contents are well sourced and every Pakistan related article seems like an attack piece simply because those articles are based on actual facts - this is just another similar article. We need a unique article for Religious conversions in Pakistan as conversions are unique in Pakistan and matter related to conversions cannot be a part of another article.)

An admin, PhilKnight has already declined to speedy delete the article here.—Dr2Rao (talk) 13:38, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Z1720 (talk) 14:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Z1720 (talk) 14:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I have put up anything without citing a reference please let me know. However, every Pakistan related article seems like an attack piece simply because those articles are based on actual facts - this is just another similar article.—Dr2Rao (talk) 14:23, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have added what could be a response for each sentence as well. Whatever happened to Rinkle Kumari finally, whatever happened to the 15 year old kidnapped in January this year in the court, the failed Bill to outlaw conversions etc. - all have been added with citations.—Dr2Rao (talk) 14:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the articles mentioned by Toddy1, Religious Minorities in Pakistan and Hinduism in Pakistan which he claims are "neutral point of view" and they also mention the attacks on minorities, so this article should also be considered to be "neutral point of view".—Dr2Rao (talk) 15:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Religion in Pakistan, until such a time as someone can write an article that isn't filled with OR, and can demonstrate that it has been treated as a topic in reliable sources. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to what Vanamonde93? All the sentences of that article have references cited so why do you call it OR? I will try to change it if you tell me how.—Dr2Rao (talk) 01:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr2Rao: The point you keep missing is that it isn't sufficient for content to have a citation; the citation must clearly support all of the content it is used for. That is not the case with respect to many citations here, and it has frequently not been the case with content you have added. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I copied sentences along with the cited references from other articles and it is possible that those sentences were not formed as they should have been. I will correct the sentences to match the citations but please don't delete the article.—Dr2Rao (talk) 04:50, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that you can also point out some sentences that need correction on the talk page of the article.—Dr2Rao (talk) 05:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry, I have no time to check every sentence of an article that was deleted because of how bad it was. This needs to be started from scratch if it's to exist at all. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article clearly passes WP:N and WP:V. As for the nominator's rationale that it should be part of two already existing articles, conversions and minorities are not the same. However, I do feel that Forced Conversions ... would be a more suitable title, but that can be handled at a later stage. As for neutrality, NPOV related issues can be fixed, they don't warrant a deletion discussion. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 23:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Rsrikanth05 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]

I did not see this link till Toddy1 posted it here. I don't check where all I've been pinged everyday. I only check my own talk page. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:51, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain how it meets WP:GNG? The sources in the article talk about individual events of conversion and not an actual topic of "religious conversion in Pakistan". I don't see any scholarly sources that give the purported topic significant coverage.VR _talk 05:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vice regent, so can you justify this article on New York Times? It talks about dozens of Hindus getting converted - hence a forceful conversion. Then there is this scholarly article which you demanded by the Modern Diplomacy and few others like this and this. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 06:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - as per my my reply to VR here. I do incline towards calling this as "Forceful Conversions" - because that's what most of the references I have cited says. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 06:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - move should be initiated to Forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan post this discussion closure. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 07:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are already many sources cited in the article which makes the article notable. About concerns about it being an "attack page", there already exist a page named Ghar Wapsi which focuses on religious conversion from other religion to Hinduism in India which mostly just cites "individual events of conversion". If someone (including nominator) thinks this article is biased, they can always add constructive viewpoints. Manasbose (talk) 07:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Manasbose (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]

Comment - @Sandstein: The page named Forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan is deleted, but the discussion page says "The result was keep". What happened here? Manasbose (talk) 07:28, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Manasbose, the log says: "22:42, 5 June 2020 Bishonen deleted page Forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan (G10: Attack page (TW))". So you'd need to ask Bishonen. Sandstein 07:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll explain. Forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan was speedy deleted per G5 (creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban) by Maile66 on 28 November 2019, then recreated on 27 January 2020 by Lebronplz (a sock), then in February 2020 taken to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan, where it was kept. Then I speedy deleted it as an attack page on 5 June 2020. Complicated, I know. I had missed the existence of the AfD. Nevertheless, my speedy deletion was upheld at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 June 9. Bishonen | tålk 08:52, 2 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Delete and focus on Draft:Forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan This page (just like the version deleted as attack page earlier) involves violation of NPOV, WP:OR and misrepresents sources. There is consensus to create a Forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan per DRV held here and the draft is already ready at Draft:Forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan. But this article is misleading and violates WP:COPYVIO as well since it failed to give any credit to my draft from where it copied lots of content. Tessaracter (talk) 15:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Consensus to create a Forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan per DRV held here"? I'm surprised you think so, Tessaracter. The DRV was well attended, with 16 users commenting. Three of them suggested the article be recreated: 1) "a reasonable article could be written about this topic, but the one that was deleted wasn't it", 2) "Feel free to recreate", and 3) "Recreate with different content, per WP:TNT... the subject still deserves an article, just a new one, written better with better sources". The other thirteen people offered no kind of recommendation to recreate the article, or agreement with the idea. What kind of consensus is that? Bishonen | tålk 17:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I merely highlighted Sandstein's closure of the DRV: "Speedy deletion endorsed, but recreation permitted. Consensus is that the speedy deletion was correct on account of various severe content and socking problems, but that as per the AfD, a neutral article written by editors in good standing could be had under this title. I am therefore changing the page protection from full to semi to allow such editing to take place (e.g. based on the draft that is now available)".[ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2020_June_9&diff=963016125&oldid=963014916] Deletion was endorsed but recreation was also allowed per consensus on DRV. Tessaracter (talk) 20:13, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator.ytpks896 (talk) 20:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe that we cannot write about enticed religious conversions in any other article which is why we need this article.—Dr2Rao (talk) 09:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to Freedom of religion in Pakistan. Not sure why this merge isn't any easy solution. Religious conversions in India already redirects to Freedom of religion in India after all. Aza24 (talk) 21:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage in human rights sources and high-circulation newspaper sources such as The New York Times[32]. I don't see a point in merging this to a general article about religious minorities in Pakistan, the scope and depth of this topic justifies a WP:SUBARTICLE. The page seems to exist primarily to disparage Islam in Pakistan: this deletion rationale in particular is weird and could be said for any article that contains information that can be perceived as negative towards Islam or Muslim communities, even articles such as this that detail human rights issues. WP:NOTCENSORED — Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive. --Pudeo (talk) 07:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The nomination is that this is an attack page. Research shows there is a lot of supporting data. My take on this is that a lot of vague, instantiation of cherrypicking has been placed in this page. There is no thesis-antithesis of for and against in the article, it is all cherrypicking the awful outcomes of forced conversions. Research shows that there are many organisations at the forefront of this fighting this very issue, keeping it in the eyes of the world media, keeping the call to toleration of minorities in Pakistan at the forefront. While the article talks about a bill directed towards minorities it does not do any more than that. Off with the cherrypicking. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:53, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

cherrypicking the awful outcomes of forced conversions Is there even a happy outcome for a forced conversion? What kind of a NPOV end result are you looking for? I still don't get the attack page argument. A lot of editors feel, very strongly, that any picture of Mohammad in his biography disparages Islam. As for an article detailing the human rights situation of a vulnerable minority, I'm sure the world's largest religion can handle a bit of critical coverage of the actions of some of its adherents.--Pudeo (talk) 19:27, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article needs to be better organized and renamed, but the information is sufficiently sourced. --- FULBERT (talk) 13:38, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The editor who wrote the article just copied many of the citations from other articles - he/she almost never bothered to read the stuff he/she was citing. He partially admitted it here.[33]

