Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 January 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 11 January 13 >

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. Daniel (talk) 04:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marilyn Jess[edit]

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

Porn actress deleted at afd created with entirely unsuitable sources. Fails ent and gng Spartaz Humbug! 21:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Since admissibility is based on the nature of the subject and not on the quality of the source. Jess is with Lahaie the best known French porn actresses from the 80s. Hektor (talk) 15:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just asserting this person is "best known x" is not enough. You have to show actual reliable sources that will lead to passing of GNG. Wikipedia is built on actual sources, and none have been presented that would lead to passing GNG, so we need to delete this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the sources are too poor and claiming she is the best known French porn star of her day sounds like gossip because it can’t be verified. Trillfendi (talk) 15:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
your answer just show that Wikipedia is Us centric and porn actors from other countries have a higher notability threshold to cross. Her most famous film of the 80s has just been rereleased in Blu ray just on her name. LA FEMME OBJET : re-édition d'un film mythique qui réconcilie fesses et SF Which porn actor from the 80s in the Us could say that. Hektor (talk) 19:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hektor: Porn actors have it rough here, period. It’s hard enough finding suitable sources without venturing into Reality Kings. Nobody cares who came from Timbuktu or Philadelphia, notability is the same for everyone, everywhere on here. The PORNBIO notability subject was deprecated, not even winning an AVN award is good enough anymore. If Marilyn Jess had as important a career as you allege you would’ve edited it accordingly. But you haven’t. Trillfendi (talk) 01:34, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rough translation: A word also on the heroine, Marilyn Jess?

Before this film, Marylin was a young actress who hadn't shot much. Instantly, as soon as the movie came out, she became the new porn star, Brigitte Lahaie having just hung up. Her temper was completely different from Brigitte's, because Marylin was more mischievous, more mischievous and jovial. He's someone we see laughing a lot in the movies, but not in LA FEMME OBJET. The funny thing is that the movie that made her famous doesn't match her character at all. It was a real compositional role for her because she doesn't speak, she has very few expressions. She will remain the undisputed star of X until the end of her career, in 1986.

  • Comment FWIW: "Brigitte Lahaie, Marilyn Jess and Clara Morgane are probably the top three French pornstars ever."[1] "...and was introduced to one of the biggest stars of French porn cinema from the ’70s and ’80s, Marilyn Jess."[2] "Marilyn Jess and with Olinka [two actresses who were well known in the 1970s and 1980s]"[3] "During hardcore cinema's second wave of popularity in late 1970s, French stars such as Brigitte Lahaie and Marilyn Jess, American stars such as Vanessa Del Rio, Annette Haven, and Leslie Bovee, and Danish porn power couple Bent and Bir Warburg were crucial to the financing and successful international distribution of theatrical porn films." [4]

References

  1. ^ Watson, Ian; Quaglia, Roberto. The Beloved of My Beloved. NewCon Press. p. 180. ISBN 978-0-9555791-9-6.
  2. ^ Cattet, Hélène; Forzani, Bruno (30 August 2018). "How We Ended Up Casting a Legendary French Porn Star in Our New Movie". Talkhouse.
  3. ^ Roussel, Violaine; Bielby, Denise. Brokerage and Production in the American and French Entertainment Industries: Invisible Hands in Cultural Markets. Lexington Books. p. 81. ISBN 978-0-7391-9314-3.
  4. ^ Björklund, Elisabet; Larsson, Mariah. Swedish Cinema and the Sexual Revolution: Critical Essays. McFarland. p. 223. ISBN 978-1-4766-6544-3.
Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 04:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Teri Laadli Main[edit]

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

Future television show that does not satisfy television notability. See Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Article on this show has already been moved from article space to draft space once, and so cannot be moved to draft space again. Draft space is the right place for it until it airs. Naïve Google search shows that the show is planned, which is what this article says, and consists mainly of advance notices about the show, which is what would be expected. There is nothing that satisfies general notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:41, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:41, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:42, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speed delete or move the article to draft. Not yet notable. The show is yet to be live/on-air. Thanks --C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 11:35, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The one "delete" is by a blocked editor.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 04:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anoshirvan Taghavi[edit]

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

I failed to find any significant reliable coverage online. Fails GNG and other relevant subjective notability criteria, I have checked all sources in Farsi, there are mentions of him as a participant of a music band in a concerts, the only source about him is one that he has been hospitalized in a hospital. Mardetanha (talk) 14:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Non-US musicians must be evaluated based on popularity in their own countries. Based on his collaborations with other artists that are popular (which have Wiki pages), he meets criteria #6 of WP:MUSICBIO. there is also significant coverage in Persian publications. Expertwikiguy (talk) 04:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - undisclosed paid-for spam, creator blocked as a confirmed spammer based on off-wiki evidence. MER-C 15:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - subject does not meet WP:MUSICIAN, WP:ANYBIO or WP:BASIC Spiderone 21:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have an editor who claims there is significant coverage. Other editors claim there is none. As it is unreasonable to expect them to prove a negative, those who posit the significant coverage should explain, preferably by providing links, or explaining which sources in the article confer notability, and why. @Expertwikiguy:
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I based my vote on significant coverage is in farsnews.ir and mehrnews.ir. These are both major Persian publications, but also he meets criteria #6 of WP:MUSICBIO due to his collaborations with other major Persian artist, as they have their own wiki pages too, so it could be assumed collaborations are with popular artists. Expertwikiguy (talk) 21:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no significant coverage, as I have stated in my nomination, there is a single source which is about him and that is the one which says he underwent surgery and was in the hospital, that's all Mardetanha (talk) 13:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Even if he was covered in major Persian publications, those still have to have significant information beyond basic press releases and brief announcements. Under both his Persian and English names, all else to be found are promotional sites and minor social media chatter. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The claim above, "Non-US musicians must be evaluated based on popularity in their own countries" directly contradicts what WP:N states about popularity. Nothing in the article, aobve, or in BEFORE show WP:IS WP:RS containing material that meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth. Promotions and press releases do not establish notability and BLP articles should strictly follow WP:SIGCOV, WP:RS, WP:V and WP:N sourcing requirements.  // Timothy :: t | c | a   02:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nom (non-admin closure) Onel5969 TT me 22:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Owens[edit]

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

Just the usual political coverage one would expect. Fails WP:NPOL. Onel5969 TT me 21:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 21:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Owens passes WP:NPOL, actually. He was elected this past November to the Utah House of Representatives. NPOL includes Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels.[12] This also applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Member of the Utah House of Representatives. Passes WP:NPOL. --Enos733 (talk) 21:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree: as a member of the Utah House of Representatives, Owens passes WP:NPOL.--Thelema12 (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdawn by nominator. 22:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:42, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

888 16th St NW[edit]

888 16th St NW (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to fail WP:NBUILDING, only sources I can find say "X moved here", along with some real estate listing sites. DarthFlappy 21:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. DarthFlappy 21:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. DarthFlappy 21:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I can find lots of local interest in the Trammell Crow refurb of a year or so ago, but as for the original building I found but one book reference which was not in depth. The MPA likes to assert that a lot historic happened there, but nobody else seems to care much about them. I don't get the impression that anyone from outside the immediate area cares much. Mangoe (talk) 05:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - run of the mill building of ordinary, banal architecture that once had an important tenant. Ho hum. Bearian (talk) 01:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not important, few sources. Scrooge200 (talk) 20:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 04:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of colors: N–R[edit]

List of colors: N–R (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete. By title, a partial duplication of List of colors: N–Z. By development, an immature draft (see history: created as Draft Oct 2018; from Draft to Mainspace Nov 2019 by a different editor, while no sourcing improvement edits have been made ever). While, when editing these color lists, the strong red edit warning says: new colors added should have wikilink+source. So just "Merge" would leave other editors the burden of having to check each entry. In short: a drafting excercise went out of hand. DePiep (talk) 20:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Below, creator Ahecht describes the creation background and that clarifies all. Good to learn it's not that complicated. Snow? -DePiep (talk) 23:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, now I understand ;-) -DePiep (talk) 21:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes. Daniel (talk) 14:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Survival of the Idiots[edit]

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

ALLPLOT episode article with no chance of passing GNG. Also, the plot is copied from the fandom wiki. Redirect to List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes Kingsif (talk) 20:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Kingsif's assessment of the article was true one month ago, when it was PROD'ed originally. However, I have since improved the article to make it pass through standards. The article is far from WP:ALLPLOT. I encourage everyone to improve the article.--Kieran207 talk 03:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sorry, yes, IMDb user reviews. Read WP:GNG, please. When the only content of substance is plot, it's basically ALLPLOT, anyway. There's no sources to improve it with, or I'm sure you'd have and added them all. Give it up, dude. Kingsif (talk) 04:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You have been trying to get this article deleted for almost one month. And although your opinion hasn't changed, the article has. The article now has more sourcing, more than just the plot, and indication of importance. And despite your opinion, the article continues to show large improvements. Few of your claims against this article hold up. "The plot was copied from fandom wiki" So? The plot for Friend or Foe is also copied from the Fandom wiki, Go ahead and nominate that one for deletion will ya? And i'm sure the article passes GNG, it might not overachieve it, but it passes it.--Kieran207 talk 20:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Er, no. I waited a month to see if it improved, it's not like I've been commenting on the talkpage every day that it should go. The article has changed, but it doesn't meet GNG. It has refs to confirm the episode 1. exists, 2. aired on TV, 3. was released on a season DVD. None of these confer notability. It then has refs to say it has an IMDb score, and appears on an IMDb fan list. Please see Wikipedia:IMDBREF as to why those are unacceptable. There are then 2 refs from media sources that have ranked all Spongebob episodes; this is basically, again, saying "this exists" (in this case, per INDISCRIMINATE). When your article's best source is Screen Rant, there's a problem. The most recent additions are three sentences that wildly misrepresent the coverage in their sources: The episode is perhaps most commonly remembered for the "I'm Dirty Dan!" line, which is considered to be one of the show's most iconic lines. The "I'm Dirty Dan!" line also has become a large Meme in popular culture. Most notably during Hurricane Sandy in 2012. - the sources for the first sentence say that this line in the episode is memorable, when discussing, again, all of Spongebob. The source for second and third just includes this line on an indiscriminate list of Hurrican Sandy memes: so the second sentence is unsourced and the third says "notable" when the source doesn't reflect that. There's also no reason that such coverage couldn't be given at a "Spongebob memes" article or section. The fact is, this episode has no coverage that is more than a passing mention, and even only gets a passing mention in three RS's. And that's clearly scraping the barrel. If you think that meets GNG then I encourage you to stop creating articles. The mention of copying the plot from fandom wiki is because, with no other coverage, we are basically hosting something that is suitably covered there. Just let people use fandom wiki for episode details. Kingsif (talk) 21:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Are you proposing for the article to be deleted due to GNG concerns, or a redirect to List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes? It's fine to be concerned about the topic's notability, but you are not clear with your nomination rationale. It should be one, or the other. Haleth (talk) 14:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It can be both: GNG concerns that would have it deleted, but since there's an episode list we might as well redirect the title. Kingsif (talk) 17:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Haverhill, Massachusetts#Education. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 00:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Walnut Square Elementary School[edit]

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

No evidence of notability - I can only find run-of-the-mill coverage. PROD was declined by the article's creator. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. JayJayWhat did I do? 04:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Haverhill, Massachusetts per WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG#N: "Articles on elementary/primary and middle schools are normally blanked and redirected or merged into the school district article (USA) or the appropriate locality article." Since the school district doesn't have it's own article, the municipality's article is the appropriate redirect. Orvilletalk 05:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Haverhill, Massachusetts#Education: Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL / (WP:ORGCRIT). Subject lacks WP:IS WP:RS WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. There is basic, run of the mill, routine, normal, coverage the type schools normally receive. Source in article are not IS. BEFORE revealed nothing with SIGCOV. This is a nice, normal, school, not an encyclopedic topic.  // Timothy :: t | c | a 06:32, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a totally non-notable elementary school.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above and WP:TNT; alternately redirect. The stub focuses on trivial details of the original cost of parts of the building, rather than learning or other such important concepts. Antoine de Saint-Exupery is spinning in his grave. Bearian (talk) 01:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • HELP Instead of having it deleted. I am absolutely garbage with Wikipedia code, and I need HELP to expand the article. The school is 200 years old, and somehow it's not notable? SilentRevisions (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Haverhill, Massachusetts#Education:I agree with others. Notable includes national and international press significance. Elementary schools do not usually have their own page. That is usually reserved for some high schools and universities. There are many historical schools in Massachusetts which would be non-notable. I can help transfer the entire information under the town's education section in a grammar correct format, to honor the school's significance to the local area. BenKlesc (talk) 12:11, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:56, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One Globe Conference[edit]

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

Spam. WP:TNT it! Geschichte (talk) 19:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America1000 09:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Isis Adventure[edit]

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

Not enough coverage in secondary sources; I've only found a Boing Boing review and a local news article. Just an expensive puzzle game, and it doesn't seem notable. ~EdGl talk 19:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ~EdGl talk 19:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. ~EdGl talk 19:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Logs: 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

University of Michigan Honors Program[edit]

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

Initial PROD removed by creator. Hasn't had any independent editing since then and there's no evidence to be found that this is a notable honors program. Would have just re-directed to the university but editor who removed second (accidental, I presume) PROD recommended AfD, so here we are. StarM 18:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. StarM 18:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. StarM 18:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. StarM 18:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Radovanović[edit]

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

The most trivial passing of WP:NFOOTBALL that I have ever seen; he came onto the pitch and played less than one minute of professional football. This was to be his only appearance. Whilst I am aware that passing NFOOTBALL was enough at the time to have an article, there are now almost 100 AfD discussions that say that a borderline pass, which this clearly is, is not enough on its own. Please note that his two alleged appearances for HŠK Posušje do not count towards NFOOTBALL as the Bosnian league was not professional back then.