Delete 99% of the sources in the article seem to about single events that are connected in the Wikipedia article, but not necessarily in the sources themselves. For instance a shop keeper that made his employees convert to Islam after sales at his store declined. Which isn't really a "Pakistan" thing per say though or even anything having to do with a broad overview of religious conversation. Which is what Wikipedia is suppose to be about. As such, I'd consider this article similar to ones having to "Mass protests in Latin America" and similar ones that used barely related things to argue they were all connected and influenced each other. If I'm remembering correctly all those articles where deleted. Unlike those articles, this ones uses references that even say themselves are speculative when it comes to forced conversations and even the subject of the articles. For instance "25 Hindu girls abducted every month, claims HRCP official." Also, some of the references say forced conversation (or even conversation) isn't even a thing "Hindu Girls Were Not Forcibly Converted To Islam, Says Pak Court" and " "Hindu sisters not forcibly converted, allowed to live with husbands: Pakistan court." A lot of the sources are primary also. Ultimately, this article seems more like a personal essay that's all over the place and draws vague conclusions that could apply to anywhere and anything, more then the article is neutral encyclopedic overview of either religious conversation. Let alone religious conversation in Pakistan. At the minimum TNT should apply, but clearly should still be deleted on other grounds. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:59, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But it need to be balanced. Pakistani cricketer Yousuf Youhana[34] converted from Christianity to Islam, there was no force. He accepted Islam willingly (Alhamdulillah). However, we should not ignore cases of Christians and Hindus converting to Islam by exertion.[35][36] Zakaria1978 عوامی نيشنل پارٹی زندہ باد (talk) 00:15, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a page that easily meets WP:CONTENTFORK, or redirect at best. As noted above, the vast majority of the content is a collection of news headlines and does not do anything more than relaying what should have been dealt with in the existing articles concerning Hinduism in Pakistan, Minorities in Pakistan or Freedom of religion in Pakistan. As such, its existence outlives its utility, making it redundant. Mar4d (talk) 15:44, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan. Zoozaz1 (talk) 04:38, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename It should be renamed to Forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan. LearnIndology (talk) 10:26, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how this "renaming" would allay the concerns mentioned in this AfD? Mar4d (talk) 16:50, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep human rights articles are typically kept when substantiated to this degree.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What's a human rights thing about people willingly converting from one religion to another? Because that's what most of this article is about. It's not about "forced conversion." Even if it does have a few examples. Which is also why renaming it to Forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan wouldn't work IMO. Otherwise, Forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan are covered perfectly fine already in other articles. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:54, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have to be a forced conversion for this to be a human rights issue. Converts may be treated differently.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:49, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has a bias background, and the main purpose of the article was to defame Pakistan rather than discussing about core issues like religious extremism (considering that this info could have easily been added/merged to any Religion-related Pakistani article). I don't care if it's well maintained or written. To me, the actual reason of the existence of the article is to revive a previously deleted article which had been deleted for being clearly bias. I don't mean to be harsh, so apologies if some of you find my response to be harsh. Pakieditor (talk) 20:36, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or redirect/merge to Religion in Pakistan). Though pretending to be dispassionately neutral, the article, with its exclusive interest in cherry picked news sources on instances of forced conversions, is a classic attack page. Doubtless there are forced religious conversions in Pakistan but the causes and consequences of those are better covered in the Religion in Pakistan page where they can be properly contextualized. Assuming, of course, that the article creator and the various people !voting keep want to actually take the trouble of looking for reliable sources rather than merely entering "forced conversions in Pakistan" into a google search bar. --RegentsPark (comment) 21:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and apply TNT per nominator & arguments presented by others. Nomad on Road (talk) 01:05, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or redirect/merge to Religion in Pakistan). Ameen Akbar (talk) 19:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there's already articles that discuss this topic or mention it.--AdillAdell (talk) 20:54, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the nominator about this qualifying as an attack piece as per attack page. But the article subject itself makes zero sense. Employing the same logic, every country could be assigned similar article on "conversions". Not to mention the clear bias where almost every entry is based on sensationalist media headlines articles in the last 20 years. This does not belong in an encyclopedia. KamranHassanUK (talk) 21:31, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems reasonable, the article has biased approach. Looks like an attack page, especially when there are a couple of other articles where the same thing is written or can be added if not already. USaamo ^(t@lk) 13:06, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's an WP:ATTACK WP:CFORK, the content of which can be addressed elsewhere in other articles already mentioned above.Ainty Painty (talk) 14:57, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 11:40, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Byron L Giles[edit]

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

The article claims this is a professional basketball player and recipient of the Meritorious Service Medal (United States). However I can't find any sources verifying this and don't think this article can be reasonably improved. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:25, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:18, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He does not pass WP:N sadly someone spent a considerable amount of time on the article (so far an SPA). I can find nothing notable in WP:NSOLDIER or WP:NBASKETBALL. Also not notable per WP:ANYBIO also does not pass WP:AUTHOR with a self published book. Lightburst (talk) 23:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and doesn't meet any other criteria for WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete certainly not notable as a soldier, I’ll leave others to determine if he is as a sportsman. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to passing notability guidelines for soldiers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This page was proposed for deletion by Lightburst (talk · contribs) in the past.
It was contested by Carla2022 (talk · contribs) with the comment:
Initially, much thanks for entering the discussion on this article. An athlete is presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated in a major or professional competition or won a significant honor. Mr. Giles walked-on to and played for a top college basketball team which was the MIAA champion and made it to the Elite 8 of the NCAA championships for 92-93, and he received scholarship money after being cut from his high school team during the junior and senior years. He was part of a first group of Americans to play professionally in Mexico before it became popular under well-known coach Adolpho Sanchez in '96 and followed that with a successful military career. Other page concerns can be addressed in time.

Comment I am certain that the above information is not correct. I have never proposed this article for deletion. I will AGF. Lightburst (talk) 14:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An athlete is presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated in major college compoetition, professional competition or won a significant honor. Mr. Giles walked-on to and played for a top college basketball team which was the MIAA champion and made it to the Elite 8 of the NCAA championships for 92-93, and received scholarship money after being cut from his high school team during the junior and senior years. He was part of a first group of Americans to play professionally in Mexico before it became popular under well-known coach Adolfo Sanchez in '96 and followed that with a successful military career. Other page concerns can be addressed in time. Note: Apologies to Lightburst for block statement concerning proposed deletion on above statement and thanks for AGF. Carla2022 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm glad to see the article creator posting here with a keep rationale. This is a first article, drafted at Draft:Byron Giles, and clearly represents good faith and hard work at satisfying our requirements and formatting conventions. Unfortunately, I cannot substantiate any possible claims that would satisfy the notability requirement. Giles does not appear to have received sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guideline. His military service, while clearly commendable, was not distinguished by promotion to a superior rank sufficient to merit an article under the relevant special criteria, and the U.S. Armed Forces classify the Army Meritorious Service Medal as a junior-grade award, so that criterion is not met. I looked for evidence of his having played professional basketball in Mexico as the article states, and all I was able to find was two short videos on his own YouTube channel, apparently taken from a TV broadcast (the first is here but that link may have to be removed as a copyright violation). The college affiliations given for two of the players, including Giles, and the "All-Star" legend for one team that I seem to glimpse when the score flashes on the screen suggest that this was an exhibition game against a Mexican pro team. Unless other documentation can be found for his playing organized pro ball, I don't think this rises to that level; in any case, the applicable special notability guideline does not appear to list a Mexican league among the basketball leagues where one appearance constitutes sufficient evidence of notability. If this was a tour that was written up in the papers, where the visitors played several games against top teams, or if he was indeed hired by a Mexican pro team, that might be enough for him to squeak by under general notability; but I didn't find any such coverage. What I did find that is not in the article is that he has founded a company, CertificationPoint; CrunchBase biography. But that hasn't made much of a splash either. So I'm sorry, I must advocate for the deletion of this biography. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks to possibly meet WP:Athlete 'In A Nutshell' requirements. Link to photo with jersey added. Pro Basketball-Mexico photo Carla2022 (talk) 13:45, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Added link to military photo not sure if this meets requirement for WP:SOLDIER. Bataan of Bataan photo Carla2022 (talk) 13:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete,Does satisfy WP:NSOLDIER, he is not notable. Alex-h (talk) 08:21, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unsure if subject would also meet requirements for WP:NSOLDIER as stated above based on overall NSOLDIER criteria.[ [User:Carla2022|Carla2022]] (talk) 13:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Article seems satisfy notability as WP:NSPORT and WP:ATHLETE for major amateur and professional competition. Not so sure subject reaches notability for WP:NSOLDIER. Dharp86 (talk) 1:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Dharp86, can you quote the specific criteria of NSPORT that you think he qualifies under?—Bagumba (talk) 08:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bagumba Thanks for roping me back in...:). Here’s the reference. The guidelines on this page are intended to reflect the fact that sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia’s basic standards of inclusion if they have, for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level. I have more to add more later in the extended area provided below concerning this basis.Dharp86 (talk) 2:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's see how the ATHLETE claim fares.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 09:29, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment More information added to article to help with notability added. I noticed to short list of leagues for notability and believe FIBA should have been listed or described in more detail as it is the international governing body for basketball outside of the United States. I looked through the conversations concerning criteria and what could be added is that basketball in more of a worldwide sport as it ever was. Mexico and other Latin affiliated leagues really deserved more attention especially when we recall the Olympics in 2004 when Team Puerto Rico beat Team USA in basketball, a team, which consisted primarily of NBA All Stars. It was called a major upset but as we see now the rest of the world has made up significant ground. Carla2020 (talk) 4:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carla2022 (talk • contribs)
Comment. I'm puzzled by the material that's been added to support his having played professional basketball. The Latin Basket page has him listed at the top just as a college player (I presume regarding his draft eligibility that 2096 is a typo for 1996), while the Year-by-Year Career section below does also have a line for Mexico but doesn't give a team name, just "Pacifico". I presume this is the "Liga Mayor-Pacifico" to which the article now refers, but I can't find that former league mentioned anywhere (I keep just getting the baseball league, Liga Mexicana del Pacifico), and the Jalisco team now in the Circuito de Baloncesto de la Costa del Pacifico, Gigantes de Jalisco [es], were Frayles de Guasave until 2019. Is there a full team name that can be searched in the newspapers? (And what's MIAA in the Latin Basket URL, by the way, sorry, I'm grasping for things to search.) Is that Latin Basket site a reliable source, by the way? I keep hoping someone from the Basketball WikiProject will come by and help with sources. In any case, though, as you say, the league is not listed as one of those where playing confers a presumption of notability. If you want to get that changed, User:Carla2022, I think the place to start asking is that WikiProject's talk page. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yngvadottir much thanks for chiming in with assistance and feedback. Just to clarify, were you stating that Gigantes de Jalisco [es] was actually Frayles de Guasave until 2019. I'm not sure that's accurate as it looks as if Gigantes de Jalisco [es] and Frayles de Guasave are two separate teams. By the way the new league Circuito de Baloncesto de la Costa del Pacifico which Jalisco is part of was passed notabilty as a league and Frayles de Guasave passed notability as a team. Here's a photo Pro Basketball-Mexico photo with jersey. I understand your views as this is was before social media with limited archives and microfilm and also just how information can get buried in time. Probably similar to the Negro leagues and having to confirm and document records and statistics and having a limited number of photos. Could be easier to obtain newspaper articles and such from the subject about basketball in Mexico as there are probably not the level of archives in Mexico that there are in the US??? The LatinBasket website lists all players and seems to be categorized by the college a US player attended. Not really sure about how the foreign players who are listed get categorized and it seems to be a sister site of EuroBasket website. Carla2022 (talk) 2:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Comment Astros de Jalisco is actually a Jalisco team in a different league which may be associated with Frayles de Guasave.Frayles de Guasave looks to be a former team of the Circuito de Baloncesto de la Costa del Pacífico league. Looks like most of the league's current teams have established notability with a page. More on professional basketball in Mexico can be found at the following link. | Mexico Pro Basketball. Carla2022 (talk) 2:42, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Bagumba I know I mentioned that I had more to add more later but rather writing a lot of words which may not taken into account I did some research and at the bottom of the draft were those related articles and there were quite of few professional basketball players from Mexican leagues and other leagues not on the suggested list....possibly hundreds of articles. Are we saying historical players are non-notable because they are ‘old and crusty’...(adding some humor)? Should subject be knocked down for not staying on the professional basketball route and serving his country admirably? Here are a few articles to consider which are in the same category which are strikingly similar. Maybe we could ping the creator and approvers of the articles below and many others for guidance?

[37] [38][39] Dharp86 (talk) 3:12, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Comment Unfortunately, neither the NCAA Division II nor the CIMEBA constitute as a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level so he does not pass WP:ATHLETE or WP:NBASKETBALL. At a quick glance, the difference between Giles' Wikipedia page and the pages of the other three basketball players mentioned above is that they have articles written about them in independent sources that go towards WP:GNG [40] [41] [42]. For Giles to pass WP:GNG, there has to be significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. There are fives sources in the article as of now, and none of them goes towards WP:GNG.
1 is a media guide from a primary source that lists his name twice.

2 is a EuroBasket.com profile page.

3 is a dead link from the AirForce Times.

4 is his own book.

5 doesn't mention him.

In it's current state, the article simply does not pass WP:GNG. Alvaldi (talk) 10:59, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Alvaldi Thanks for assisting in helping with the article and the additional clarification for WP:GNG to help me along in this process. I guess the fortunate part about NCAA Division II nor the CIMEBA being in the listing on the guidance is that exceptions are being made which is awesome. I may be able to obtain print article sources from Mexico newspapers which should help with the updates being added but only thing these articles are not available online at this point. Any help from the group here at wikipedia would be appreciated. Carla2022 (talk) 5:47, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Carla2022: A basketball player does not have to participate in a major international amateur or professional competition (such as the NBA, EuroLeague, FIBA World Cup and the Olympics) to have an Wikipedia page, he or she merely has to pass WP:GNG. A player who has participated in major competitions is presumed notable and is usually given a bit more slack regarding sources BUT if it can been shown that he does not pass WP:GNG, his article would be deleted. In Giles' case, his Wikipedia page needs multiple articles which feature him significantly. It cannot be passing mentions, such as a game report that only mentions he scored x points in the game. If I use Zena Edosomwan, who also has played in Mexico, as an example, this article covering him is a significant coverage while this article is a passing mention. Alvaldi (talk) 11:40, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Alvaldi: Thanks for helping to find the appropriate filing for my article. Seems like it would fit under WP:BASIC due to the aggregate of various articles over time. Last question: In regards to basketball player, What are your thoughts on -> [43] with regards to notability...just trying to clarify where the pass/fail line is for passing mention. Carla2022 (talk) 14:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Carla2022: In its current state the Che' Jones page fails WP:GNG as the sources are not secondary sources [44], don't feature him, not indepth enough or are passing mentions. However, there are some newspaper articles on the internet that can be used to improve it, for example this one in the Las Vegas Review-Journal. I didn't look deep into it on Google, if there are more articles like that then the page can be improved to pass WP:GNG but if that is the only indepth article out there about him, then I would say Jones' WP article qualifies for deletion. Alvaldi (talk) 16:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:NSPORT, which doesn't presume notability just for having played in college or playing in any pro league. They must meet specific criteria, like specific leagues or earning specific honors. No evidence that WP:GNG is met.—Bagumba (talk) 13:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for the additional clarification for WP:NSPORT as it relates to WP:GNG. Maybe this article should be added to articles requiring further development so reasonable sources can continue to be added to reach a better consensus. Seems like there is the possibility of articles being available to help with this article in the WP:BASIC area for people. Carla2022 (talk) 15:44, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After taking a look at other articles this one should possibly fall under WP:NBIO with some layout work. Dharp86 (talk) 5:40, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Delete This discussion has been WP:BLUDGEONed beyond recognition. Fails WP:NSPORT and neither NCAA Division II nor the CIMEBA is enough to pass WP:NBASKETBALL. The article was created by a single-purpose account and is almost certainly a pr page or a vanity page. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:40, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 16:48, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tower Mall[edit]

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." WP:BEFORE showed WP:ROUTINE coverage, but not significant coverage that addressed the subject directly and in-depth or that established it meets NBUILD. // Timothy :: talk 12:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 12:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 12:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 12:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, first mall in a major MSA. WP:ROUTINE does not apply to places. A search for sourcing was not particularly fruitful, but a notability criterion has been established. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:18, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 09:20, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a 53 acre footprint shopping mall that is listed in the Directory of Major Malls. Notability is not temporary, and the mall remains notable even though it has been demolished. Passes WP:NBUILD ..." historic, social, economic, or architectural importance". Lightburst (talk) 14:38, 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 merge to List of cricket grounds in the Netherlands. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 16:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Donkerelaan[edit]

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

I proposed this for deletion with the following reasons:

"Where to start?