In terms of WP:GNG, this article does nothing and this article has four sentences about him, which basically confirm what we already know. He played one minute. He never played again. He got released. Spiderone 18:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, does not truly meet any Wikipedia guideline. Geschichte (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As best I can tell this is currently an unsourced biography of a living person, which is something we absolutely do not allow.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails GNG far more important than scraping by on NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 22:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amirul Shafik Che Soh[edit]

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

I reverted some unsourced edits to this and realised that the player does not pass WP:NFOOTBALL; appearances for Kelantan, even if correct, would not qualify him as Kelantan were playing in the second tier in 2019 and 2020. Coverage of him is trivial, including on Goal.com, Malaysian Metro and Malay Mail. Does not look to pass WP:GNG, which is the bare minimum guideline for footballers that don't pass NFOOTBALL. Spiderone 17:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 17:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Whacking this despite the low turnout per BLP. Daniel (talk) 14:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Veenu Paliwal[edit]

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

Non-notable amature biker who does not meet WP:NMOTORSPORT or WP:BASIC. RationalPuff (talk) 17:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO. Lacks significant coverage in reliable media. Only some coverage related to her death. Walrus Ji (talk) 19:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Whacking this despite the low turnout per BLP. Daniel (talk) 14:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hamayu Usman[edit]

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

BLP of unelected politician. Does not meet WP:NPOL. Mccapra (talk) 15:08, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 15:08, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 15:08, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be deleted because ok he in unelected that is right but Usman was a FOUNDING member of SHEIKH RASHEED'S party Awami Muslim League where he was the central information secretary and then he joined former 2010 World Mayor Prize Winner Syed Mustafa Kamal's party Pak Sarzameen Party (PSP) Also he hosted PSP's Iftar in 2018 which was one of the biggest Iftar arrangements in Pakistan largest city Karachi KaimkhaniKamal (talk) 29 December 2020 (UTC) He is also the current finance secretary of PSP, Sindh's biggest party.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 18:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sonia Jain[edit]

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

Non-notable amature biker who does not meet WP:NMOTORSPORT or WP:BASIC. The article creator has a single-purpose account, therefore, likely UPE or CoI. RationalPuff (talk) 16:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 16:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 16:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 16:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 16:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete After conducting a WP:BEFORE search the subject does not pass the basic notability requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia as prescribed in WP:N. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 16:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Oaktree b (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete social media references and youtube links will not be consider under reliable source PangolinPedia 07:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 14:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leon Lissek[edit]

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

The sourcing is atrocious here, not anywhere near even close to meeting GNG. I also am unconvinced that even one of the roles Lissek had would be considered a significant role in a notable production. I know there are some debates about what is a significant role, well in theory, in practice we seem to just mass create articles on anyone who shows up in cast lists a few times with no thought as to the roles being significant, but these roles are not. John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:05, 4 January 2021 (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/2021 January 4. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 22:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - I looked online and found a few possible sources, but his roles have generally been very small for even character actors. Bearian (talk) 01:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: WP:NACTOR asks for Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. While this list gives many roles, none of them are significant roles. --Whiteguru (talk) 09:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as he meets WP:NACTOR. He was the lead in Bloodmoon and had significant roles on The Sullivans and EastEnders (as Bruno di Marco). I'm finding quite a bit of stage work too. The article in its present state, even with my additions, is an incomplete picture of his career. This is often the case in AfDs related to film/television/radio/theatre of the 20th century, especially for prolific actors such as Lissek. It seems fans create articles, but they are not aware of the need to cite sources or they don't know which paywalled databases to access to get the information. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 12:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC) Edit: he has high billing and appears to have been in every episode of Roberts Robots, Tottering Towers, and The Tingaree Affair. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 12:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus exists that this article should not exist at this title in this form. Up to the punters more generally if some reference to this is included in one of the seemingly thousands of articles mentioned as possible targets below. Daniel (talk) 14:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agios Nikolaos of Angelokomis[edit]

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

Recently created article on an alleged minor personality of late Byzantine / early Ottoman history, who has recently drawn some attention because a character based on him featured in a popular historical drama series on Turkish TV, but who almost certainly never existed.

According to some early Ottoman chronicles (which the article fails to cite, leaving its factual basis entirely vague), a person called "Aya Nikola" was a "tekfur", i.e. minor Byzantine official, in Inegöl, where he fought against Osman, the founder of the Ottoman dynasty, in the late 13th century. This would barely be enough to make him notable even if it was true. But as is explained in this scholarly treatment (which the article likewise fails to cite), this alleged personality is unlikely to have existed. In particular, this is because no Byzantine could possibly have born this name. "Aya" (rendered here as "agios", i.e. "saint") is supposed to be part of his name, not an actual saint's title. It is entirely impossible for a Byzantine Christian person to be so named (and needless to say, there is no actual saint of that name in the Orthodox church either, apart from the real St Nicholas). As the article cited above demonstrates, "Agios Nikolaos" was almost certainly not the name of any person at that time and place, but simply the local Greek place name of Inegöl itself. The Ottoman chronicles (the earliest of which was written 2 centuries after the events in question) simply got these mixed up. The identification of Inegöl with a place called "Agios Nikolaos" is also independently confirmed here [4].

Apart from the medieval chronicles that invented him, and recent popular reflections based on the TV series, the alleged "Aya Nikola" gets mentioned in a handful of modern Turkish works. I haven't found a single non-Turkish source that takes any note of him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:34, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:34, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:34, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As far as I know we've had a few discussions about fictional characters in Turkish series: they all ended up being deleted. The Dutch page is nominated for deletion too. Obviously these 2 are not reasons for deletion. There are a few Turkish sources mentioning that he fought against Osman in Domanic Battle (couldn't find an English translation for it, so I guess I made my own), like this, but as said by the nominator fighting in a battle alone is not enough for notability. Hürriyet says that he was an important person for the Orthodox people and that there are churches made that have his name. Not confirmed, but I think one of them is Aya Nikola Kilisesi in Istanbul [tr], which makes me think its not a WP:HOAX. There are a few books citing him: this, this and this and there are plenty more. All of them mention roughly the same: his role the Domanic Battle. I don't know what Sabah and Hürriyet base their claims on. I haven't quite looked at the notability guidelines for historical people yet, so I'm only commenting. ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 08:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The claim about the churches is obvious nonsense: there are of course thousands of churches and places called "Aya Nikola" ("Agios Nikolaos"), but each and every one of them is named after the real St Nicholas of Myra – just like the village this guy supposedly administered. The fact that Hurriyet mixes those up just goes to demonstrate they have no idea what they're talking about. Same goes for all the other Turkish newspapers parroting each other in running these kinds of articles about those TV characters and their alleged historical background. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:11, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I was thinking that too. The books all say about the same: Tekfur of İnegöl, worked together with the Tekfur of Bilecik to fight Osman (a bit more detailed). Let's assume that the sources are true and that he existed. I don't think that the battle would make him notable enough for an article. I think I will go with Delete. If someone finds something else, I would be happy to hear it. ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 09:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we know in what sense he "existed": Those medieval Ottoman chronicles do mention him, and all those things the Turkish books reiterate are basically just what's in there. We can of course assume that there would have been some "tekfur" in Inegöl and that Osman fought against him; it's just that we don't know his name. Some Ottoman scribe at some point confused a phrase that meant "the tekfur of Agios Nikolaos" with "the tekfur Agios Nikolaos"; simple as that (cf p.34 here). Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On which page of the the Dergipark source is it stated that he doesn't exist? Its 300+ pages. ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 13:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pages 17-35, the article "İnegöl Adının Menşei Üzerine" by Muhammet Tarakçı. In his summary section on p.34 he says "İnegöl tekfurunun adının Aya Nikola olamayacağı ve Âşıkpaşazâde’nin verdiği bilgide bir yanlışlık olduğu ortaya çıkmaktadır" ('we can conclude that the tekfur of Inegöl cannot have been called Aya Nikola and that the information given by Aşıkpaşazâde is erroneous') The details of the argument are on the pages leading up to p.30, which concludes in the statement "Aya Nikola’nın tekfurun değil de, İnegöl şehrinin ismi olması" ("that 'Aya Nikola' wasn't the name of the tekfur, but the name of the town of Inegöl"). Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Found it. Crucially it also says that older sources from the 13th and 14th century don't mention his name but rather say "Tekfur of Inegöl". I'll let the people in the Dutch AfD know. ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 14:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve As we all know, he is mentioned in a lot of books about his role in the battles, maybe we can add a biography section explaining them? Turkish news sources can be used alongside the books. Limorina (talk) 12:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]
    • The Turkish news sources are all rubbish, as demonstrated above. Journalists aren't reliable sources about medieval history. And the two or three books are merely uncritically rehashing the story from the old chroniles, without ever critically reflecting their reliability or documenting its factual basis and sources. The only reliable source dealing with him I've seen so far is the one that says he didn't exist. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:48, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what about this (you may need to scroll down) I found on İslâm Ansiklopedisi? It doesn't mention his name but it talks about the tekfurs of Inegöl and Bilecik and the battles. Limorina (talk) 12:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thats the point. Tekfur of Inegöl existed, but we are not sure if it was Aya Nikola. ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 12:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep -- Agios means holy, which is the equivalent of saint (from Latin for holy). Tekfur is apparently "governor". I see this person (if not a hoax) as potentially notable, but we need much better sources. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • But that's the whole point: this person wasn't a saint. If there had been a person considered a saint at that time and place, Byzantine Christian sources would have been written about him. No person in the Orthodox church could possibly become a saint without massive amounts of writing about him in church sources. The Turkish chronicles weren't claiming he was a saint either. They were calling him "aya" as if that was simply part of his name. Which is plainly impossible, as anybody with just the faintest idea about Byzantine culture knows – people simply weren't named like that. It is entirely impossible for a person walking around at that time and place and being called "Aya Nikola" or anything remotely similar to that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible that some people at that time, possibly the people living in İnegöl, called him "Aya" because they liked him as a Tekfur? I have a feeling (no source) that his actual name was just Nikola. My argument is pretty weak but I agree that he sounds like a notable person. Limorina (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not possible that people were just calling him "Agios" locally. That's not how "sainthood" works in Christianity. You only become a "saint" after your death, for starters. And if he was actually a notable figure, for his military or political role or any other reason, we'd know about him from Byzantine sources. For one thing, we would know what his actual title and rank was. Keep in mind there was no such job as "tekfur" in reality; it's merely an exonym, the Turkish word for a local official whose actual rank and function in the Byzantine administration the Turks couldn't bother to remember. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment what about keeping the article title but changing the content to reflect the points made in this discussion, so that the (presumably numerous) people wanting to know something about him after watching the tv series can learn that there was no such person? Mccapra (talk) 05:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • But there was a Tekfur of Inegöl (as per İslâm Ansiklopedisi), it's disputed whether he was called Aya Nikola. Are you suggesting that there be an article about the Tekfur of Inegöl or an article about the fictional character? I don't quite understand what you mean? Limorina (talk) 11:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • There was a tekfur of Inegöl? Yes, maybe, except that we don't know anything about him. Even in the Ottoman chronicles and in the modern works based on them, like the account in Islam Ansiklopedisi you linked to, nothing is said about him except that he was opposed to Osman. He is always mentioned together with other "tekfur"s, of Karacahisar, Bilecik and so on. None of them stands out among the others in any way that would make them notable. They were just minor Byzantine military officers. We don't know their names (the only thing we know is that this one most certainly was not called "Aya Nikola"); we don't know their titles and offices (we only know it most certainly wasn't "tekfur"), we don't know when they were born and died, we don't know what they did. Heck, we don't even know for certain what the place he commanded was called in his time (it was most certainly not "Angelokomis"; that isn't even correct Greek.) Nothing, nada. Nobody would ever dream of writing an article about any of them, if it hadn't been for that TV series. The article we could write about him would have exactly one sentence: There once was some guy who was the Byzantine Greek commander of an insignificant village that is now Inegöl. The End. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more input by Byzantinists...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The subject obviously fails to meet the WP:Notability criteria. Nobody seems to be able to expand the article to a suiable length. The name of the article can be made a redirect to somewhere else like İnegöl. That article can mention the subject of this article and give to interested readers that little info avaiable. A note in the end: @Peterkingiron: re what you said that I see this person (if not a hoax) as potentially notable, I think that rules say that if the notability is not clearly established, the article does not have a good reason to stay. Of course, if later someone is able to write a decent article, they are welcome to do so. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If there is insufficient evidence in academic lit in history and elsewhere as relevant, then we cannot be sure we are not popularizing a hoax. Should veritable sources arise that would validate this article's contents, that would change things, but we can't idly let ourselves present what is likely disinformation because there is some small chance it *could* be legit -- burden of proof and all.--Calthinus (talk) 18:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: What if this article is reworked into an article about the Battle of Domaniç or the Battle of Mount Armenia? Limorina (talk) 12:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "Battle of Mount Armenia" was an "insignificant local skirmish", according to the Islam Ensiklopedisi article you cited earlier, so probably not a proper topic for an article. The other battle might be worth a stub, but hardly anything is known about the role of this "tekfur of Inegöl" in it, and in any case there's too little of value in the present article to make preservation of the edit history desirable. There's also no value in preserving a redirect from this specific article title, as it's not a plausible search term – no source, even among those that assume his existence, has ever actually called this guy "Agios Nikolaos", and certainly not "Agios Nikolaos of Angelokomis". Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, since obviously no person with such a name existed, as Fut. Perf. has shown (and as any Greek-speaker would tell you). However, the information about Ashikpashazade reporting a tekfur of that name, and why this is incorrect, should be added in the İnegöl article, precisely to combat this misinformation that is apparently widespread in Turkey. Constantine ✍ 14:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per above. There is no reason to work this into something else, if someone thinks another topic is notable and some sources here would help create an article, they should create it, not rework content here. The article history here would be unneeded baggage and reworking would take more effort than starting fresh.  // Timothy :: t | c | a   04:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 14:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maveryx[edit]

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

Non-notable company, WP:PROMO reads like a sales brochure. Its only cited sources are two long-ago conference talks by employees. Search reveals little other coverage. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, I was able to find a handful of search matches on Google Scholar, but searching through the non-paywalled ones did not reveal any significant coverage, which leaves me less than optimistic about the papers that I was not able to review. signed, Rosguill talk 15:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Rosguill: I also found mentions, when doing a BEFORE, but nothing that came close to GNG "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The articles in it-wiki (this is an Italian company) and in de-wiki were both created in 2020 by SPAs, both are translations of this promotional article. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per my last AfD. No reliable sources can be found to support the product's notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Walter Görlitz: I don't understand why we are discussing the Maveryx (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article instead of the Maveryx Srl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) one. Rosguill reviewed it because I moved it from my sandbox after I waited many months for a review. --Megaride (talk) 20:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because this is the article up for deletion. Neither meets notability requirements. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Megaride, I converted Maveryx Srl to a redirect because it appeared to fall far short of meeting WP:NCORP, and Maveryx was a relevant related article to point it to that had a bit of a stronger claim to meeting WP:GNG. It appears that it as well, however, falls short of that mark. Additionally, you have not yet responded to the COI disclosure notice that I left on your talk page. signed, Rosguill talk 20:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill:, I just responded the COI disclosure notice on my talk page.--Megaride (talk) 21:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC) Walter Görlitz, the Maveryx (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article was created when it was an open-source project. After that it is was just updated. I used other articles as example to write it.--Megaride (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Geschichte (talk) 23:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relja Milanković Reksona[edit]

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

A possible nonnotable singer. No third party sources provided, none found. Has 3 notability tag that remained since March 2018. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - sources fail to establish notability; plenty of sources on the Serbian Wikipedia page but, those that are reliable, either give him or his company a passing mention or don't mention him at all. Part of a series of seemingly non-notable topics that include Bassivity Digital, Bassivity Music and Oneya. Spiderone 15:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with above. Peter303x (talk) 02:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - One of several articles involving this musician and his various small business ventures. None are notable per WP's rules on reliable media coverage, and they are probably attempted promotions. Meanwhile, this article's "Discography" section includes TV shows and movies, which apparently included some production work from this guy's companies, but they are not even close to his own releases. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Someone might want to take a look at Jedan na jedan, which is linked to the article under discussion here. Foreign film notability is not my area of expertise, but this one looks fishy too. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 14:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Onion Games[edit]