The name of the ground is "Donkerelaan", not "Donkere Laan" "The first and to date only recorded match?" Many matches have been played here, as it is the grounds of CC Bloemendaal, a Dutch 2nd division ("Hoofdklasse") team (the club in total has some 200 members). It is basically a lawn with on one side a smallish (but nice) pavillion, and no stands. At best this should be a redirect to the club, but since that doesn't have an article, there is no reason to have a separate article for the grounds."

The article has been moved, the other three reasons are still as valid as when it was proposed. This is not some cricket ground "established in 2003" with "only one recorded match".

Basically, a non notable cricket ground where much of the information in the article is incorrect. The second part can be corrected, the first part can't. Fram (talk) 08:43, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:43, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:43, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A redirect to List of women's One Day International cricket grounds would be the obvious solution, if sources are not found. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:53, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really. Redirecting something which has a common function (grounds of cricket team Bloemendaal) to a list about something that happened once and got little attention (the ground being used for that game) seems like a redirect version of WP:UNDUE. Fram (talk) 10:12, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a plausible search-term. And if it has a common function, that would suggest more info could be found to infact keep the article. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:32, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of cricket grounds in the Netherlands, unless sources can be added which support notability. PamD 12:14, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a much more logical merge target, thanks. (That page needs work as well, e.g. Sportpark Het Schootsveld doesn't have stands, never mind a 15,000 capacity, but that's not important for this AfD). Fram (talk) 12:42, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of cricket grounds in the Netherlands. The writeup of the article is as long as the notes in the table. gidonb (talk) 23:59, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested. Bearian (talk) 17:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:23, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Angeldressed Demon (TV series)[edit]

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

Entirely self-sourced and nothing in the 14 Google hits (52 for the title rendered in Greek) to help. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:02, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also consider related article: The Scream (Greek TV miniseries) (t · c) buidhe 09:20, 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 redirect to Paparokades. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 16:53, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nektarios Moulatsiotis[edit]

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

46 hits on Google, of which the only thing past a namecheck in a RS seems to be this. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:53, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 12:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 12:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 12:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Paparokades; he is mainly known because of this band of monks he formed. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 16:11, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Chalk19, that also has viurtually no Google hits. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:40, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Guy, there are references to Παπαροκάδες in Greek media, although I think it won't be easy to find coverage from independent, third-party sources. If you think that Paparokades isn't a notable band, then you have to nominate that article for deletion, as well. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 16:53, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Chalk19, I might well do. But this one first, eh? Guy (help! - typo?) 18:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let it be so, then. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 23:12, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Agree this should be redirected above as this article is not notable enough to have its own article. --- FULBERT (talk) 13:47, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:TNT. This is beyond a total mess. This is a cheap way out. Bearian (talk) 17:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 16:54, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Canopy express[edit]

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

This is an odd little article. As far as I can discern from the tiny number of Google hits for "canopy express", this was a term briefly and occasionally used pre World War II, which is being applied to modern vehicles in the article through pure WP:OR. I can't verify more than that because there are under 100 GHits, including unrelated results, most of which consist of sales listings or (as per this article's sourcing) personal web pages. It seems to be a thing, but only in as much as it's an idiosyncratic term for something that probably has another name. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:45, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per the nomination, these trucks appear in sales listings. However, using DuckDuckGo, I found this, this and this which would seem to say that Canopy Express is a thing, and still current. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Whiteguru. Anybody who knows automobile and truck history knows these types of vehicles existed, and those who don't should know. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 12:00, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE - Two of the trucks in the gallery are not canopy express type trucks. They're simply pickup trucks with caps on the bed. The Toyota shown is actually just a pickup converted into a makeshift peddler's wagon. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 12:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  DanTD, my point exactly. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:11, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - JzG, then the problem isn't these vehicles don't exist. It's that the ones selected for the gallery aren't canopy express trucks. I just added two that are. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 12:16, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:32, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per a combination of all of the above including the nom. It truly was/is a unique and popular type of vehicle, generally used in the early 20th century. If it turns out there's a more popular or used name, then by all means rename the article. Oakshade (talk) 04:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SNOW, and rename as needed. Bearian (talk) 17:05, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:G11. (non-admin closure) Vulcan's Forge (talk) 16:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rishabh mukati[edit]

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

Unelected politician and social worker. Article does not meet GNG, BASIC, ANYBIO or NPOL. Sources in the article do not meet RS (wikis), do not mention the subject or a brief mention. BEFORE showed no SIGCOV that addresses the subject directly and in-depth. // Timothy :: talk 07:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 07:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 07:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TimothyBlue: There is a high chance that this Article could be used for malicious practices or any wrongful acts. After a minor research, I have found out that majority of the data is either a hoax or not cited. As said before, There seemed to be a potential for misusing this article for scam or such so the process of deletion should be done fast. Call me Karthik 😉🤞 (talk • contribs)

@Bharats20101998: If you think there is a valid reason to prevent this article from deletion or there is some way you could improve it then feel free to join the discussion.

@BD2412:, The above concerns raised by Kartsriv are beyond my experience to handle, so I'm pinging you for assistance. Karthik, I think its a good idea to wait for guidance from BD2412, they will know how to properly handle your concerns. Thanks all. // Timothy :: talk 08:08, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TimothyBlue: Appreciate your help a lot. Thank you! Call me Karthik 😉🤞 (talk • contribs)

Delete Probably qualifies for speedy WP:G11. Anyways, it's definitely not notable. The sources aren't verifiable and most likely all are unreliable. - hako9 (talk) 10:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged G11 aswell. - hako9 (talk) 10:30, 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 WP:SNOW delete. There is no reasonable prospect of this being kept. BD2412 T 00:38, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Microchip Is The Mark Of The Beast Theory[edit]

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

Poorly translated and poorly sourced. Also: Moulatsiotis in one of his interviews in 1995 said that "In the future, a mark will be most likely made, it will be a chip, a biometric ID or a scanner in the forehead". [5] Judging from what Moulatsiotis said his predictions were probably right.. Really? Guy (help! - typo?) 07:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

weak KeepWhilst its badly written its a "rel" theory that has been around since god knows when.Slatersteven (talk) 09:07, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[[45]] [[46]] [[47]] [[48]].Slatersteven (talk) 09:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The section Number of the beast#The mark of the beast and microchips contains a better summary of the subject. While the subject is noteworthy, there is nothing worth keeping or merging in this article, and the title is not worth keeping as a redirect to that section. – Thjarkur (talk) 09:43, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What monks proclaim when they are preaching is a matter of faith, not fact. The Three Secrets of Fátima are a matter of faith, not fact. That other monks have got hold of this and propagated this is a matter of opinion, rumour and gossip from the aforesaid so-called sources. This article does not have WP:NPOV and proceeds to make claims upon claims. Article is pedalling a point of view based on nonsense. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:07, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Indiscriminate entry about New World Order conspiracy theory culture and a WP:POVFORK. —Paleo Neonate – 11:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 12:56, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 12:56, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Number of the Beast covers this subject referenced reasonably well. Probably no reason to keep a redirect for the clumsiness of the title. --intelati^talk 14:06, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: We already have a perfectly good coverage at Number of the beast#The mark of the beast and microchips. This is just a poor-quality POV fork of that. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poor-quality POV fork, as argued above. XOR'easter (talk) 15:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV fork of Number of the beast#The mark of the beast and microchips that suggests via WP:OR that the whole idea started in Greece. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:20, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Piling on, there's nothing worth merging or saving in this POV fork, even if notability were established it would be TNT-worthy. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:07, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above comments. --- FULBERT (talk) 13:47, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thought Spiral[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Though the hosts are notable but notability can not be inherited. PROD contested previously. Hitro talk 07:21, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 07:21, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nominator, notability is not inherited. This podcast has little of any claim to notability, it is comedy based on Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, however hilarious this can be made out to be. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:11, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: One guest with a Wikipedia article doesn't make the podcast notable enough to have one. Deb (talk) 17:41, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about the podcast. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) // Timothy :: talk 05:12, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adele Woodhouse Erb Sullivan[edit]

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

26th President General of the Daughters of the American Revolution. Article does not meet GNG, BASIC or ANYBIO. BEFORE showed no SIGCOV that covers the subject directly and in depth. // Timothy :: talk 07:12, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 07:12, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 07:12, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Am new to the deletion process, but believe that changes have been made to address the cited issues. Vrc84 (talk) 05:02, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:53, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alessandro Raina[edit]

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

I couldn't find the significant coverage to show WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG can be met. The article itself has been in CAT:NN 's backlog for over 11 years, and was written by a WP:SPA, pretty clearly as an advert. Boleyn (talk) 06:29, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly an autobiography and attempted promotion, written by himself or an associate, and which belongs back at his own website. I could not find reliable and significant media coverage for him as a musician or for any of his own albums and songs, and those are only present in the usual streaming and self-promotional services. The article's lengthy Discography section lists a lot of works by other people in which he made a guest appearance or co-wrote a song, and that list is a rather desperate attempt at notability by association. What the article calls his works as an "author" or "co-author" are actually songwriting credits, for which he does have some basic listings in various sources, though these are songs by other people and he can be listed briefly as the co-writer in their articles. ––DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:09, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Jones (mountain biker)[edit]

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

New page review: BLP of a mountain biker whose record of wins in his sport does not seem to me to make him notable. He then signed up with Red Bull, producing a lot of publicity materials for their brand. He now focuses on his work as a Youtuber. None of this adds up to distinction in any field. Sources include listing entries, interviews and non-independent coverage. Overall I’m not seeing notability. Mccapra (talk) 06:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion:? This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-04 ✍️ create

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 11:40, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adithya Shivpink[edit]

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

Article that I created. Only one source exists^[3] and he is a star's grandson. TamilMirchi (talk) 05:57, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 05:57, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 05:57, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if the article creator no longer believes we should have the article there is no reason to keep it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:01, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - where is the corresponding Wikipedia policy for this claim? Neutral Fan (talk) 19:59, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - enough sources online exist and notable as per Wikipedia:NACTOR. Poor research from the nominator. In fact, more than one source already existed on the article - so not sure of the need to provide false information. Several examples of notability and coverage in English sources, let alone Tamil sources. "He is a star's grandson" - as is Atharvaa, Ranbir Kapoor, Naga Chaitanya etc - no difference, has done enough independent sourced work. Again, request you to think twice before constantly putting articles up for deletion. Neutral Fan (talk) 19:43, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not sure if the food trucks make him notable.TamilMirchi (talk) 20:48, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG, no contribution to their field as actor or even as social worker. Thanks QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 02:53, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Not even close to satisfying WP:NACTOR. Sunshine1191 (talk) 16:35, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 07:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aroul D. Shankar[edit]

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

Page that I created, but only one source exists.^[4] TamilMirchi (talk) 05:56, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 05:56, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 05:56, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an actor who does not meet our inclusion criteria for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:02, 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 01:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Theepetti Ganesan[edit]

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

Article that I created. The only sources that exist is the actor asking others for money. TamilMirchi (talk) 05:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 05:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 05:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not convinced there is enough for GNG and only has one role of note Spiderone 09:41, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gayathri Krishnaa[edit]

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

Unnotable actress that I created. Few sources exist. TamilMirchi (talk) 05:44, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 05:44, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 05:44, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:11, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:19, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - zero evidence of notability and a probable candidate for speedy deletion due to Tamil being the creator Spiderone 14:08, 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. Tone 07:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Muskaan Khubchandani[edit]

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

Unnotable actress that I created. Only played the lead role in one film. TamilMirchi (talk) 05:41, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 05:41, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 05:41, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NACTOR; can always be created again if she does ever amount to anything Spiderone 16:47, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Allan Kessing[edit]

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

WP:BLPCRIME. Just a guy who got convicted for a crime, nothing fancy or notable. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing notable about this person at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG, WP:BLP, and WP:MILL. I don't understand why this article was created, except to shame ordinary people. Bearian (talk) 17:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Venkat Sundar[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Created by a paid user. Only one notable reference and one notable role. TamilMirchi (talk) 05:12, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 05:12, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 05:12, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 16:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Billy Eckstine#Career. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rhythm in a Riff[edit]

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

The article doesn't appear to satisfy the criteria of WP:NFILM. It seems to solely rely on the Library of Congress reference, which doesn't confer automatic notability. The other reference is merely a mention in passing. The external links are to IMDb (which is not an acceptable or reliable source) and a video (which is also not an acceptable source). Dan arndt (talk) 05:02, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 05:02, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Billy_Eckstine#Career. I've merged the pertinent info about this, namely that Eckstine starred in the movie, to his article. I can't find much and what I do find is limited to just saying that he was in this movie. This is probably partially fueled by the fact that this was a short film. In any case, a redirect to the artist's article would likely be best and would give anyone looking for this all the info that seems to exist in currently discoverable RS. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:08, 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 07:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leggy[edit]

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

This page has numerous chronic issues and notability is ... questionable. GPinkerton (talk) 04:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 15:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Toys-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 19:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT and WP:OR. Badly, obscurely written original research. Bearian (talk) 17:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Tanner[edit]

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

Ice Hockey Player Notability:: Does not meet #Criteria 6, Played on a senior national team for the World Championship, in the highest pool the IIHF maintained in any given year (Note: playing in lower pools that do not actually contest for the World Champion title is not enough to satisfy inclusion requirements)

Page creator has removed the prod without explanation. Whiteguru (talk) 04:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete does not meet notability guidelines for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:15, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails NHOCKEY and GNG. Although I'm sure an article will be written about him someday, right now he plays in the Swiss League (the second tier pro league) and has only represented Sweden on a junior international level. Too soon. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 05:47, 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 07:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Garcia, California[edit]

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

Mistakenly called a community solely on the basis of of the unreliable GNIS database. It never appeared on a USGS topo map, so exact location is hard to pinpoint. Durhams calls it a locality on the Northwestern Pacific RR which usually implies that it was a railroad station, siding, stop, or some other rail facility. No other evidence that this was ever a community and no indication that it is otherwise notable. Glendoremus (talk) 04:34, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Glendoremus (talk) 04:45, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Glendoremus (talk) 04:45, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and NGEO // Timothy :: talk 14:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete I found the original Gudde passage that GNIS cites, and it says nothing at all about what this Garcia was, or for that matter even that there was a specific place named Garcia (I note for instance the Garcia River in the area). So this fails verification in a big way. Mangoe (talk) 15:07, 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 redirect to Yoogan. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 09:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yashmith[edit]

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

This actor is not notable right now. He doesn't have significant roles in multiple productions. He has starred in the lead in two films that are low budget and do not have much media references. Redirect to Yoogan.TamilMirchi (talk) 04:27, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 04:27, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 04:27, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Yoogan per nom Spiderone 16:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The actor is still notable and established in the Film Industry and also a member of Bollywood Cine & Television artist's Association. There have been many references regarding the actor. The page should be undeleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Creativediary (talk • contribs) 08:26, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The keep arguments do not quite address the various delete concerns (WP:PROMO, WP:OR, questionable WP:Notability) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:57, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nijanand[edit]

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

Content is not written as an encyclopedia article. Appears to be solely for the purpose of promoting the belief system; would need a complete rewrite. Completely unreferenced, the only link is to the website of the organization. Zoodino (talk) 04:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 04:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 04:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 04:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article is good and has 7 references in addition to website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.4.230 (talk) 15:29, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article has helped me explore more about Nijanand sampradaya only after this article I have Watched Shree Prannathji TV series on youtube which portrays the life of Lord Prannathji. Now I am Eagerly waiting for Chhatrasal web series. Also there are the holy books Available on Nijanand.org and that is also good for reference books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.249.230.116 (talk) 16:01, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article has helped me explore more about Nijanand sampradaya only after this article I have Watched Shree Prannathji TV series on youtube which portrays the life of Lord Prannathji. Now I am Eagerly waiting for Chhatrasal web series. Also there are the holy books Available on Nijanand.org and that is also good for reference books.