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

I am unable to find significant discussion of this company in multiple reliable sources per WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. ... discospinster talk 15:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 15:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 15:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I previously endorsed the PROD which was removed by the page creator - all of the sources are routine business announcements which are not substantial. I was unable to find anything that met the WP:GNG. ~RAM (talk) 23:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • yeah just delete it EmotionlessProsecutor (talk) 18:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: this is the author of the page. ~RAM (talk) 07:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NCORP and WP:MILL. It is not the same as the possibly notable Quarter Onion Games. Bearian (talk) 01:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep:Needs improvement on references. Otherwise return to draft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brilliantfire (talk • contribs) 11:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:GNG failure; may well be notable in the future so possibly WP:TOOSOON at best; not every indie game developer is notable enough for an article Spiderone 18:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Agarwal[edit]

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

Non notable business person lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 14:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 14:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 14:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 14:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 00:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LaBryan Ray[edit]

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

Does obviously not meet Wikipedia’s general notability guideline. Fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG as well. –Cupper52Discuss! 14:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. –Cupper52Discuss! 14:15, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. –Cupper52Discuss! 14:17 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus non-notable Nosebagbear (talk) 14:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bobbili Vamsham[edit]

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

Non notable film, nothing found in a WP:BEFORE to help it pass WP:NFILM. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. –Cupper52Discuss! 14:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not every commercially made film is notable. That is basically the inclusion criteria we would need to justify this article,John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 18:38, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Geschichte (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Avaye Honar[edit]

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

Searching "آوای هنـــر" and "Avaye Honar" doesn't seem to bring much to suggest that this would pass WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. It has a brief bio at Genius and a Facebook page with 133 followers. Most other hits are either primary sources or about something that is nothing to do with this record label. For example there is 'Avaye Honar Gallery' and 'Avaye Honar Institute of Music' both of which seem to be more notable than this record label. Spiderone 13:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we need something other than a subjects website to show notability. The really scary thing is that probably a majority of articles on record labels have this level of sourcing or just a little more. We have lots of areas in Wikipedia with articles that lack adequate sourcing. It is a daunting taks to fix these issues, which are in large part a relic of our uncontrolled build policies that existed for the first 5 years of the project, and even when we started to form definite limits of inclusion in 2006, what people saw was reckless almost limitless inclusion in practice, and repeated more what they saw than what our policies advised.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I think I went far enough down the rabbit hole when I found this article. Not sure I want to venture too much further! Spiderone 16:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Non-notable Nosebagbear (talk) 14:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MourningSound Records[edit]

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

I can't see that there is enough here to pass WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. This band has a very small catalogue of releases and none of the bands or albums seem to be notable. Bhelliom had an article but it was deleted as A7 all the way back in 2007. There is a tiny bit of (promotional sounding) info at this website but I found little else. The label is listed on Discogs but I don't believe that it makes it notable by default. Spiderone 13:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete not GNG even by Singapore's standards, unfortunately. – robertsky (talk) 14:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unnotable label. During a google search I only found discogs, metal archives, reverbnation, spirit of metal and blogspot. Results No evidence of reliable sources, no evidence of notability. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable, no non-database sources about the topic. Globg 15:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the best source I could find was spirit of metal, which was merely a directory listing, aside from the point I don't know if it is reliable or not. Does not pass GNG, does not appear to meet NMUSIC#5, and there is no verification it has had any cultural impact on a genre or regional music scene. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Spirit of Metal is not listed at WP:ALBUMAVOID, which makes it hard to determine the reliability of a site. But I think it's unreliable. Even though it calls itself a webzine, it looks much more like a database to me. It always lists bands and other stuff in a database-like way (the basic facts listed, and even then, many times they are incorrect, for example, about the year the band was founded). So I wouldn't count on it. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rio Tinto Borax Mine. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:19, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

West Baker, California[edit]

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

I don't think this one meets WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG. Topos show two buildings and a borax mine. The only coverage I can turn up for this place on newspapers.com, google, or google books is for the West Baker mine, and the coverage appears to be largely trivial. No indication there was ever a proper community here. Hog Farm Bacon 03:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 03:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 03:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Redirect: I added a 1947 USGS map showing West Baker. Despite showing some buildings, the mine appears to be the only reason West Baker was "populated" at one time. It appears this mine is now the Rio Tinto Borax Mine ("the largest borax mine in the world, producing nearly half the world's borates"), so we could redirect there if we don't want to keep both articles. UPDATE: After reading more, i definitely think this and (Baker) should redirect to the mine article.--Milowent • hasspoken 15:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a former settlement. Many ghost towns have wikipedia articles. Worth keeping for now.SWP13 (talk) 03:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • SWP13 - The relevant notability guideline is WP:GEOLAND. Just being a former settlement doesn't quite cut it, as GEOLAND requires the community to have been legally recognized at some point in its existence to be notable. There's just no indication that this place ever had legal recognition as a community. Appearing on a map isn't enough, and there's a strong consensus over the course of many AFDs that the GNIS reference doesn't cut it - see the essay WP:GNIS for an explanation as to why not. There was a place here, although I haven't seen evidence that there was an actual community here in addition to the mine. However, being a real place does not equal automatic notability. West Baker would need to pass WP:GNG, and there just isn't enough coverage for that. Hog Farm Bacon 03:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Delete or Redirect to Rio Tinto Borax Mine. No post office. West Baker was at best an interim name of a mine and the locale West Baker is not notable, or is superseded by another article. I found no evidence of any settlement at this locale, I found no articles about "so and so living, dying or visiting West Baker". West Baker is not listed in ghosttowns.com (a fairly definitive though not necessarily WP:RS). Searching newspapers.com for ' "West Baker" in California ' yielded hits for "West Bakers.", which is probably West Bakersfield. Searching newspapers.com for ' "West Bakers" Borax ' yielded a single mining article: [5]. Searching newspapers.com for ' "Suckow Mine" in California' yields a number of hits, the best is a History the Suckow Mine. That article does not mention West Baker, so it is no help for this article and the Suckow Mine is mentioned in the Rio Tinto Borax Mine article. Searching for "West Baker" should not be confused with Baker, California, which is much more well known. Presumably, West Baker is west of the barely notable Baker, Kern County, California, which at least Durham reports to have had a post office (though that post office is not listed in the post office list I regularly use). As West Baker has no legal recognition and the trivial coverage indicates that it at best a non-notable interim name in a mine covered elsewhere, neither #1 nor #2 of WP:GEOLAND are met. For there to be an article about West Baker, I'd like to see a WP:RS source that indicates that West Baker was more than the interim name for a mine. Merging to Rio Tinto Borax Mine would be fine.Cxbrx (talk) 18:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 12:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I usually don't comment after I've voted and the article has been relisted, but I found no evidence that West Baker was anything but the interim name of a mine. I found no evidence that anyone lived there - I found no articles stating so and so visited from, lived at or died at West Baker. West Baker was the non-notable interim name of a mine that is covered elsewhere, there is no evidence that there was a community that had any function other than supporting a single mine. The West Baker article could be redirected to Rio Tinto Borax Mine so as to avoid someone accidentally recreating a West Baker article. Or, it could be deleted. However, what ever happens, there should not be a standalone "West Baker, California" article because West Baker is not a notable community. Eddie891: could you explain why you relisted instead of deleting or redirecting? I see that perhaps my "Merge or Delete" muddied the consensus, it would help me know how better to annotate these votes. Cxbrx (talk) 17:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would have been better to !vote 'delete or redirect' if that was the case, because 'merge' is not the same as 'delete'. When I relisted there was one comment (leaning redirect) by an established user, one 'keep' !vote by an established user, one delete !vote (nom), and one 'merge or delete' !vote (yours), not quite a consensus, imo. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! That's a big help. I've changed my !vote to delete or redirect. I appreciate you and the other admins taking the time to go through these and adjudicate them. With so many geography articles for deletion, it seems like the typical pattern is that a few editors are reviewing most of the articles with occasional different editors chiming in. Hopefully, this AfD will get some more input. Cxbrx (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed my comment to "redirect". If I am a reader of wikipedia, the best context to learn about the locale once called "West Baker" is in connection with the current mining operations.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Rio Tinto Borax Mine. There is no evidence this was a settlement or had legal recognition of any kind, its just a couple of buildings to support a mine. Even if there was some evidence people lived here, WP:GEOLAND states populated places without legal recognition are evaluated based on GNG and there is not SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth required by GNG. No objection to delete, but redirects are cheap.  // Timothy :: t | c | a   12:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Geschichte (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bassivity Digital[edit]

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

The parent company is currently at AfD and is looking like it will be deleted. The notability issues are clear to see for this one as well. I've noticed that User:doomsdayer520 added maintenance templates a while ago which were removed with no attempt to address the issue. I can't see how this subsidiary of a non-notable record label would meet WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Spiderone 12:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that it qualifies for A10, unfortunately, as it's not a recently created article. I do, however, have my concerns about Relja Milanković Reksona's notability as well. Article creator for all three articles seems to be an SPA. Spiderone 14:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Delete" and "Speedy Delete" are merely a procedural distinction. If I'm in favor of one then there should be no doubt that I'm in favor of the other as well. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, that one was actually created by a different user to these other 3 articles Spiderone 15:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the only sources I could find were either obviously non-independent, or user-generated content. Does not meet GNG, or NMUSIC#5. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There's a rough consensus that the WP:SYNTH problems cannot be overcome. Applying a dose of TNT. Randykitty (talk) 08:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indigenous Ways of Knowing[edit]

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

Several users have brought up problems with the article on the talk page and at the talk page of Xicanx (talk · contribs), the article's creator. These include:

  • A lack of neutrality, and support of fringe theories
  • The essay-like, unencyclopaedic tone
  • Excessive generalizations that homogenize disparate groups around the world. The author extrapolates and generalizes from sources that talk about specific cultures, constituting original research.

GenQuest (talk · contribs) argues that draftifying the article is inappropriate because, to put it bluntly, there's not much to salvage. I am inclined to agree. --Un assiolo (talk) 12:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Strong keep, possibly speedy per WP:CSK#3: This nomination simply has nothing to do with page deletion policy at all. The nomination describes reasons that someone might template a page, but absolutely zero indication is given as to why this page should be deleted. This topic is a massively obvious WP:GNG pass, with no reason to believe that it meets any other deletion criteria. In addition to the literally dozens of sources on the page, "indigenous ways of knowing" is the topic of entire university classes (e.g. 1 2, 3, etc.), research articles with hundreds or thousands of citations (e.g. 1, 2, 3, and the other 12,297 results for this search string on google scholar), books by major publishing houses and academic presses (1, 2, 3), and I could easily go on. There is just no serious discussion at all to be had here. - Astrophobe (talk) 15:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've struck my !vote and changed it to just being a comment on the framing of the nomination, because a deletion argument has now been advanced below, namely the case for TNT. It's very possible that that's better than overhauling the page as it is. - Astrophobe (talk) 22:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per TNT. Sometimes an article is so wrong at its core we just need to start over, which seems to be the case here. The alternative might be if the main contributor to the article stepped down for a bit and let others form it into something better over time. That's not happening, and it seems too late for that now anyway. GenQuest "scribble" 17:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The creator of the article is POV pushing, hard, and the base contention of the article is that ALL of Indigenous people are united in a common theme of beliefs everywhere in the world. And then the article sets out to bring together a bunch of generalized thoughts from a variety of individuals to create its own unique belief system as if every Indigenous person transcribes to it. It pushes one view as fact and not even one held by a majority of Indigenous people. Wikipedia is not a place for a college thesis paper. This is an obvious violation of Wikipedia rules on maintaining a neutral POV (WP:NPOV) and its use of over generalized and vague thoughts as well as declaring those thoughts came from "scholars", not necessarily recognized by every clan, tribe or nation to be someone to speak for their people, is quite troubling. The underlying foundation of this article is projecting a falsehood with the intention to mislead the reader into believing that Indigenous people in Australia have the same worldview beliefs as those in North America and, in turn, they have the same worldview beliefs as those in South America and so on and so on. It is disrespectful to individual nations, clans and tribes and the ancestral stories and beliefs that they hold sacred for themselves. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 17:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, GenQuest and RoseWolf. I found this mess and have tried to clean it up, and have been fought every step of the way by POV-pusher and essayist, Xicanx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who seems determined to use WP to establish OR as academic fact. While the phrase is established in academia, and thus results in many hits on google and in google scholar, the phrase is being used in differing ways, often by non-Indigenous people, to teach classes and author papers that are often offensive and insulting in their noble savage and anti-intellectual generalizations about tens of thousands of cultures, the world over. I've done what I can to try to fix this mess, and am sick of it; it's hopeless. Every and any phrase being kicked around by various people in academia doesn't deserve an article, especially when it results in messes like this. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 20:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Keep (See more explanation below) As stated by Astrophobe, there really is no reason at all as to why this article should be deleted. This term is so widely used and the page is full of sourced citations. Those arguing for its deletion seem to have some personal issue with how the concept is being applied by the academics themselves, but this should not be relevant as to whether a page should exist on Wikipedia or not. The article is not "wrong at its core" when the page is full of citations from academics, many of whom are Indigenous themselves (which is also outlined clearly throughout the article), who apply the term "Indigenous ways of knowing" and use the concept in the context it is being described on the page. The framing that this is being imposed on Indigenous people or that most of the academics cited are "non-Indigenous" is simply untrue and verifiable to anyone who reads the page. Xicanx (talk) 20:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then maybe you should write this article as an opinion piece and make it clear this is not fact but opinion. You pass it off as fact within the article when countless Indigenous people who edit here at Wikipedia are telling you that they do not accept this concept as fact. That, alone, defies this very concept. You are presenting, even doubling down on, a non-neutral POV. Just because academia says it doesn't make it true. That would be like taking the beliefs a specific tribe and that of the rest of the Indigenous world, find the similarities and then saying that every Indigenous person is a member of that tribe because they have similar beliefs. That's false. Similar does not mean equal. You can not paint the canvas of Indigenous peoples with a broad brush or make general statements on belief based on very personal and specific quotes. Comparisons work in the controlled environment of academia. They often do not work in the practical world where the environment is less controlled. That gets messy. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 21:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Xicanx, go read WP:NOT. WP is not the place for this project of yours. You might also want to take under advisement that not everyone who writes papers in the field of "Indigenous studies" is actually Indigenous, or actually involved in an Indigenous community. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 22:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Literally sentence 3 of the article addresses the concerns which have been raised as a reason to delete the page: "While there is not a universal Indigenous belief system, since Indigenous peoples throughout the world vary widely in terms of geography, language, and social structure, some scholars assert that there are several key similarities among Indigenous philosophical approaches that together form the foundation of IWOK." This sentence is substantiated by multiple scholarly sources, many of whom are by Indigenous academics (which, again, addresses another concern raised here). Again, the following direct quote is included which exemplifies the theoretical foundations of IWOK: "In a chapter on "Comparative Indigenous Ways of Knowing and Learning," scholars Katia Sol Madjidi and Jean-Paul Restole state:[18]
   Eurocentric and Indigenist are broad monolithic generalizations, as both categories are comprised of diverse national and cultural groups, each with their own unique traditions, perspectives, and approaches to knowing and learning. However, we use general categories as a basis for drawing out points of comparison between two distinct sets of worldviews and approaches to knowing and learning. We also name the specific affiliation of the author or tribe, wherever possible, to help distinguish and honour the specific cultural roots of each contribution.[18]"
This framing is supported by numerous sources by Indigenous academics. Some of the most prominent are listed here: Lisa Grayshield and Anita Mihecoby, both of whom are Indigenous, who do the very clear work of comparing Indigenous and Western worldviews in their published research, exhibited through the image provided in the Foundations section. Gregory Cajete, Leroy Little Bear, James (Sákéj) Youngblood Henderson, Marie Battiste, Arthur W. Blume, Carl Mika, Mark Rifkin, Nick Estes, Haunani-Kay Trask, Jean-Paul Restole, Grace Dillon, Sandra Styres, Linda Tuhiwai Smith, all of whom are Indigenous, do this comparative work evidently as well, also included on the page. Vine Deloria Jr., another prominent Indigenous academic, for example, states "a great unanimity among Aboriginal nations when they express their views on the natural world and on the behavior of humans in that world" yet also acknowledges the diversity of Indigenous peoples. Tewa educator Gregory Cajete states in reference to what he refers to as the rise of the Indigenous mind that while Indigenous peoples globally are very diverse "in terms of languages and in terms of places in which we live, what we have in common is this understanding of connection, of relationship, to the places in which we live."
All of the above are included and sourced on the page itself. Once again, if you do not agree with the conceptual framing these academics have presented (as exhibited through direct quotes), then that is a personal issue. These are the perspectives of Indigenous academics themselves and this perspective is clearly exhibited and sourced on the page. Just because I as an editor have sourced this material and have edited it onto a page, does not mean that page should be deleted. Just because you do not agree with a concept discussed by published academics should not mean that it should be deleted (especially when the page already addresses multiple concerns raised). For the record, I have stated this multiple times on both the article's Talk page and elsewhere. Thank you. Xicanx (talk) 22:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Citing Vine Deloria is a big red flag for me. He probably should not be cited for anything other than his own opinions. jps (talk) 02:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've looked over the article with an eye to what could be done to a) make it encyclopedic, and b) remove the "noble savage" tone apparently endemic to discussion on this academic theory. I couldn't find ways to do either. Even to slash-and-burn it down to almost a stub will leave problems inherent in the subject. Also note that academia, in general and over time, has promoted some really horrible theories about Indigenous peoples. I generally dislike deleting articles except for the most obvious cases. No matter how I examine it, I don't see how to salvage it. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 02:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:TNT. The current article reads like an essay, and is North America centric, as is typical with discussions on "indigenous people" (a term rarely used outside a western settler colonialism context). I do think that the term probably should redirect somewhere, but I am unsure where. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with a topic like "Indigenous Ways of Knowing" is that it is invariably broad and poorly defined, and a generalisation of many distinct groups. The academic sources make clear that the phrase itself is notable, but the article doesn't make clear when and where the phrase came from, nor how it is used in the literature. I think the article could be kept if it was transformed into one about the phrase itself and the ideas associated with it, without being too North America centric. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I saw this a while ago and am glad it got wide scrutiny now. CorbieVreccan nailed it when they said, While the phrase is established in academia, and thus results in many hits on google and in google scholar, the phrase is being used in differing ways, often by non-Indigenous people, to teach classes and author papers that are often offensive and insulting in their noble savage and anti-intellectual generalizations about tens of thousands of cultures, the world over. At best, it needs TNT, but I'd argue more for deletion per WP:FRINGE. Not every idea churned out somewhere in academia is actually a mainstream NPOV topic in the relevant field of scholarship. Crossroads -talk- 06:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Comments made above are apt; the article could be resurrected with a less credulous treatment of what is a fringe perspective. If these ideas are to be encyclopaedic, they probably belong in their creators' own articles. GPinkerton (talk) 15:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • More issues with similar articles: I went through the contribs of Xicanx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) last night. There are more articles with these exact same problems. I am asking others here to look over them. For example: Recolonization. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 19:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Xicanx, is a relatively new Wikipedia editor, only active since 2019. He/she is passionate about this topic and this is reflected in the article. I agree that the article in its current state is an argumentative essay, and it reminds me of New Age ideas. However, the cited sources indicate that the subject of the article is still a notable subject, and that there is room for improvement. WP:TNT never really works. In practice, it deletes articles without the creation of replacements. Dimadick (talk) 22:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly a notable topic[6] While it could definitely be improved, the article doesn't look nearly bad enough for TNT. Behavior issues such as POV pushing should be addressed at ANI or Arbcom, not by deleting the page. (t · c) buidhe 02:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unclear if this google scholar search is indicating that the topic itself is notable. I think the term is most often used as a means to identify certain specific instances where the knowledge of indigenous people is investigated, incorporated into research, or otherwise documented. The idea that there is a monolithic "indigenous way of knowing" that somehow can be identified as a singular endeavor is a conceit for which there is essentially no sources. Aside from a disambiguation page or perhaps a redirect to something like Indigenous studies, I have a hard time imagining how an article on this term could develop as anything other than a compendium which the current article simply does not accommodate. jps (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not just behavior issues. The way the article is written is important. If the article is not written from a neutral POV, not meaning the sources have to be neutral but that the tone of the article must be as if the author takes a neutral POV in regards to the content, and no path forward to editing the article to present it in a NPOV then there is grounds for deletion (TNT) no matter whether the topic is notable or not. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 14:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • UserfyDelete (I am convinced by User:CorbieVreccan's argument and the responses by user:Xicanx. Wikipedia is not the place to attempt to provide this kind of WP:SYNTHesis of sources. jps (talk) 19:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC)) I think some of the sources and text here may be usable in other context, but the entire endeavor is strikingly WP:SYNTHetic as an article. The wide net that is cast is particularly concerning and the treatment of this subject as a false binary contrasting with WWOK is problematic in the aggregate. There are some excellent sources and ideas to include in Wikipedia, but until there is a coherent exploration of this as a coherent subject in reliable secondary sources, Wikipedia should not be promoting some sort of system that this article is pushing. jps (talk) 02:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's a good idea, per WP:NOTWEBHOST. Xicanx is already trying to use the 'pedia to astroturf for their academic c.v. and projects, and they are misrepresenting some of the nn "scholars" they are promoting to push offensive generalizations and fringe theories, often by non-Indigenous academics who Xicanx doesn't seem to understand are not Indigenous (claims of partial or distant heritage are not the same thing as being part of an Indigenous culture and community). That Xicanx is misrepresenting established Indigenous authors as supporting the same theories in toto, due to some topical overlaps, is WP:OR and a form of forced-teaming. Buidhe's looking simply at the appearance of the phrase ignored these details, and Dimadick's stressing that Xicanx has "only" been here for two years doesn't seem to take into account their refusal to respect (or learn?) policy. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 19:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These comments are helpful overall, thank you.
I would like to say now that just because a collection of scholars assert a concept which may be viewed by others as problematic, does not mean it should not have a page. The notability of the subject has been established and it is indeed a notable topic. I will say again that I believe the page should stay, but I think I am just voting 'Keep' rather than 'Strong Keep' now after reading your comments. At this point, given the discussion so far, I think the page should be edited down significantly. Most sections, if not all, should be deleted and the topic should be summarized briefly. I do think most issues raised here do not warrant the page to be deleted, but rather, that it be edited down.
For some background, I became passionate about this subject after reading the work of Indigenous scholars, writers, artists, etc., many of whom are cited on the page. I am not being paid nor using this to boost my c.v. nor would I desire to work in academia lol. Through reading their work I came to understand how the concept these scholars, writers, and artists were employing was imperfect, homogenizing, and problematic, but also came to understand that it was or could be important/notable in the broadest of respects (to broadly compare and contrast "Western" and "Indigenous" worldviews). This is why the page is framed in the manner it is, because this is how scholars have used the term or employed the general concept themselves (as is clearly cited through direct quotes). Many of them acknowledged that this conceptual framing was homogenizing, which is why the page forefronts that there is no "universal" Indigenous belief system (obviously, as indicated in sentence 3 and elsewhere on the page) but that there are similarities between Indigenous epistemologies (or how we know what we know) which have been identified by scholars and discussed conceptually under the term 'Indigenous Ways of Knowing.' Academics like Paula Gunn Allen and others have done this work (in the North American context) since the mid-late 1900s, so this idea of comparing and contrasting in a broad sense is nothing new. However, it seems more comparative scholarship needs to be published to expand the article to such a scope as I have attempted here in order to fairly address such a massive framing. For this reason, a significant reduction should be more appropriate.
Once again, this is an issue of editing though, not deletion. Edit: I would also like to add to the discussion that I attempted to address some of the issues being raised here by adding numerous sources and changing the language of the article to be more neutral. This can be viewed in the edit history on the page, yet all of my edits were mass deleted by CorbieVreccan even though they admitted that not all of my edits were 'unusable.' I reverted these one time because, as they stated, they were not 'unusable' and provided an explanation as to why I did and then was immediately accused of 'edit warring' (as if I had done it again and again). I am not trying to reignite an argument, just adding this to the discussion. Xicanx (talk) 01:03, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is not the best place for this but I'll still comment: if and how Wikipedia can cover scholars of course depends, but a guide is first looking if their views, or the topics they cover, are notable enough for an article. Sometimes an article should also be on the person rather than about a particular topic. If independent sources discuss those directly, it's a good indication (IWOK may be notable here). Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a paper, editors are expected to minimize synthesis (WP:SYNTH and WP:OR). This also means that in this case sources that are not directly about "IWOK" itself, should be avoided or almost. From my experience, minimal synthesis usually passes when it's only for contextual details. Of course, when directly IWOK-related sources refer to subtopics and other sources, those sources can more naturally be used as well. Finally, because this is one of the striking issues when reading the article, is that editors should be careful about what to present in Wikipedia's voice, especially fact statements, and what should be attributed (i.e. WP:YESPOV). Finally, if the claims if the primary scholarly sources are controversial, WP:PRIMARY also matters: the interpretation of those views should usually be that of independent secondary sources that cover them. If such sources are difficult to find, it may be evidence of little impact, questioning if it's notable. —PaleoNeonate – 15:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Xicanx calling Paula Gunn Allen an "academic" once again illustrates a major issue here. Allen was not considered an Indigenous scholar or academic; she mostly published on non-academic presses. Some of her works were on New Age, small presses, where she wrote fiction, poetry, and collaborated with some of the most problematic non-Natives in the field. She is mostly known in the women's spirituality community. I just looked at her page and her biblio section lacks publication data, which serves to muddle this. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 19:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have researched and looked at a quite a few of these "scholars" and I wouldn't consider them experts in a collective Indigenous system of belief on anything. As I have stated, they have their opinions, beliefs and interpretations, we all have those, but then I'm not calling myself an Indigenous scholar either. I know what I believe but I also respect that CorbieVreccan may believe something different. How is my way any more "knowing" than theirs or any other person with Indigenous heritage? This is a fringe belief(s) being projected here as a widespread collection of beliefs shared by most if not all Indigenous peoples and being titled "Indigenous ways of knowing" and includes quotes from prominent historical speakers mixed with New Age believers and current members within various tribal nations and clans of the world to paint this messy picture of unity that simply doesn't exist outside its natural parameters. I can come together with people from many nations. We can even Powwow and celebrate that which unifies us by our heritage. But it does not mean we collectively believe all that is said within this article. Not even close. This is fringe academia, not a historical or current collective belief. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 18:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FRANKENSTEIN. I made two edits based on information from a source I was able to access, to clarify the attribution as a way to remove 'scholars' language, but also found, as noted above by CorbieVreccan, the phrase "Indigenous ways of knowing" is used in different ways, and the article appears to be trying to generalize the term. One POV seems to dominate the beginning of the article, and then other uses of the phrase appear to be added as if they are within the same framework, which is why I refer to the WP:FRANKENSTEIN essay about good faith errors that can be made by Wikipedia editors. Maybe the article could be saved with a thorough revision that clearly states at the beginning of the article that the phrase is used in different ways, and then presents various ways that the phrase is used, and includes a section with critique. I would consider changing my !vote if there was support for this approach, i.e. if it seems feasible. Beccaynr (talk) 00:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC) After review of the ongoing discussion, and research (e.g.), I do not think revision is feasible. Beccaynr (talk) 20:42, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments. I think a critique section would be very helpful especially because many of the authors who have written about this subject discuss its problems and lay these out openly in their work (such as issues with homogenization). Listing this information more clearly in a critiques section will make this more clear. I also think it would be helpful to organize the nuances in the ways the phrase is being used and make this clear in the introduction so I support your approach. Xicanx (talk) 04:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As a general rule, WP:Criticism sections are not good ideas. A lot of problematic generalizations are being made currently at this page which are not even necessarily the provenance of the authors who are being cited. The answer is not simply to make a separate section that is "on the other hand". Wikipedia is WP:TERTIARY and if there are no secondary sources which can help frame a topic, it is likely that the topic is not properly addressed for the Wikipedia editorial treatment. jps (talk) 19:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per the problems in the article cited above. Trying to edit/rework what is in this article into something acceptable is a timesink with absolutely no upside. It will be far better to start fresh without saddling an interested editor(s) with the burdern of trying to retrofit this content into a well written article. WP:TNT exists for a reason, sometimes it is just better to start fresh. Two experienced editors have thought about ways to reform the current article have concluded it would be better to start over.  // Timothy :: t | c | a   12:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Undoubtedly notable. We are far from TNT currently. Shankargb (talk) 16:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep totally meets WP:GNG. AfD is not for cleanup. Tessaracter (talk) 20:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Massive problems with Synth. Individually taken, some of the sources (excluding the obviously duff ones) could be used within specific articles, here they are being collected together to try and link disparate issues. TNT is the way to go, as I do not see any realistic chance this will be improved. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I also don't think this will be improved. If the article creator wants to work on it in draft space I would support that. Spudlace (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I find the arguments above based on WP:SYNTH/WP:NOTESSAY/WP:TNT compelling, independent from how important it may be to understand and document non-western cultural ideas, how notable the general topic of studying non-western cultural bases may be, or how troubling we may find the exoticism, othering, essentialism, or failure to distinguish the diversity of multiple cultures apparent in this article's view of the subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:52, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've read your comments, thank you they are helpful. I would like to add that there are sources which do define Indigenous Ways of Knowing the way that it is being explained on the page. After reading your comments and reflecting about the edits, it is obvious that there is some synthesis being done, but there are also sources which plainly describe IWOK as it is being described on the page.
Included as part of A Guide for Front-Line Staff, Student Services, and Advisors which is "an open professional learning series developed for staff across post-secondary institutions in British Columbia." It includes a section on Indigenous Ways of Knowing which opens with "While there is great diversity among Indigenous Peoples, there are also some commonalities in Indigenous worldviews and ways of being. Indigenous worldviews see the whole person (physical, emotional, spiritual, and intellectual) as interconnected to land and in relationship to others (family, communities, nations)."
Office of Indigenous Studies at Queen's University has a page titled Indigenous Ways of Knowing that says "'Indigenous Ways of Knowing' is a useful term that recognizes the beautiful complexity and diversity of Indigenous ways of learning and teaching. Many people continue to generalize Indigenous experience and lived realities. The intent of the phrase 'Indigenous Ways of Knowing' is to help educate people about the vast variety of knowledge that exists across diverse Indigenous communities. It also signals that, as Indigenous Peoples, we don't just learn from human interaction and relationships. All elements of creation can teach us, from the plant and animal nations, to the 'objects' that many people consider to be inanimate. So, our Indigenous ways of knowing are incredibly sophisticated and complex. These ways relate to specific ecology in countless locations, so the practices, languages and protocols of one Indigenous community may look very different from another. Yet, Indigenous ways of knowing are commonly steeped in a deep respect for the land, and the necessity of a reciprocal relationship with the land.": https://www.queensu.ca/indigenous/ways-knowing
An article used as a fact sheet approved/published by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada authored by faculty at the University of Guelph that is titled "What are Indigenous and Western Ways of Knowing?The fact sheet opens saying "There is no single Indigenous or Western way of knowing. It is easy to fall into the traps of ‘homogenizing’ and ‘othering’ by reducing vast and varied traditions to simplistic and general terms. However, it is important to offer some starting point for this fact sheet as part of our effort to bring Indigenous and Western perspectives into conversation with one another.": https://www.criaw-icref.ca/images/userfiles/files/Fact%20Sheet%202%20EN%20FINAL.pdf
I can include more if needed that discuss the subject like this. So this framing is not inaccurate or just being entirely manufactured through synthesis. There are many sources which discuss Indigenous Ways of Knowing as it is framed on the page, which is why I think the page should be significantly reduced (as I mentioned previously). For example, the "Indigenous vs. Western" section has many synthesis issues but the rest of the page may just need to be reworked. If anyone has any thoughts, feel free to comment. Thank you again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xicanx (talk • contribs) 22:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fact sheets and staff guidelines are very far from the high quality of scholarly sourcing needed to rescue this. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I included the fact sheet because it is pulling directly from a published journal article. As written on the bottom of page 1: "This is one of a series of five fact sheets drawn from a research paper called "Learning across Indigenous and Western knowledge systems and intersectionality: Reconciling social science research approaches" (2018) by L.Levac, L.McMurtry, D.Stienstra, G.Baikie, C.Hanson and D.Mucina. The fact sheets were authored by J.Stinson, designed by Ellyn Lusis and Tiffany Murphy, and formatted by B.Ryan. The fact sheets, full research paper, and related resources are available at www.criaw-icref.ca." The published journal article reiterates the same framing, the fact sheet simply makes the information more readily accessible and was used to demonstrate that the framing is not a result of synthesis. Here are other published academic sources which do the same:
"Comparative Indigenous Ways of Knowing and Learning" by Katia Sol Madjidi and Jean-Paul Restoule. The authors state in this article published by Canadian Scholars' Press in a section titled "Comparative Eurocentric and Indigenous Ways of knowing" the following: "Common generalizations comparing Eurocentric and Indigenous epistemologies include binary classifications such as linear versus cyclical, objective versus subjective, secular versus spiritual, industrial versus nature- and context-based, and fragmentary versus integrated and holistic (Little Bear, 2000; Hampton, 1995; Masemann, 1994). To construct a more in-depth comparative picture, the following aspects of ways of knowing and learning can be explored: What are learn-ing and knowledge? Where do people come to learn and know? How do people come to learn and know? From whom do they learn? And, why/for what purpose do they learn? Given the wealth of literature on Eurocentric models of education, and the Eurocentric educational par-adigm in which this chapter is being written, this section will focus on Indigenous approaches and perspectives from Indigenous scholars. Through an analysis of this literature, we draw out comparisons between Eurocentric and Indigenous ways of knowing and learning."
They then proceed to engage with the work by citing Indigenous people themselves to support their statements. Here is one section of many in which they do this: "A commonly cited difference between Eurocentric and Indigenous modes of education is of primarily literate versus primarily oral cul-tures. In Indigenous societies, great emphasis has been placed on the oral transmission of knowledge through storytelling, traditionally used to convey Aboriginal knowledge, customs, and values (Castellano, 2000, p. 31; Little Bear, 2000, p. 81). Cajete (1994) says that “stories [teach] people who they are so they can become all they were meant to be” (p. 112). Storytelling is described as the oldest form of the arts and thus the basis for the other arts, such as drama, dance, and music (Lanigan, 1998, p. 113). Whereas Eurocentric cultures often view storytelling as an activity to entertain small children, in Indigenous pedagogy it is a cen-tral tool for teaching and learning (Cajete, 1994, p. 68)."
As another example, published in a book on Indigenous Ways of Knowing in Counseling: Theory, Research, and Practice by Springer Nature edited by L. Grayshield and R. Del Castillo, on page 9-10 there is provided a definition: "Indigenous Ways of Knowing is a praxis that naturally promotes peace, justice, and respect for all life on the planet. IWOK are the collective epistemologies and ontologies of Indigenous people from specific locales that have worked to promote harmony and balance in all directions of their environments: the North, South, East, West, above, below and all around. IWOK is grounded in multi-logical reasoning therefore it naturally considers all things, in all directions, in order to make decisions about how to live on the planet with one another and in promotion of love, beauty and peace for generations to come. IWOK essentially equates to the raising of consciousness from a level of cognitive behavior to one that encompasses actions upon the world to sustain it."
As another example, published in a book on Children and Young People's Participation and Its Transformative Potential: Learning from across Countries by Springer in Chapter 2 by authors Kelly Teamey and Rachel Hinton, in a section on "Exploring indigenous cosmologies and ways of knowing": "An increasing literature describes 'indigenous knowledges' (or indigenous ways of knowing) and the threads of cosmological wholeness that link them together, cosmology meaning the ways we perceive the universe and out place in it (Battiste, 2000; Battiste and Henderson, 2002; Denzin et al., 2008, semali and Kincheloe, 1999; Smith 1999, 2003). Indigenous ways of knowing are fundamentally about interconnectdness; with the past, the present, the future, the land and the spirit. Mosha (2000) describes this interconnectedness as 'everything that is thought, said and done is done in the relationship to the whole of life and the world' (p. 5). Indigenous ways of knowing comprise all types of knowledge pertaining to a particular people and its territory (ecology) and can be better understood as a process (verb) rather than a thing (noun). The context is central and the history of knowing has been transmitted from generation to generation (Daes, 1993)."
I can provide more scholarly sources if needed. Thank you. Xicanx (talk) 03:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 the individual is notable per NPROF C1, but there is also consensus that a name change is warranted. However, there was not a clear stand-out for what that name should be. In the absence of an imminent demand for an interim name-change, it would be preferable if a discussion on the talk page could be had to separate that. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Justin Paul[edit]