This one of best teaching info to understand world religious and unity of the world. All the information and teaching in this article help understand unified messages of the Gita, Bhagvat, Veds, Puran, Bible , Koorna and other worlds scripture. What i have gain from this article was life time teaching such as Nijanand mean your Anand and how we should all live our life to help this world to be more peaceful and prosperous from Human being and equality.

I am not sure why this most useful article in context to current world situation being candidate of the deletion. This will be biggest mistake and should be reconsider to keep it. This info are very useful and it to content of life guidance. We shouldn't delete from this important wiki online resources just based on some assumption and then re-grate later as we going to loose important info of user like me and several other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.4.230 (talk) 20:40, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article is written for promoting the belief system and is way detailed and in WP:PROMO style for an encyclopedia article. Also to note is the this article has twice been deleted Deletion Log, via CSD and PROD. Even if it barely makes it through WP:GNG criteria (highly doubtful), the current version and all its history satisfies WP:TNT. Also to worry about is this number of single purpose accounts and IP addresses editing the article and commenting here. Roller26 (talk) 11:06, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

this article is in par with other faith article such as Hinduism, Christianity, Islam etc. Not sure why people wants it to be deleted. It is highly unfair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:AC03:3B00:E11B:2931:994E:39A6 (talk) 14:36, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - zero evidence of notability and very clearly and obviously original research Spiderone 16:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes, California[edit]

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

Mistakenly called a community solely on the basis of of the unreliable GNIS database. Durhams calls it a locality on the Northwestern Pacific RR which usually implies that it was a railroad station, siding, stop, or some other rail facility. No other evidence that this was ever a community and no indication that it is otherwise notable. Glendoremus (talk) 04:06, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Glendoremus (talk) 04:44, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Glendoremus (talk) 04:44, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete It in fact shows up on the topos into the 1940s, every aerial of the spot, from (supposedly) 1946 on, shows a highway overpass and no town. Presumably it was a station stop at some point before that, but evidence for a settlement is lacking. Mangoe (talk) 15:14, 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 07:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Bottitta[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Mostly just an extra. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:02, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:02, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:08, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:08, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete' this page is just a list and not an article. Author Sanju (talk) 14:07, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia needs to stop being an IMDb mirror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:02, 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 redirect to Numbered highways in Kentucky. Tone 18:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of state highways in Kentucky shorter than one mile[edit]

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

This list no longer has entries. All entries in this list have been moved to other list articles, such as List of Kentucky supplemental roads and rural secondary highways (300–399). Most of the links to this page were in a navbox that has been updated to remove the link. V C 03:02, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 September 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:20, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:34, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a list for an encyclopedia and I refer to the essay WP:LISTCRUFT. According to the nominator the information is duplicated in another list, and I am not even sure why. Lightburst (talk) 03:41, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a list, even if it was this is just WP:TRIVIA. Ajf773 (talk) 03:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 03:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This seems like "list of not notable things".John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:29, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It appears the nominator has relocated the entries on this list (which has a somewhat arbitrary inclusion criteria) to other list pages. Makes sense to remove this page now. -- LJ ↗ 15:42, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What? Why does this article exist? Delete. Foxnpichu (talk) 16:12, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question. As the content was split and merged into other articles, is there a policy-based reason that the history of this article needs to remain? --Kinu ^t/_c 00:54, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Ljthefro Nightfury 07:16, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT. desmay (talk) 14:32, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Outlived its purpose. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 14:55, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redundant Spiderone 20:47, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The history of this article needs to remain in some form due to CWW, so I strongly suggest for some sort of alternative to deletion to happen here. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 23:00, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Numbered highways in Kentucky to preserve attribution since the content would appear been moved to other articles. The redirect target is a more general topic on account of the fact that the content of this list has been merged into an array of other articles, so I don't think a more-specific target is possible. --Sable232 (talk) 21:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete I've tagged it for speedy deletion A3. Zoozaz1 (talk) 04:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Sable232. --Rs chen 7754 04:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As my question about the need to retain the edit history was answered above, I agree that a redirect to Numbered highways in Kentucky is the necessary course of action. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:32, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make clear my stance, redirect to Numbered highways in Kentucky. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 19:47, 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 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) 18:53, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Write Around Portland[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not the Cityguide or Charity-Navigator. Hyper-local unimportant ubiquitous WP:MILL 501c3. Delete per WP:NORG, WP:NONPROFIT failure. Graywalls (talk) 01:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 01:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 01:52, 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, without opposition. BD2412 T 01:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kuriaki[edit]

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

The article does not pass GNG or WP:ENT. Sources and Before showed no SIGCOV that addresses the subject directly and in-depth. The name is listed under Rock Steady Crew but there is no RS material that could be merged and it is an unlikely search term for a redirect. // Timothy :: talk 01:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 01:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 01:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion:? This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-09 ✍️ create, 2007-04 ✗ deleted

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Battery saver[edit]

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

This was a longstanding redirect pointing to Car battery, although the current article makes no mention of the subject. Neither of the articles currently listed meet WP:DABMENTION, leaving us with no use for the disambiguation page. There are a few scattered uses of the phrase on Wikipedia, mostly in articles about cellphone models, but none of those appear to be appropriate to include here. As the phrase isn't mentioned at the prior redirect target either, deletion is more appropriate than simply restoring the redirect. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:50, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:50, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:50, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Soft delete in current form. I am fairly sure an article could be created on the subject, perhaps with one or more sections being a see also or main article elsewhere, but as it is unfit for mainspace. No opposition to attempts to work the currrent DAB into an article. Oppose redirect as there are several articles that could be pointed to.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:41, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As a disambiguation page this page fails because "battery saver" is not mentioned in either listed target article. Without prejudice to the creation of any future article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:10, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:24, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Philadelphia Committee to End Homelessness[edit]

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

WP:NORG, WP:NONPROFIT failure. Ubiquitous, run of the mill shelter every major city will have. Graywalls (talk) 01:44, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 01:44, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 01:44, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:22, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Imperia TV[edit]

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

Internet TV station. Does not pass GNG or NTELE. Article sources and Before showed promos and listings, but no SIGCOV from IS that address the subject directly and in-depth. No merge target exists and possible articles would not pass WP:N // Timothy :: talk 01:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 01:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 01:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion:? This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 16 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 delete. Tone 07:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Imperia Radio[edit]

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

Internet radio station. Does not pass GNG or NRADIO. Article sources and Before showed promos and listings, but no SIGCOV from IS that address the subject directly and in-depth. No merge target exists and possible articles would not pass WP:N // Timothy :: talk 01:34, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 01:34, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 01:34, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Barely found anything about the station. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:TOSOON. The radio station has existed for only 5 months. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:14, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dewitt, Marin County, California[edit]

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

Not listed in Durham; no indication of notability; not even clear what it is; Glendoremus (talk) 23:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:46, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:46, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Novato, California: WP:GEOLAND "informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc. – any of which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources.", there is nothing that meets non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. If someone feels it merit mention, the sentence could be copied into Novato, California. // Timothy :: talk 01:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete This is a bi-agency cock-up which is only fully apparent when you go back to the nautical chart from which the entry came. That chart shows the name "DeWitt" at an intersection a bit north of the location given in the article (which is roughly that of Ignacio, which is a rail yard incidentally, not a settlement), but by the time that chart edition was published the intersection had been wiped out in favor of an excessively complicated freeway interchange. If you look at that spot, it was never anything like a settlement, at least as the topos show. I have no idea where NOAA got the name "DeWitt" but it doesn't appear on the USGS maps until it was reentered from GNIS— at the wrong location. In short, it's a totally spurious product of bad mapping and needs to just go away. Mangoe (talk) 14:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a community. Does not warrant mention in Novato. Reywas92^Talk 09:14, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing there. No notability or verifiability. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 06:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete More perpetuation of GNIS errors. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:21, 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. BD2412 T 01:04, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Gold Bar Reporter[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article is a Wordpress blog that generally lacks notability, except that the founder/owner of the blog appears to be in a feud with the Washington State Bar and with town officials. None of the references are directly about the blog, all are about the disputes, and I was unable to find other reliable sources. Paisarepa (talk) 04:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are a number of independent sources on this thing the the lawyer Ann Block. There are a steady supply of SPAs editing the article and removing content and refs. Potentially this coverage lives in Anne Block, but I'm positive there's enough coverage for an article. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment coverage includes

Comment There is a lot of coverage of the dispute between Anne Block and the city (and other entities) but this blog gets at best a passing mention in any of the coverage -- three of the six linked articles don't even mention it. Paisarepa (talk) 04:02, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There used to be a Anne K. Block article (it's deletion as an attack page is discussed in the earlier AfD), maybe that can be undeleted and improved with this content? Alternatively Gold Bar, Washington may be a suitable place for some of this content. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:53, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Someone removed all the references, but I am not able to find any news about this website in Google and Google news. I see the commenter above has added some sources, but it my opinion there is not enough coverage to justify a page. So it should be declined for lack of significant coverage. Expertwikiguy (talk) 01:09, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To see if there is consensus that sourcing would allow for a change in focus to Block
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:13, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found resources about the blog author being disbarred, twice. I found a reference to one of the judges caught DUI. All the references are gone, and, prima facie, this is basically a blog, as the nominator says, the founder/owner of the blog appears to be in a feud with the Washington State Bar and with town officials. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:36, 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 07:59, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Yong-ji[edit]

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

Article does not pass GNG, BASIC, ANYBIO, or NACTOR. Sources in the article and Before showed promos, mentions, brief interviews, but no SIGCOV that addresses the subject directly and in-depth. Maybe just TOOSOON. // Timothy :: talk 01:06, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 01:06, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 01:06, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree, at this time it seems WP:TOOSOON, not enough significant coverage to garner notability. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 01:32, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:21, 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. Sandstein 17:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. J.A. Griffith Bridge[edit]

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

Prod rationale was Non-notable bridge. Only gets two sentences in this local news piece. The two sources listed in the article are primary sources. Beyond that, I'm just getting wp mirrors and sources that are about the guy this bridge is named after, not the bridge itself. PROD was declined procedurally, as it had been deprodded back in 2014. My argument for the proposed deletion still stands. I'm not seeing notability here. Hog Farm _Bacon 01:00, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 01:00, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 01:00, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 01:00, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: As the maker of the page, I would like for the article to stay. I know there is a precedent against it, but I think that, since the bridge exists, an article about it should, too. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 04:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Existence is not notability. This is a short, generic segment of elevated road with no significant coverage about it; there are probably tens of thousands of such unremarkable bridges in the US, with off-the-shelf infrastructure design. Reywas92^Talk 09:20, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:04, 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 no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:53, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence DiCara[edit]

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

DiCara is an unsuccessful political candidate and an attorney. The article seems more like a CV. I can’t find third-party sources discussing him, only op-eds or other pieces that he has written, or passing mentions. Nevertheless, he has authored a book about an important time in history, so I can see potentially keeping him due to that. I’m also unfamiliar with his stature in Boston, so I’m hoping other editors who may be more familiar with his importance can provide references or other reasons to keep him. LovelyLillith (talk) 16:42, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. LovelyLillith (talk) 16:42, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. LovelyLillith (talk) 16:42, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. LovelyLillith (talk) 16:42, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. LovelyLillith (talk) 16:42, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. LovelyLillith (talk) 16:54, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment calling him an "unsuccessful political candidate" isn't quite correct, he was on the Boston City Council for 8 years. That isn't enough on its own to meet WP:NPOL though. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete city council members are generally not default notable, the sourcing is not enough to show notability otherwise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Boston is one of those cities where a councilmember may be notable if there is sufficient information available about the subject. In this case, we are looking at a subject who served in the pre-Internet age, but the subject remains used as political commentator in the news in 2020. --Enos733 (talk) 20:39, 25 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 20:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Boston is one of those internationally prominent global cities where we do typically accept that city councillors can be notable enough for Wikipedia, as a rule — I'll grant that the coverage present in the current version of the article doesn't exactly add up to enough, but the problem is that since his primary term in office was 1972-81, any additional sourcing won't necessarily Google and will instead have to be retrieved from news archives. So I checked newspapers.com and got 2,028 hits, which is more than enough. As always, we do not have any rule that our sources always have to be web-published contemporary news coverage — we are allowed to cite print-only sources, such as pre-internet newspapers and books, so topics whose preponderance of coverage would have been 40 or 50 years ago rather than last week are not prevented from being in Wikipedia just because their names don't Google well. Bearcat (talk) 21:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:57, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Boston is just notable enough on an international level for it's councillors to pass WP:NPOL in my view. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication at WP:NPOL that councillers of certain cities are inherently notable. Unless the sources, whether print or online are presented, assumption cannot be made that the subject would pass GNG. --Ab207 (talk) 09:48, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - city councilman of a world-class city, the literal Hub. Bearian (talk) 17:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:33, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arquette family[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The same reasons to delete exist as the last time this page was nominated over a decade ago; the family itself is non-notable outside of having multiple members who are notable. The article contains no information about the family that cannot be found on each individual's page, and the article at present contains so little information that I suspect almost all information can be found on every one of their pages. There exist no suitable sources that I could find that would meet even the barest notability requirements for this article. The page exists as nothing more than a directory, and it hasn't even the complexity of the Barrymores or the Coppolas to merit keeping for the tree alone (the list of now–ex-partners is hardly even meritous enough to keep itself, let alone enough as reason to keep the article).

I suspect that the previous "keep" verdict was the result of a different era's attitude toward Wikipedia, with a fear of losing directories, lists and pages that feel notable. While once a valid attitude—most notable pages had a meager start after all—this page has had plenty long enough to have been expanded by any source at all, and has sat all but empty the whole time. — Hazzzzzz12 (talk) 00:45, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The fact that this article survived a deletion attempt in 2007 is an attestation to how totally non-existent notability standards were done. There is no sourcing here to show these people are notable as a group or add up to creating a notable group.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:49, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and John Pack Lambert. Notability standards were much different back in 2007. Time has passed since then, and under the current notability rules this family is not notable. Its members are notable individually, but that's it. There is a huwiki version of this, but that's just a plain family tree with no other text whatsoever. I nominated that to deletion as well. Wikipedia is not the place for unsourced family trees. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:45, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article essentially functions as an unreferenced list of individual family members, and there are not enough notable family members for this to be a useful list. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:10, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Seems better suited as a template.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:59, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blade Shankar[edit]