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

A ref-bombed CV type article declined at AFC a couple of times already under Draft:Justin Paul (professor) JW 1961 Talk 12:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 12:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 12:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has a fairly high h-index of 31 [7] – Thjarkur (talk) 12:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If kept, the article needs renaming. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftifty to Draft:Justin Paul (business scholar) or similar. I added his GS profile to the article. It looks like a pass of WP:NPROF C1, and I believe the editor-in-chief role likely meets C8. The article looks like it is not yet ready for mainspace (it's at the quality level described by WP:TNT), and should incubate in draft space. Comment that the draft previously submitted to AfC appears to be nearly identical to this one. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 04:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment that page history may need to be merged with Draft:Justin Paul (professor), which has some substantial contributions from other editors, due to copyright concerns. Pinging @Scope creep: as contributor. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep and move to Draft:Justin Paul (business scholar) after cleanup work on the article. Particular hat tip to XOR'easter for wisely cutting down. It still needs some work, but we have a start. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftifty, or if not, delete as per WP:TNT, or even just stubify (is that a word??). The person seems to be notable, but the article needs more than just a bit of cleanup. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:23, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and rename, after looking at it again today. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I thought originally it would have been worth deleting this, and keeping the draft, but the draft had slightly fewer references, although the content looks identical. He is notable, with at six papers with more than 100 citations. It needs a copyedit, bib section added, references changed from bare url's and additional secondary sources added to address the primary sources tag. There should be some available. There is a wee bit of puff to remove and these duff [8] references removes, these page reference. I don't know why folk put these in. They are zero worth. There is no content in it, once there is a bib section. It will be a seed article. scope_creepTalk 12:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Made by an SPA who did AFC at first under Draft:Justin_Paul_(professor). However, his google scholar shows hundreds of citations so he qualifies as an academic. Expertwikiguy (talk) 00:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:PROF. Article has undergone some cleanup, enough to make it still not good but acceptable. The refbombing is annoying, but I think the current draft review environment teaches new editors to do that (because the standard response to a request for a review is "no, you don't have enough references") so it's difficult to hold that against the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. for for Pete's sake, move as per Kj cheetham. He probably passes GNG and PROF, per David Eppstein. Bearian (talk) 01:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and move to either Justin Paul (academic) or Justin Paul (scholar), not sure what the most appropriate dab should be. Passes WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 TT me 17:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article needs some cleanup, but his number of citations and h-index are high enough to pass WP:PROF. --Tataral (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Marketing researchers totally throw off my AfD senses because I get trapped in a cycle of questioning fame and perceptions of reality. Do they only appear notable because they're good at marketing themselves? But then if they're that good at appearing notable, maybe they're actually talented enough to deserve the notability? Are there any successful marketing academics who have marketed themselves poorly, but really are notable? Omg but is anyone ever really notable anyway?? Here is the Scopus breakdown for Dr. Paul compared to his coauthors' credentials (or skill at marketing themselves? or is it all the same? or...):
Scopus comparative credentials
Caption text
Name Position PhD year Total citing docs Pub count h-index Highest cite
Justin Paul prof., UPR 20XX? 1471 92 25 380
Neeraj Pandey assoc. prof., NITIE ?? 62 36 5 16
Ashwin Modi post-doc, UPR ?? 396 3 3 380
Jayesh Patel assoc. prof, Ganpat University ?? 504 13 6 380
Jyoti Rana assoc.? prof., Shri Vishwakarma Skill U. 20XX? 352 3 3 187
Sundar Parthasarathy independent CEO consultant 2018 167 3 3 156
Parul Gupta prof, Management Development Institute 2011 285 19 6 156
Appalayya Meesala prof, B.R. Ambedkar Inst. of Mgmt & Tech. 2003 113 2 2 110
Gabriel R.G. Benito prof, BI Norwegian Business School 1995 1205 57 21 125
Alexander Rosado-Serrano assist. prof, Universidad Interamericana de Puerto Rico ?? 140 3 3 69
Desislava Dikova prof, Vienna University of Economics and Business 2005 797 30 13 217
Erick Mas Roman post-doc, Vanderbilt 2019 78 2 2 50
Arun Mittal assist. prof., Birla Institute of Technology 2006+ 93 9 4 47
Garima Srivastav assist. prof., ITS Mohan Nagar 2015 54 4 3 47
Gurmeet Singh ?? ?? 40 1 1 40
Rajesh Sharma assist. prof., Mody U. of Science and Tech. 1999 101 29 6 37
Pradeep Kautish assoc. prof., Nirma U. 2010 116 28 7 37
Faheem Gul Gilal assist. prof., Sukkur IBA 2018 104 31 9 37
Naeem Gul Gilal student/lecturer, U. of Sindh ?? 102 21 9 37
Jian Zhang assist. prof., Beijing Institute of Technology 2014 147 34 8 37
He seems very notable for his sub-field, but whether that field is impactful enough for NPROF notability isn't super clear. Perhaps his editorship is enough to push him over. JoelleJay (talk) 07:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the C1 case, while present, might not be entirely clear. The chief editorship of a Wiley journal that was established in 1977 looks like a solid pass of NPROF C8 to me. I'm surprised more editors haven't mentioned it in their !vote rationales. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 13:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Council Rock High School South[edit]

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

Non-notable high school, should be deleted or redirected/merged to Holland, Pennsylvania. An entry in a database of schools is not significant coverage. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 11:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 11:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 11:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I just added sources for the three notable alumni listed, and while doing that, found a plethora of reliable sources to further support the notability of this school. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Non-notable Nosebagbear (talk) 14:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jai Bajarangabhali[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM, and lacks reliable sources. I searched, but couldn't find. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable film. I have noticed films get split between the media and music articles for deletion grouping and the fiction and the arts articles for deletion grouping, with no rhyme or reason to which one they are placed in.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 18:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 prejudice to recreation per Bearcat's excellent comment. Daniel (talk) 14:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Empty Classroom[edit]

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

Non-notable film, only coverage seems to be blog posts and press releases, no independent reliable coverage, does not meet WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 10:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better. I did find this, from a real media outlet in Chile, but I don't think that does enough. To be fair, I don't know how well Google News does or doesn't scrape Spanish-language media as a rule, and a film that was released six years ago might well have had additional media coverage that doesn't Google anymore and would have to be retrieved from archives — but we can't keep a poorly sourced article just because a possibility exists that it might have better sources than anybody is actually finding: to turn the tide here, somebody would have to show hard proof that better sources definitely exist. It needs more reliable source coverage in real media than I'm seeing, and it isn't exempted from that just because a famous actor produced it. Bearcat (talk) 15:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 14:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 among all participants that the subject is notable and has received substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources. (non-admin closure) Deus et lex (talk) 10:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fairy Tale Police Department[edit]