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

Couldn't find a single source on this VJ. TamilMirchi (talk) 00:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 00:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 00:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an inadequately sourced article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:03, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 14:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing evidence of WP:GNG. VocalIndia (talk) 07:21, 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 keep; effectively withdrawn by nominator. BD2412 T 00:41, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jigme (Kagyu lama)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. No effective referencing. All refs seems to be his. scope_creep^Talk 08:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be a problem finding secondary sources on Jigme Rinpoche. He's a significant influence to the Karma Kagyu lineage. I'll appreciate any and all help on this. Thanks! Badabara (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I did my a bit of my own research to be sure and I would tend to agree with notion to delete the page. Although in real life he is a significant teacher in the Karma Kagyu lineage, by basic Wikipedia criteria he is not a notable person. He greatest notoriety is by association to the 16th Karmapa, which Wikipedia specifically calls out as not warranting an individual their own page--I wish I could disagree (he is also the brother of another significant lama, the 14th Sharmapa and was a witness to the Karmapa Controversy. He is also an author of several Buddhist books--is that significant?). However, much of this page could be moved onto the Karma Kagyu page under a new section--something to the effect of "Current lineage holders". I would be happy to help make that happen. A Wikipedia location for this information will be a needed for reference for coming additions to the 16th Karmapa and Karmapa Controversy pages. Anotherpinkfloydinthewall (talk) 18:44, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anotherpinkfloydinthewall wouldn't your idea require finding all pages of high lamas/rinpoches from all Tibetan Buddhist schools, deleting their respective pages, and adding them to various lineage pages? Quite a task. The topic at hand is "effective referencing".Badabara (talk) 02:32, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let’s leave this page alone for the time being and create a “Current lineage masters” on the Karma Kagyu page. When both exist we can see what’s most appropriate (as people fill out this page). We don’t have significant meat on many members of the lineage, but the fact of the matter is that a lineage IS the people—they aren’t two distinct entities. That information absolutely needs a place to live. Anotherpinkfloydinthewall (talk) 12:59, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There appear to be enough secondary sources to keep the page on Wikipedia--Thehittite (talk) 14:37, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi scope_creep and Thehittite I edited the page to include a number of secondary sources. Badabara (talk) 14:41, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the criteria for an individual's page has been reasonably met here. It feels like it would add confusion to establish it as simply an adjunct to the 16th Karmapa or Karmapa controversy areas. spaceis411 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spaceis411 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We will examine the reference in detail. scope_creep^Talk 09:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now that these additional sources have been added, this page seems fine to me on its own. I wouldn't support deleting it at this stage.Mekinna1 (talk) 14:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think the new sources make this article squeak past WP:GNG line. // Timothy :: talk 18:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 11:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone for your comments. I've made multiple edits since the nomination for deletion, adding secondary sources. Please review, and hopefully we can get to consensus quickly. Badabara (talk) 18:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I should also add that other editors have added sources as well. Badabara (talk) 20:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article appears to have enough Independent of Subject references.Thehittite (talk) 16:35, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still looks sufficient to me. I think he is a notable person in the Buddhist world. I may have a couple of new references to add in the near future, trying to locate. Mekinna1 (talk) 19:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The reason it has been open for two weeks is because an admin has looked at the article and found it wanting. Most of the references are self-published. The ones that have been added are profile pages, they aren't under editorial control or peer reviewed and are probably invalid per WP:NOT. There is no real secondary sources, that are independent, in-depth and reliable. The only reason I didn't comment up until today as I saw an article in The Times about Akong Rinpoche and thought their might be some link to it here, but not found anything. There is a good para in one book, but its not-independent. It don't believe at this time, that Jigme Rinpoche is notable. It doesn't satisfy WP:BLPSOURCES scope_creep^Talk 08:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. If you look at the significant sources, they are not profile pages. The following books are not self-published, and are independent of the subject (books on the history of Buddhism, aside from "Heart Advice" which is Buddhist teachings), and reliable:

Rinpoche, Gendun (2010). Heart Advice from a Mahamudra Master. Norbu Verlag

Douglas, Nik (1976). Karmapa: The Black Hat Lama of Tibet. Luzac; First Edition edition (1976). ISBN 0718901878.

Bausch, Gerd, "Radiant Compassion, The Life of the 16th Gyalway Karmapa, Volume 1." 2018 pp. 97-99

The following articles are not self-published, and are independent, and reliable:

Valentine, Glen (16 January 2018). Buddhist World. Scientific e-Resources, 2018. p. 271. ISBN 978-1839473623.

Campergue, Cecile (November 23, 2015). "Gifts and the Selfless Work Ethic in Tibetan Buddhist Centres in France". Religion Compass. 9 (11): 443–461.

Jigme Rinpoche was sent to Europe by the 16th Karmapa to build Buddhism. Though he may not have been controversial and loud, such as Chögyam Trungpa (he's a monk after all and kept his vows), he probably did more to preserve and carry on the work, and didn't go down in flames. His European seat is still intact. The number of Stupas and retreat centers and city centers that have been build under his guidance is quite large. I think this humble man deserves a page to be developed - it's just a stub page and will require more work. My 2 cents Badabara (talk) 15:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Two interwikis, now indicated, author of several books, spiritual director of Dhagpo Kagyu Ling in France. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 10:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Author of several books with no book reviews, making them essentially non-notable. No real coverage. scope_creep^Talk 11:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there no mention in the French press? scope_creep^Talk 12:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He is described in at least 2 books of major authors, one by fr:Frédéric Lenoir (with Robert Le Gall : Le Moine et le Lama, (2000)), the other by fr:Michaël de Saint-Cheron (La condition humaine et le temps; dialogues avec Élisabeth Badinter, Jacques Attali, François Gros, Rigmé Rinpoché; éd. Dervy; 26 mars 2001; (ISBN 2844540783 et 978-2844540782)).--Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 12:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The French connection does yield some results. In a quick search found this:

https://www.sudouest.fr/2010/07/28/c-est-un-enfant-du-tibet-148372-1980.php
http://www.buddhachannel.tv/portail/spip.php?article18970
Also:

Anotherpinkfloydinthewall (talk) 13:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment They are a bit more tasty, from the French Connection. Can somebody update the article with these reviews and we may be able call it per WP:HEY. There should be a lot more available. scope_creep^Talk 15:12, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Anotherpinkfloydinthewall and User:scope_creep, I have added some information based on these new French sources. I think this paints a clearer picture of his activity and accomplishments. Mekinna1 (talk) 17:14, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mekinna1. I agree. The references added contain even more. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 17:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you everyone for your edits and input! Badabara (talk) 17:52, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting one more time to see if work done on the article yields a broader consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BD2412 T 00:11, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BASIC. Here are my WP:THREE: [49], doi:10.1111/rec3.12183, and [50]. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:03, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems like a WP:HEY has been attempted, and definitely looks good IMO. Also, acknowledging the above links from AleatoryPonderings. I have a somewhat related question -- I see that Lama Jigme Rinpoche redirects to this page. Shouldn't it be the other way around? My vote as a part of this AfD process is to swap the content. The content on this page needs to be housed at Lama Jigme Rinpoche and this article i.e. Jigme (Kagyu lama) can redirect there as needed. Ktin (talk) 05:02, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ktin, I agree and brought up the same question on the talk page. He is referred to as Lama Jigme Rinpoche in press, articles and books.Badabara (talk) 18:48, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Badabara, I think I understand now. Perhaps Rinpoche is considered a honorific, and hence is not a part of the article title. That said, I do know of a few articles with a honorific in the title. But, I guess it is good to leave as-is based on that. Ktin (talk) 04:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Though it seems there are many exceptions... check out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Rinpoches. I'm wondering if in some cases it's honorific AND recognizable name. For example Dalai Lama is Dalai Lama not Dalai. Lama is also honorific. In this particular case Jigme (Kagyu Lama) is less recognizable, and "Lama" is also honorific... So why not make an exception for Jigme Rinpoche for the sake of clarity? Make sense? Is there a guideline for this? Thanks Badabara (talk) 05:55, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I think it needs to be moved to the talk page of the article. scope_creep^Talk 14:26, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note to closing Admin Article has been updated with new references and meets WP:HEY. It can now be closed for keep. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 14:26, 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.

^ https://www.deccanchronicle.com/150906/entertainment-mollywood/article/jemin-living-dream
^ http://www.thehindu.com/features/cinema/audio-beat-pongadi-neengalum-unga-kadhalum-trendy-tunes/article5408367.ece
^ https://www.dtnext.in/news/city/2018/09/15000309/1088492/no-filter-with-no-star-backing-actor-adithya-has-arrived.vpf
^ https://www.thehindu.com/entertainment/movies/aroul-d-shankar-on-how-he-landed-in-yaman/article17447631.ece

[1] ttps://www.deccanchronicle.com/150906/entertainment-mollywood/article/jemin-living-dream

[2] ttp://www.thehindu.com/features/cinema/audio-beat-pongadi-neengalum-unga-kadhalum-trendy-tunes/article5408367.ece

[3] ttps://www.dtnext.in/news/city/2018/09/15000309/1088492/no-filter-with-no-star-backing-actor-adithya-has-arrived.vpf

[4] ttps://www.thehindu.com/entertainment/movies/aroul-d-shankar-on-how-he-landed-in-yaman/article17447631.ece

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]