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

Fails WP:NTV, I'm unable to find any good sources for it. WikiMacaroonsCinnamon? 10:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WikiMacaroonsCinnamon? 10:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WikiMacaroonsCinnamon? 10:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- the show is discussed in the Marvels & Tales academic journal: Bullen, Elizabeth, and Naarah Sawers, The Fairy Tale Police Department: Hybridity, the Transnational Television Fairy Tale, and Cultural Forms, 24–43. It is also discussed in the academic book Fairy-Tale TV By Jill Terry Rudy, Pauline Greenhill. Details about the broadcast are likely available in the 2005 Australian Film and TV Companion, which gets a google books hit, but the relevant page is not previewed. matt91486 (talk) 06:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Official DVD on Amazon, IMDB page, etc. There are additional French results for it in Google under title La Brigade des Contes de Fées if that helps. HistoricalAccountings (talk) 12:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I added a reference to the Marvels & Tales academic journal article, and a Reception section based on a review of one of the video compilations. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: Marvels & Tales drags it across the line barely. If its attracted some attention in an academic journal, there will almost certainly be non-promo reviews.  // Timothy :: t | c | a   11:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 14:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Murcyleen Peerzada[edit]

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

From Bollywood to Islam, and then back to previous "way of life", this subject fails any notability criteria. Hardly any sources speaks of her "independently". I do not see anything that would help the subject pass ANYBIO. ─ The Aafī (talk) 08:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī (talk) 08:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī (talk) 08:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Spam, promotional and simply a vanity article. RationalPuff (talk) 16:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete an overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Article lacks SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth from IS RS. BLP articles should strictly follow WP:SIGCOV, WP:RS, WP:V and WP:N sourcing requirements.  // Timothy :: t | c | a   06:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Berry Good. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 00:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taeha[edit]

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

First and second, third, fourth, fifth references are about the band and single 'Love Letters' and other singles, Going Crazy, etc, not this article on Taeha. Youtube is not an acceptable reference in this instance, the first Youtube link is about a song, Crazy, Gone Crazy, and not about Taeha. See WP:ELP After checking all references, all I can find is two reliable sources. All the rest are unreliable. No notability; Fails WP:SINGER Whiteguru (talk) 08:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NMG. Abdotorg (talk) 15:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 14:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maldoror (band)[edit]

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

Non notable band. Unreferenced for over 11 years. Pmepepnoute (talk) 08:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stub article about a one-off collaboration between two musicians with their own well established articles. The article has basically been a stub noting the existence of the project since it's creation in 2005 and has had an Unreference template attached to it since December 2009. I could no reliable sources for the group except for a couple reviews of their sole album. Pmepepnoute (talk) 08:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is another of those (rare) cases when the band has notable members, released albums on a notable label, yet they doesn't deserve their own article because despite all of this, they haven't achieved reliable media coverage. That is because there are cases when some bands go unnoticed, despite the notable members. Both Merzbow and Patton are notable of course, and Ipecac is a notable label, yet the only reliable source I could find was an Allmusic review. The rest are the usual junk (you know, youtube, download and retail sites, this kind of stuff). I also checked the Spanish and the Swedish article to see if they've got any better sources, but nope. The Spanish article contains a database-like site, and the Swedish article doesn't contain any sources whatsoever. This can be redirected to either of the members' articles, and that's it. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete then list in the histories of side projects at the Mike Patton and Merzbow articles. Note that they have an album article at She (Maldoror album), which will probably also have to be deleted or redirected. This one is tough because the album got at least one reliable review, though it is not very robust. As a duo they were largely unnoticed. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 USS Baron. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 00:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Richard S. Baron[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Limited biographical detail is already found on USS Baron, the ship named for him Mztourist (talk) 07:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 07:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pickens Pond[edit]

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

Nondescript body of water. WP:NOTEVERYTHING, not even geographical features. Geschichte (talk) 07:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm finding no coverage, not even the sort of local news coverage that these geographical features often generate. Applying WP:GEOLAND, I believe that there is no "information beyond statistics and coordinates" available. In such a case, not even the sweeping geographic notability guidelines will save it. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete This user created hundreds if not thousands of articles on non-notable geographic features in New York, using only the GNIS. GNIS is merely a compilation of names that have appeared on maps, not a signifier of notability, and all of these pages that lack any additional discussion fail GEOLAND-4 and should be deleted. Reywas92Talk 19:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I see no claim to notability, and most of the text appears to be WP:OR from reading maps. Mangoe (talk) 01:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln Jr. High School (Trabuco Canyon)[edit]

Lincoln Jr. High School (Trabuco Canyon) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Issues: WP:V, WP:SOURCE, WP:AD. The Lincoln Jr. High School (Trabuco Canyon) page seems to be about a subject that might not actually exist. The one cited source is a dead link, and my attempts to find other sources that could verify this article were fruitless. I live in the area where this junior high school is supposedly located, and I have never heard of it, nor can I find it anywhere on a map. To my knowledge, there aren't any junior high schools, public or private, in the Foothill Ranch or Trabuco Canyon areas. Sewageboy (talk) 06:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No coverage in reliable sources. --Un assiolo (talk) 19:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we need supper good sourcing to cover a junior high school. Only high schools get a possible pass, but even there we now require something more than the school website. For junior highs/middle schools and below we require the same level of sourcing we require for non-educational organizations, a level that is no where near met here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • My above was based on the fact virtually no Junior High Schools are notable. The fact that this might not even be on a real place, not only that it does not presently exist but no evidence shows it ever did, is what we get when we have low inclusion rules. It is also a direct result of our not making the creation of articles go through any process.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'd normally recommend a redirect to the school district, municipality, or county, but I agree with the nominating editor, this school does not exist, based on the author's other contributions and lack of any RSs. Orvilletalk 05:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Could find nothing. Article history indicates that someone with a username that is the same as a "principle" (spelling from diff) of the school created the page [9]  // Timothy :: t | c | a 06:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the fact this article has existed almost 13 years is distressing. We need to start removing these non-notable, and estacially no evidence of being real at all, articles more quickly.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Geschichte (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lok Bista[edit]

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

Non notable rapper who doesn't meet WP:GNG or any relevant criteria. Being a contestant in a TV show doesn't make anyone notable. Some of the sources in the article are paid ones with no editorial oversight. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello, i don't know rules,i don't know which article are paid. So I don't know this should stay or delete. I have full faith on admin , so if they think this page should stay then they will keep thik page on article space and if they think this page should delete then they will delete this page. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoyalAlokesh (talk • contribs) 04:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; could have been IMO A7/G11 speedied --DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 14:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mighil Puthukkudy[edit]

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO or WP:MUSICBIO. Sources in article and WP:BEFORE revealed no WP:IS WP:RS containing material that meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth. BLP articles should strictly follow WP:SIGCOV, WP:RS, WP:V and WP:N sourcing requirements.   // Timothy :: talk  06:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  06:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  06:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article might be an attempted promotion for a studio dweller who has not yet been noticed by any significant and reliable media. Appearance in Rolling Stone India is just brief inclusion in a variety playlist of new songs, and not under his own name but one of his project's names. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wholly promotional and unsourced. RationalPuff (talk) 17:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted as A7. (non-admin closure) —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 11:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

José Rodríguez Moreno[edit]

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO or WP:NCREATIVE. Sources in article and WP:BEFORE revealed no WP:IS WP:RS containing material that meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth. BLP articles should strictly follow WP:SIGCOV, WP:RS, WP:V and WP:N sourcing requirements.   // Timothy :: talk  05:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  05:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  05:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete and preferably speedy. This is nothing but PR gibberish, sourced to more black hat seo. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 15:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems to be notable in general but doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV or WP:GNG Redoryxx (talk) 07:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 14:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tapan Vyas[edit]

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

Non notable cinematographer and director mostly sourced to user generated sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:DIRECTOR. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 05:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 05:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 05:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 05:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable and unsourced. RationalPuff (talk) 16:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Article lacks SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth from IS RS. BLP articles should strictly follow WP:SIGCOV, WP:RS, WP:V and WP:N sourcing requirements.  // Timothy :: t | c | a   06:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dagogo Altraide[edit]

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

Non notable music producer mostly sourced to user generated websites. The article was declined twice through AFC [10][11] Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 05:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 05:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 05:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 14:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bhale Dampathulu[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM, and lacks reliable sources. I searched, but couldn't find. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 04:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, fails GNG; not notable movie and some facts from my search don't line up with the article (year of release for instance). Kolma8 (talk) 15:56, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Jack Frost (talk) 09:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Grasse[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Lacks WP:SIGCOV. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 03:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 03:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 03:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 03:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: Also note that he is an author and 2 of his books have their own Wiki page, with enough coverage. He also may meet WP:AUTHOR. Expertwikiguy (talk) 04:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Meets the WP:GNG, if nothing else. gidonb (talk) 07:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the basis of WP:AUTHOR criterion 3. But the article does have significant problems; it's written like a WP:RESUME. I'm going to add some cleanup tags. FalconK (talk) 05:57, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Relisted three times and there's no real level of input nor any agreement. Please feel free to create another discussion at any editor's discretion. Daniel (talk) 03:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sugar Technologists Association of India[edit]

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

I don't understand how this was created. Clearly fails WP:GNG with the only references being primary sources. Lettlerhello • contribs 13:14, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 13:14, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 13:14, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hardly think that such a 95-year-old national body in the world's largest sugar-producing country is so clearly non-notable. I have cited a couple of independent sources in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:27, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 13:51, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lettlerhello • contribs 18:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 14:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John W. Frederick Jr.[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Neither single award of Navy Cross nor being a Vietnam War prisoner who died in captivity is notable Mztourist (talk) 03:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 03:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 09:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fingers Cut Megamachine[edit]

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

This band seems to fail WP:BAND. I would merge to Devon Williams, but it turned out he has no article. Geschichte (talk) 08:45, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 09:26, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 09:26, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 21:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No coverage in reliable sources from my WP:BEFORE search, fails both WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. Pulisi (talk) 09:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for UPE. MER-C 17:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There are no reliable sources for this article. Two references are dead, the third has no relevance. Fails WP:BAND --Whiteguru (talk) 06:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Devon Williams is probably notable based on a search, though he does not have an article, but this band is not. The only SIGCOV of the band as opposed to the person I could find were a couple of reviews in Punknews.org. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Like the last voter, I found the two album reviews ([12], [13]), but this is an article about the band and I can find no significant and reliable coverage about them as an entity. They are only visible at the usual streaming and retail sites. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 clearly there is suitable coverage, even if it has not yet been included in the current article. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Product Hunt[edit]

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

We should revisit the no consensus outcome of the 2018 AfD. Highly promotional article with heavy involvement of WP:UPE from User:Nivo0o0, USer:Tvlasenko, and others. Citations are all either to the company's own site, coverage of routine business transactions, or of questionable independence. FalconK (talk) 00:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 00:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — The Earwig talk 03:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Geschichte (talk) 09:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kyaw Htet[edit]

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

An apparent autobiography sourced only to Facebook and YouTube. Doesn't look to pass WP:NACTOR or WP:BASIC but will happily withdraw if concrete evidence comes to light. The problem seems to be that Facebook is actually the main source that seems to cover these TV series that this guy has supposedly starred in. I have also asked the creator to declare their obvious COI with the articles that they are editing. Spiderone 11:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:25, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:25, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we need to be hyper vigilant in removing all autobiographies from Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree. As much as we all love writing about ourselves, it isn't appropriate to do it here. Spiderone 19:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 10:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shwe Eain Min[edit]

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

Article created by her husband sourced only to Facebook and YouTube. Can't see evidence that she passes WP:BASIC or WP:NACTOR but happy to be proved wrong. It doesn't help that most of these TV series that she has supposedly starred in seem to have coverage mainly on Facebook as well. Spiderone 11:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is supposed to be sourced to reliable sources, not just facebook and YouTube.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, total failure of WP:GNG, the only sources I could find that even mentioned her were social media and a couple of directory listings. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: lacks SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth from IS RS. BLP articles should strictly follow WP:SIGCOV, WP:RS, WP:V and WP:N sourcing requirements.  // Timothy :: t | c | a   08:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 22:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Abdel Karim Al Ghezali[edit]

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

Not a notable person. Al Qaeda member who appeared in one video 11 years ago. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yemen-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nominators have an obligation to do their best to comply with WP:BEFORE. Unfortunately many contributors who nominate articles for deletion routinely overlook the complications of doing a web search on individuals with Arabic names. power~enwiki asserts that Al Ghazali is known only for his appearance in the video that marked the founding of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. He or she overlooked that US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson named him on the USA's official list of global terrorists. Tillerson described him as a senior leader of AQAP. So, he is not merely some guy who happened to appear in a video. Geo Swan (talk) 10:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete being put on a government list is a primary source issue, not a secondary source issue. Wikipedia needs to be built on secondary sources, none of which people have provided, so we should delete. Verifiability means the burden is on article creators to amasss a sufficient enough body of sources to show notability, the burden is not on the rest of us to hunt down those sources that people who value quantity over quality may have overlooked.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Johnpacklambert, are you sure you understand WP:PRIMARY? We normally consider a government list a primary source. Why? Because we don't rely on the government organ that drafted it for an independent evaluation of its significance. But when other parties, like Amnesty Intenational, or news agencies, report on that government list, then those reports are secondary sources. Those RS are providing their independent evaluation as to the list's significance. Even if the press reports don't explicitly say "this list is significant" the mere fact that they reported on the list establishes they concluded it was significant, as there are lots of lists they don't report on because they don't regard those as significant.

      I am honestly shocked that someone who has been around as long as you have has failed to grasp this very basic point. Geo Swan (talk) 06:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as per Geo Swan, evidently notable at their chosen profession. No Swan So Fine (talk) 23:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Being described as global terrorists in the official lists is not ordinary. I've got some good sources in other languages so i'm okay with this article being kept. Even in the worst circumstances, ex-when somebody proves that there is not enough coverage, this will be case of WP:TOOSOON. Pesticide1110 Lets wrestle! 10:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 22:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vica Kerekes[edit]

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

Possible non-notable actress. No third party sources found (other than passing mentions that described her in 1 or 2 sentences). Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 06:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 06:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 06:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 06:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 06:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 06:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there is tons of her coverage in European news and magazines to meet GNG. She is a pretty famous in Czechia from what I have gathered. She has a few main major roles, such as Hab (2020). Kolma8 (talk) 17:41, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
She was featured on the cover of SK Forbes with a "full-size" interview . [14]
Tyw7 Added her awards for TV and movies. Kolma8 (talk) 18:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kolma8, when I looked at Google News it only brought up hits to one sentence mentions of the articles.
    By the way, is the Forbes article a significant interview?
    I assume it is since she's on the cover. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:03, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tyw7 - Well. I think :), but I am impartial and not sure about all those local languages Forbes around. I found at least three other interviews with her on HU and SK (maybe even one in CZ, I can't remember now) movies devoted websites/magazines. Given that she is a recipient of two highest TV/movie awards in SK and HU and one interview mentioned her as "one of the best actresses" in CZ, I think she passes GNG. She is a well-known actress in SK theater as well. I will try to add more to the article in the upcoming days if the WP community decides to keep the article. Cheers, Kolma8 (talk) 21:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the article needs more work - this is a relevant actress IMO...Modernist (talk) 18:52, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree that the article needs some work, but this person clearly passes WP:NACTOR by the volume of prominent roles she has played in both film and television. ExRat (talk) 01:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.ExRat (talk) 20:33, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She seems prominent in her own country and has won awards there. Peter303x (talk) 01:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 05:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Doctors for Medicare[edit]

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

Promotional. Cites no independent sources. This organization appears unnotable. Sam at Megaputer (talk) 04:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:21, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:21, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's at least plausible that the subject is notable: there's a good deal of news coverage, much of it involving a legal case in which the organization was involved. That being said, the present article is so blatantly promotional as to be irremediable. (It reads more like a manifesto than an encyclopedia.) I would delete it on that basis alone, expressing no opinion as to the topic's notability. See WP:TNT. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I found a lot of news articles that give this group at least a passing mention (just a few examples: CBC[15],CTV[16], Toronto Star) but I couldn't find sources that give it significant coverage. Maybe someone else can?VR talk 21:11, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Geschichte (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PropertyAccess[edit]

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

Has been templated with "May not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines" since 2018. Written like an advertisement. Sam at Megaputer (talk) 02:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 03:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 03:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 03:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 03:25, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Geschichte (talk) 09:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

University Hospitals Kingston Foundation[edit]

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

Non-notable organization. Only sources I can find are trivial and do not meet WP:ORG or WP:ORGDEPTH. JayJayWhat did I do? 00:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. JayJayWhat did I do? 00:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. JayJayWhat did I do? 00:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. JayJayWhat did I do? 00:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, article is promotional and is sourced entirely to the organisations website, and I could not find anything better. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and WP:MILL: most hospitals in the English-speaking world have a foundation of their own to raise money outside of ordinary channels. Bearian (talk) 14:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AppLovin[edit]

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

all the references deal only with financing and their stock price, none give comprehsive coverage. (ecept for promotional interviews as in Business Insider). None of this meets the requirements of WP:NCORP. DGG ( talk ) 22:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is still a multi-billion dollar company with some relevance in startups and technology. It might be better to improve the article. It hasn't changed much since it was created in 2016. I do agree with the criticism of the article mostly covering funding rounds, so expand on it as you see fit. Surely there must be new sources in the last 4 years, that cover more than just funding rounds. Amin (Talk) 04:18, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:23, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 02:51, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails WP:NCORP Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 07:27, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: this is the only place where I could find anything about the rt.applvn.com dns requests that were mysteriously coming from my daughter's new iPad. It's good to know that it's a multi-billion dollar marketing company and partially owned by the Chinese government. 172.103.241.96 (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Cella, Jason (2016). "AppLovin Corporation". In Johnson, Drew D. (ed.). International Directory of Company Histories. Vol. 176. Farmington Hills, Michigan: St. James Press. pp. 42–45. ISBN 978-1-55862-950-9.

      This entry is nearly 2,000 words long. From https://www.library.hbs.edu/Find/Databases/International-Directory-of-Company-Histories, the International Directory of Company Histories contains "Comprehensive histories of 8,500 of the world's largest and most influential companies."

      The entry's summary notes:

      AppLovin Corporation provides a digital software-based service that tracks and collects customer data from smartphones, computers, and other devices for advertisers to help them deliver relevant ads to mobile devices. The company positions itself as a partner that can enable advertisers worldwide to predict what products and services consumers want based on their past shopping activity. It relies on customer data to inform targeted marketing campaigns that appear within advertisement-supported mobile applications including games and shopping apps. AppLovin works with such brands as online digital music provider Spotify Ltd. and retail fashion chain operator Nordstrom, Inc., as well as companies in the travel and hospitality industries including Hotels.com . Headquartered in Palo Alto, California, AppLovin has additional offices in Berlin, London, New York, and San Francisco.

      The entry notes:

      The number of ad requests AppLovin was handling each day had risen to over 30 billion by mid-2015, and its distributed technology infrastructure had grown to more than 1,000 web servers at nine data centers, which kept the average response latency, or the amount of time between when an ad was requested by an app or website and when it was delivered, to an average of five milliseconds. Meanwhile, AppLovin's international sales had expanded to about 30 percent of total revenue as the overseas team secured more clients outside of the United States. With a nod from Forbes, which included AppLovin in its 2015 list of America's Most Promising Companies, the company got wider recognition for how much it had accomplished in its brief history.

      The entry has sections titled "Better Data for Better Business: 2012–13" (569 words), "Refine to Shine: 2014" (585 words), and "A Solid Foundation: 2015" (479 words).
    2. Liu, Peng; Wang, Chao (2020). Computational Advertising: Market and Technologies for Internet Commercial Monetization (2 ed.). Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press. pp. 160–161. ISBN 978-0-367-20638-3. Retrieved 2021-01-04.

      The book has a section about AppLovin. The book notes:

      Contrary to popular intuition, the biggest success of Applovin's rewarded video is to serve the direct response campaigns rather than brand awareness campaigns. ... Supported by its performance, Applovin's performance and profits have been growing rapidly. The company, founded in 2012, has earned more than US$500 million of revenue and US$90 million of net profit in 2016, which is quite outstanding among the third-party advertising companies.

    3. Primack, Dan (2016-09-26). "Exclusive: AppLovin to Be Acquired by Chinese Investor for $1.4 Billion". Fortune. Archived from the original on 2021-01-04. Retrieved 2021-01-04.

      The article notes:

      Unlike most advertising technology startups, San Francisco-based AppLovin never raised any traditional venture capital. Instead, it was bootstrapped, profitable by the end of its first month and backed by just $4 million in angel funding. Also unlike most advertising technology startups, AppLovin is now being acquired at a “unicorn” valuation. Fortune has learned that the company has agreed to sell a majority stake to Chinese private equity firm Orient Hontai Capital at an enterprise value of $1.42 billion. The deal was announced to company employees earlier this morning, and is expected to close before year-end.

    4. Baker, Liana B. (2017-11-21). Baum, Bernadette (ed.). "Exclusive: AppLovin tweaks Chinese takeover deal after U.S. pushback". Reuters. Archived from the original on 2021-01-04. Retrieved 2021-01-04.
    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow AppLovin to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 09:49, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • International Directory of Company Histories is not a RS. Accordingto its web page, " Information is sourced from publicly accessible data as well as materials supplied by the companies themselves." Basically, this makes it no more reli0able than a promotional version of Wikipedia DGG ( talk ) 21:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The International Directory of Company Histories is a highly reputable multi-volume major reference work. That "Information is sourced from publicly accessible data as well as materials supplied by the companies themselves" means it is a tertiary source, is unsurprising, and does not make it "no more reli0able than a promotional version of Wikipedia". Where else would reference works source their information from other than from "publicly accessible data" and "materials supplied by the companies themselves"? From Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, "Reputable tertiary sources, such as introductory-level university textbooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias, may be cited."

    Cunard (talk) 05:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given source analysis by Cunard, relisting to see if a consensus can be found.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment
(1) No, the International Directory of Company Histories , tho widely used, is a tertiary source but based on PR statements. That makes it no better for encyclopedic purposes than its underlying data. We probably need a discussion of it at WP:REs. A collection of advertisements is not a RS for the things being advertised. It can still be useful for other purposes--advertisements if done right, can give useful information for many purposes, but they are not themselves the independent information that makes them usable for notability .
(2)Computational Advertising does not have "asection" on hte company. It has 2 pages.
the other items are notices. DGG ( talk ) 05:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Geschichte (talk) 09:15, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Liquid Tension Experiment 3[edit]

Liquid Tension Experiment 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:TOOSOON for this album with no reliable coverage before release. Jalen Folf (talk) 02:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 02:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Temple Golf Club[edit]

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

Not notable golf course. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no decent coverage in independent sources, failing WP:GNG. It did have this source which was removed for being an unreliable source. Even if it is reliable, it's insufficient on its own. Spiderone 12:25, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY, Aymatth2 for future reference, how did you find those books? I know a couple are on GBooks but interested in knowing how you stumbled upon the others. Spiderone 16:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I probably just searched for "Temple" "Golf" "Berkshire" in Books, and the results suggested variants like "Temple Links" "Willie". The problem was to filter out the many index-type sources, although cumulatively I would say they show notability. Golf courses are big and tend to get plenty of coverage about one aspect or another, so are usually notable. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Directory listings so not establish notability, no matter how many of them there are. wjematherplease leave a message... 13:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - doesnt appear to be of particularly note or of encyclopedic merit for a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 15:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I pumped it up. It has in-depth coverage by several reliable sources, as one would expect of a golf course of this age and quality. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:35, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly notable, two bad we have so many incompetent editors like Spiderone who don't bother to ever research articles. † Encyclopædius 15:50, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. There is just about enough here, but we now have an article that is more about agronomy and associated activities than the golf club/course. This needs to be resolved, unless the club has been a pioneer in this regard. In addition, the sources are fairly weak for establishing notability, with several trivial/passing mentions and most descriptives of the club/course being directly attributable to the club or people associated with the club. wjematherplease leave a message... 13:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It does not really matter what the subject is noted for. The independent sources cited are mostly interested in scenic beauty and ecological value. For a source more concerned with the game of golf, see Lorne Smith (2009), "Temple", Fine Golf. This excellent description is independent, but possibly does not technically qualify as reliable. (The "Colonel Ricardo" mentioned as a founder is F. C. Ricardo.) Aymatth2 (talk) 17:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no evidence that the club is noted for this. Peake was chairman of the greens committee at Temple GC, so not independent. His heavy involvement with the STRI, puts the independence of the Taylor/STRI source in question also. This leaves Cotton (another directory-type source), and The Paper Maker. All together, it's pretty weak as far as meeting the requirements of GNG. wjematherplease leave a message... 13:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    STRI (Sports Turf Research Institute) studies turf, gives advice on turf and publishes turf-related books, including Taylor's and Peake's. They are reliable enough. Taylor is independent, but Peake is not for GNG purposes. Henry Cotton was a great authority on golf as a player and course architect. I added a bit of content. The course won the 1999 BIGGA Golf Environment Competition. It got three paragraphs from Keith Duff in Attracting birds to grassland and downland courses (2011). It is noted for environmentally sound practices, which presumably is the industry direction. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The case for passing GNG remains weak. wjematherplease leave a message... 15:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)}[reply]
    We have in-depth (multi-paragraph) coverage from reliable independent sources including The Paper Maker (1920), Henry Cotton (1969), Bob Taylor (1995), BIGGA (1999) and Keith Duff (2011). Aymatth2 (talk) 18:12, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:44, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no guideline that says a golf course is only notable if it has hosted a major event, or that golf-related sources do not count. Temple has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and is therefore notable. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY. The topic is clearly notable and Aymatth2 has done an excellent job of demonstrating this. Kudos. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Burst Oral Care[edit]

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

Promo piece created by a single-purpose IP editor. The references aren't what they seem: the Forbes articles are from the 'sites' section (= not RS), the Chicago Tribune one was written by a product review publication, the CNN one is similar, the Bizjournals piece is mostly about the GS-led investment round, and the Dental Tribune 'article' is a product launch announcement straight from the company's marketing department. The closest thing to RS is the Wired article, but that's about the product category, and mentions Burst only alongside many other brands.

As for the two awards, the Stevies are of dubious notability, to put it mildly, and the London Design Award went to the branding agency for creating the brand image and packaging etc., not to Burst per se.

I don't think any of that adds up to either WP:GNG or WP:CORP notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 08:32, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 08:32, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 08:33, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:39, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Kern, Miller (2020-01-29). "How to select the right electric toothbrush subscription for you". Mashable. Archived from the original on 2021-01-04. Retrieved 2021-01-04.

      Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline says:

      "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

      The guideline notes that "significant coverage" "does not need to be the main topic of the source material".

      This article contains a 276-word review of Burst (and also discusses other electric toothbrushes).

      The review notes: "The Good: Lifetime warranty, Three brushing modes, Nice design. The Bad: On the more expensive side, Small brush head. The Bottom Line: Burst does a good job, and the brand stands behind its product with a lifetime warranty that replaces broken brushes for subscribers."

    2. Varghese, Daniel (2020-08-21). "The 10 Best Electric Toothbrushes in 2020". GQ. Archived from the original on 2021-01-04. Retrieved 2021-01-04.

      The review contains a 476-word review of Burst (and also discusses other electric toothbrushes).

      The review contains negative coverage of Burst:

      The Burst is a bit pricier than some of the other subscription-based toothbrushes we considered. ... One thing about the Burst does give us slight pause: it’s “charcoal infused” bristles. Burst and many companies that make charcoal infused toothpaste claim that charcoal gives the toothbrush additional whitening capabilities. As dentists quoted in a report in Scienceline pointed out “there’s simply not enough evidence to back the promises made for using charcoal for oral hygiene.” This isn’t because all dentists are convinced brushing with charcoal is bad, it’s rather that there hasn’t been enough research done into the topic.

    3. Reid, Hilary (2019-06-28). "I Tested Six New 'Start-up' Electric Toothbrushes". New York. Archived from the original on 2021-01-04. Retrieved 2021-01-04.

      The review contains a 318-word review of Burst (and also discusses other electric toothbrushes).

      The review contains analysis of Burst:

      Another really ticklish toothbrush! But slightly less ticklish than the Boka, despite its higher rate of vibrations per minute. The vibrations on the sensitive setting were a bit less intense, and I’m not sure if the massage setting really felt that different from the whitening one. That said, I did think my teeth looked a little lighter after brushing, so it seemed that the whitening setting was somewhat effective. I also liked that it has a light that flashes red when the toothbrush is running low on charge — my old electric toothbrushes would always get slower and slower as the charge died, and it’s great that this one gives you a heads-up.

    4. Warner, Alex (2020-06-17). "The Internet's Most Reviewed Electric Toothbrush Is the Secret to Chrissy Teigen's Bright Smile". People. Archived from the original on 2020-06-22. Retrieved 2021-01-04.

      The review notes: "So, what makes the Burst Sonic Toothbrush so special? Thanks to the brand’s sonic technology, it has one of the most powerful motors in the industry. The brush gives off 33,000 vibrations per minute, allowing it to better clean hard-to-reach areas and deeply polish your teeth without irritating your gums."

    5. Burke, Owen (2020-05-27). "I tried the Burst toothbrush made popular by the viral 'corn test' video — here's how it stacked up against my Philips Sonicare". Business Insider. Archived from the original on 2021-01-04. Retrieved 2021-01-04.

      The author provides analysis: "Burst is a more affordable alternative that ultimately gives me the same clean feeling as my Sonicare at a much better value, and I don't have to remember to go out and buy or change brush heads, which, for a forgetful fool such as I, is a huge relief."

    6. Goode, Lauren (2020-01-24). "Don't Brush Off Mouth Tech As a Passing Fad". Wired. Archived from the original on 2021-01-04. Retrieved 2021-01-04.

      The article spends 12 paragraphs to discuss Burst. It discusses the company: "Burst Oral Care was founded in 2017 as a way to “fuse together the offline and the online” personal care market, according to cofounders Brittany Stewart and Hamish Khayat. ... Burst is a DTC company—that’s direct-to-consumer, similar to how makeup company Glossier and luggage company Away are eschewing traditional retail channels and selling their stuff through their own websites."

      It also discusses the product: "Burst’s latest oral care product, the one the company shipped to me, is floss. This is not just any floss. It’s expanding, charcoal-coated, mint-and-eucalyptus flavored, antimicrobial floss."

    7. Ha, Anthony (2020-05-06). "Goldman Sachs backs electric toothbrush startup Burst Oral Care". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2021-01-04. Retrieved 2021-01-04.
    8. Chen, I-Chun (2020-05-06). "Burst Oral Care gets more funding in round led by Goldman Sachs". L.A. Biz. American City Business Journals. Archived from the original on 2021-01-04. Retrieved 2021-01-04.
    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Burst to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 10:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Most of the sources are about the Burst product and brand instead of about the company, so I would support reframing the article to be about the brand instead of the company.

    Burst is the main subject of articles in People and Business Insider. Burst has received substantial coverage in articles in GQ (476-word review), New York (318-word review), and Mashable (276-word review) that also discuss other electric toothbrushes. These sources can still be used to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which notes that "significant coverage" "does not need to be the main topic of the source material".

    Cunard (talk) 10:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is spam. The content appears to have been taken from the company's PR material (I mean, 25,000 "ambassadors", c'mon!). Cunard has found some mentioned of the company but even by his own admission there is next to nothing written about *the company* and instead there appears to be coverage of the products (and even that coverage is PR-driven for the most part). The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 21:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I reworded the sentence about "ambassadors" from "As of January 2020, the company has over 25,000 ambassadors across the US, all of who are dental professionals" to "As of January 2020, the company recruited roughly 25,000 dentists and dental hygienists in the United States to champion their merchandise in the United States in exchange for compensation."

    The rest of the article is neutrally written.

    The Burst brand has received substantial reviews. I reworded the article's first sentence to make it be about the brand, not the company, since the sources focus on the brand, not the company.

    Cunard (talk) 05:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the sources presented by Cunard, a third relist to try and establish consensus seems appropriate and justifiable for a 3rd relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Geschichte (talk) 09:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Eyed Devils[edit]

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

Nothing here indicates that this band was notable in itself, only that some of its members did possibly notable stuff elsewhere. ★Trekker (talk) 14:21, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★Trekker (talk) 14:21, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:59, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the SPLC is not a realible source. They are notorious for engaging in inflamatory attacks on people. They also a fund raising group, that invests most of its money and resources into fund raising, so they have an incentive to try to make the groups they attack seem to be more influential than they are. Some of the so-called groups they cover are really just one person who self-publishes a newsletter, and sends it out to less than a dozen other people. SPLC builds a phantom fear to scare people into giving them notability, if they are a major source for an article, the notability of the article subject is extremely suspect.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notable reporting contains description of terrorist attacks, not coverage of the band itself.--Bettydaisies (talk) 02:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - See also the affiliated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nordic Thunder. The article is dependent on news reports on the various members' criminal activities and books about their general movement. There is no reliable coverage of the band itself, except as a minor background tidbit in coverage of other things. The band does not inherit the notability (infamy) of its members when they did things outside of the band context. WP:EXIST applies as well. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 05:15, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pluck (card game)[edit]

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

The article was created in 2008 with the comment "this is a card game I played in school." In other words it was WP:OR. The article has been tagged since then as having no citations. I cannot find this in my extensive library of card game books nor is it listed by McLeod at pagat.com or by Parlett in The Penguin Book of Card Games, a tome of over 500 card games played worldwide. The only source listed appears to be an online blog. Unless we can find at least one reliable source, it's time for this to go. Bermicourt (talk) 16:23, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:26, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Can't find any mentions, let alone in-depth coverage to show this even exists. Seems to be WP:OR. Onel5969 TT me 00:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Point of correction, the one source is Everything2. I don't consider them all that reliable, though they are fascinating. Quick Google search turns up a lot of pages that scrape Wikipedia and some mentions here and again. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The one source is an exact copy of the section in the Wiki article for the 3-player game. So either Wikipedia has plagiarised the source or it's a circular reference. Either way, it is not a reliable source since, like Wikipedia, it's made up of user-supplied material. Sometimes that's sourced, sometimes not. This one is not. Bermicourt (talk) 09:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to University of Groningen. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Universiteitskrant[edit]

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

Student newspaper that doesn't appear to be the subject of significant coverage in independent sources. I found some brief coverage of its closure, but not much more. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emergent Payments[edit]

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

non notable. the refs are mere notices. The article was almost entirely written by one of a very extensive band of sockpuppets [17], but does not qualify for Speedy G5 because it was started June 10, a few days before the first of the ring were banned. DGG ( talk ) 01:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, WP:SIGCOV, WP:SPAM, and WP:MILL. I'm always suspicious when a stub trumpets a $3M investment in a company (35 years ago I was on the board of a NFP whose annual budget larger than that.) The references are trivial about trivial matters for a trivial company. Bearian (talk) 14:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: An article about a company, referenced to coverage of its funding and name-change announcements, which fall under routine coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. The company was acquired by Emergent Technology Holdings in 2018 but there is no article which could serve as a redirect target. No evidence of attained notability found. AllyD (talk) 17:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - sourcing doesn't meet the required standards. GirthSummit (blether) 12:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Geschichte (talk) 08:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Signal Hill (band)[edit]

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

Non-notable band, has been tagged for 11 years and cannot find any references to meet WP:BAND. JayJayWhat did I do? 01:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. JayJayWhat did I do? 01:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. JayJayWhat did I do? 01:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination.--Bettydaisies (talk) 02:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article about a non-notable band, written by the band whose account is blocked indefinitely. Couldn't find anything that establishes notability. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't meet any criteria for WP:BAND. Peter303x (talk) 01:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect to Target rating point#TRP manipulation scam. Daniel (talk) 05:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fakt Marathi[edit]

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

Contested prod: Single source; google shows mostly sources about a scam; mostly edited by socks -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:04, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:04, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:04, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Target_rating_point#TRP_manipulation_scam. Many reliable sources have covered the channel in articles about the scam. Since there is an existing article on TRP, with encyclopedic information about the channel and scam, Fakt Marathi should be redirected there. Prior to the scam there was hardly any coverage other than those in paid PR sites. So this TV channel does not appear to be notable on its own. --Walrus Ji (talk) 08:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


  • Hi, I am AM42576, one of the major editors of Fakt Marathi Channel Wikipedia Page. I am not as associated with the channel in any way. I also do not understand the reason as to why the channel’s article has been nominated for deletion. If you want me to add details about the channel’s TRP Fraud. Then surely I will do it. Please answer my question. Thank You —-AM42576 ([User talk:|talk]]) 14:28, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@AM42576: Please do not copy my signature as you copied above. There is a box on top of this page on right side that says "New to AfD? Read these primers!". So please do as it says. In short, you need to prove WP:NOTABILITY of this TV channel. Also if you are getting paid to edit the page, you need to disclose it. --Walrus Ji (talk) 09:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tremendously sorry Walrus Ji for copping your signature. I am new to Wikipedia. I do not know much about it as I have became a part of it, just a few weeks ago. I appreciate your guidelines and will incorporate them soon. Firstly, I am not getting paid to edit this article and I am just a pure fan of this channel as I love it. Secondly, I will try to prove the WP:Notability of this tv channel. —-Thank You AM42576 13:57, 1 January 2021
  • In short Walrus Ji, are you asking me to include details about the Fakt Marathi TRP Rate Fraud Scandal in the article? —-Thank You 14,51 1 January 2021 (UTC)
@AM42576:, you can see the criteria on WP:BROADCAST, if you think this channel is meeting the criteria then you can comment here, to claim how it is meeting the criteria. You need to include links from WP:Reliable Source to back up your claims. Please read Help:My article got nominated for deletion!. Walrus Ji (talk) 12:09, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Walrus Ji, I thought of thinking adding details about Fakt Marathi channel TRP manipulation scam. I think this action will prove the TV Channel’s WP:Broadcast and I am also backing up with WP:Reliable Sources. The following is my paragraph “ On October 8 2020, Fakt Marathi Channel was alleged by the Mumbai Police to be involved in the TRP Manipulation scam. The racket was mainly about Television Rating Point (TRP) which is a tool to judge the popularity of a channel and a tv programme. TRP is calculated using barometer on the basis of TV Channel viewership in a confidential set of households. As per the revelation, those involved in the racket bribed people in these households and asked them to keep some channels switched on even when they weren't watching or not at home. The Broadcast Audience Research Council (BARC) releases weekly rating points for TV channels in India and its officials were also being questioned in connection with the case. There are 2,000 barometers installed in Mumbai to monitor TRPs. For monitoring these barometers BARC gave contract to Hansa Research Agency. BARC is an industry body set up to design, commission, supervise and own an accurate, reliable and timely TV audience measurement system and is guided by recommendations of Telecom Regulatory Authority of India and Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. It helps provide data points to plan media spends more effectively. In this racket three other media companies were involved. The owner of the Fakt Marathi Channel was taken in custody and arrested by the Mumbai Police. Later, the owner was granted bail by Mumbai Police. Mumbai’s Additional Sessions Judge PR Sitre granted bail to the channel’s owner on a bond of Rs 50,000. The owner’s lawyer said that “ his client did not manipulate the TRP nor did it increase the TRP of the Marathi channel. He said that the revenue of the channel also did not increase during the relevant period.” Please review my paragraph and let me know your feedback as soon as possible. —-Thank You 14:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
@AM42576:, I think you should read the page {{AFD help}} properly. Your comment does not prove that Fakt Marathi is passing the criteria listed on the page WP:BROADCAST. You have not listed a single reliable source in your above comment. Anyway, I am not an admin to judge your comment. I have made my opinion clear in my first comment. My opinion remains unchanged about the redirect. An admin will decide on your opinion in seven days. Good Luck. --Walrus Ji (talk) 12:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear editors of Fakt Marathi, Can I please understand why this source is deleted frequently, eventhough I have used some sections of that source, other editors have disagree with that and they repeatedly remove that reference from the article. Please give an brief explanation for this. —-Thank You AM42576 12:43, 3 January 2021
@AM42576: I asked you to read Wikipedia:Reliable sources, but it is clear that instead of reading the page that has all the answers you are choosing to shoot questions. It is a user generated site, it is not reliable. If you keep adding it, you will get blocked from editing. --Walrus Ji (talk) 08:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It looks as AM42576, who is the only contributor to this article has contributed only to this article. WP:SPA. Kolma8 (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as suggested, and per WP:TNT - the formatting and language is terrible and would take many hours to fix. Bearian (talk) 14:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Geschichte (talk) 08:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte's Foot[edit]

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

Non notable film, nothing found in a WP:BEFORE to help it pass WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 00:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. – DarkGlow (✉) 00:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No notable awards, no reception, practically zero coverage (I found one local news piece in Polish about the movie being shown in a local cultural center in the village it was filmed in: [18]). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I found enough to create scanty production and release sections, but not enough to pass NFILM. If it had some reviews that would have helped, but they don't seem to be out there as far as I can tell. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence of notability. The one actual blue link seemed to be a misdirect. It was not to an actor, but to a volleyball player who was only 13 when the film was released. The level people create red links on some articles leads to many false links.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Nothing in English or Polish to suggest notability Kolma8 (talk) 18:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 05:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comenius Foundation for Child Development[edit]

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

No significant coverage. Fails WP:ORG. SL93 (talk) 00:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 00:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 00:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While the organization is occasionally cited and mentioned, I concur that it fails NORG. I couldn't find a single source that would describe it as significant, nor any coverage outside of it being mentioned as a publisher or organizer of something. The only source I found that goes into more detail is self-published study here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing to suggest this organization is notable. JayJayWhat did I do? 22:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. GirthSummit (blether) 12:19, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Gerlin[edit]

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

Full disclosure - I don't speak German, so will defer to those that can fully read the available sources. However, a political youth organization PR staffer (who has not yet graduated high school) doesn't seem to meet any notability requirements for Wikipedia. To make matters worse, I'm fairly certain that this article is an autobiography. Jmertel23 (talk) 00:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jmertel23 (talk) 00:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Jmertel23 (talk) 00:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the decision. Please delete the article I created. Christi123321 (talk) 20:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect to Pan-Germanic language. Daniel (talk) 05:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Folkspraak[edit]

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

I'm taking another shot, seeing that there were several no-consensus outcomes for lack of input, at putting this up for a deletion discussion. There is still, six years after the last discussion, no coverage in independent reliable sources, so it fails WP:GNG. On top of that it isn't even convincing, contradictory as it is: It's defined as a constructed language making it suitable to be "a sort of" lingua franca—then, later, we're shown the Lord's Prayer in five "dialects" of it—and they're patently different languages, no more alike than the diverse languages they're supposed to be a lingua franca for. So this article isn't even telling us reliably what Folkspraak is. I don't doubt that there's an ideal lying under it that some people are hoping to achieve, but to a degree the article is about something that doesn't exist, at least yet. Largoplazo (talk) 00:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 00:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, does not appear to satisfy GNG. – DarkGlow (✉) 00:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can find no reliable independent sourcing for this article to show the subject's notability. It's apparently an idea that's under development and is being pulled in multiple directions by different people/groups. More than thirteen years since the first version of this article was first created, and it still does not appear to have significant traction. Meters (talk) 02:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Pan-Germanic language, even on the off chance that secondary sources covering this strange attempt at a language are found, it would be far better covered there. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Folkspraak is notable for being (probably) the first collaborative conlang project online. Besides, it won't be a problem to find some coverage in reliable sources. The problem is that over the years, Folkspraak has several times been rebooted from start, and at some point it became a common moniker for several different language projects, some of which are quite different from others. That doesn't necessarily mean they are different languages, since all versions are mutually intelligible, but a common standard was never reached. As a result, it is impossible to describe Folkspraak as a single language with a single standard, without taking into account its history. And obviously, it is nonsense to present the phonology of one version and take text samples from different versions. I agree that a redirect to Pan-Germanic language would be the best solution, but please leave the page history intact. —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 23:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Probably"—you don't even say firmly that it has the one characteristic based on which you're asserting notability. Besides that, I need to remark that "notable" in Wikipedia-speak doesn't have its usual English meaning: it doesn't mean "worthy of note" (that is, worthy of note because it's the first ...) but "has been noted in one or more of the various ways described at WP:N". As much as any one person may feel the effort is worthy of note, the relevant question is whether it has received such note. I see no evidence that it has.
In addition, if these are all different projects (and the article stresses that they are different), with independent groups of people having different motivations and following different strategies working on them, then they're different subjects. The fact that they keep appropriating the same name for their diversity of projects doesn't make them a single article topic. And—just look at them in the comparison in the article. No two of them are the same language. Largoplazo (talk) 01:00, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_January_12&oldid=1001753662"