Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 January 5

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< January 04	January 06 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. — The Earwig ^talk 03:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Castlebawn (Newtownards)[edit]

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

This development doesn't seem to have gone ahead, looking online there seems scant references to the development, the references linked to don't work, and looking on google maps there is just a Tesco & a clothing stone there. The page was created over 12 years ago and hasnt been updated since, with the information in it speculative — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richjones91 (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 13:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 13:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per an independent search for sources, this proposed project that can be confirmed dead. The developer went into administration in 2015 and sold the site in 2017.[1][2] As of 2019, the new developer was planning to build residential homes there.[3] Only the strip mall got built, and that gets only routine coverage. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:NBUILDING, WP:NBUSINESS and WP:GNG. This seems to be a run-of-the-mill shopping centre. Containing Tesco and Matalan outlets. And not much else. Maybe a Burger King. But so what. The available coverage speaks to a broader development which was never progressed. And so this article stands only as an example of why we have WP:CRYSTAL guidelines. Mine is a very firm "delete" recommendation. Guliolopez (talk) 20:24, 10 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Patxi Xabier Lezama Perier[edit]

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

WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST fail. Having looked at many artist biographies, I noticed that this one lacks mention of significant exhibitions or activities. There is a long, tortuous discussion of his notability on the talk page; in my experience notable artists do not usually require such a long discussion, as their accomplishments are visible and easily demonstrated. The independent, in-depth sources that make notability assessments easy are absent here. The sources I saw in a search were self-published or published in sketchy publications like "Bloom Magazine".

An image search for his name is interesting, as it shows most of images returned are associated with wiki-type sites; I did not see any images linked to reviews or significant galleries or museums. In short, this looks like a vanity or promotion-driven page for an artist who does not meet our notability standard. Possibly (talk) 22:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Possibly (talk) 22:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Possibly (talk) 22:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Possibly (talk) 22:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have to agree that there is no evidence the artist is notable. It seems to be a promo-only effort, as the article has been translated into 44 different languages which looks like a possible orchestrated effort involving undisclosed COI or UPE. Because I was part of the discussion, I thouroughly gave the article and its sourcing (and suggested sourcing on Talk) a deep analysis, but everything is low-quality, user-submitted, self-published or PR-esque trivia. There just does not seem to be any SIGCOV out there nor a record of exhibitions, reviews, and the usual coverage for a contemporary artist. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ARTIST and WP:NAUTHOR. Netherzone (talk) 23:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone: I double-checked that stat on other language wikis and was stunned to see it is correct. Here's a link to the use of his portrait cross-wiki. I have no doubt about coordinated promotion now. Possibly (talk) 04:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Possibly: I'd never heard of him until a couple weeks ago when one of the articles I watch was spammed with copyvio promo about him. Then a different editor out of the blue asked me to "help" them with his article. Netherzone (talk) 04:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Netherzone, there are more than a dozen references recently added to Talk that you haven't even bothered to look at and check. The sources were published in international newspapers in the Basque Country and in the Basque Government. Here are mentioned important exhibitions or activities, see here [[4]]Please note that this is a guide and not a rule; there may be exceptions. Some academics may not meet any of these criteria, but they can still stand out for their academic work. It is very difficult to establish clear requirements in terms of quantity / quality of publications.WP: NBIO or WP: NPROF have criteria that recognize that an author is notable for having a large recognized body of works, for example in Viaf's authority check. You haven't even checked the latest Talk references. It appears that the author meets the notability and reference guidelines in 44 languages.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorginak (talk • contribs) 7:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorginak, I'm sorry to disappoint, but I'm not your private secretary that you can order around. I'm currently occupied with creating content elsewhere on the encyclopedia. Please tell us what your connection is to the subject of the article. That will help us to guide you and the discussion. Thank you. Netherzone (talk) 15:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that it is NOT a promotional effort because there is no web promotion of the author through social networks: Twitter, Facebook, Instagram or LinkedIn.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorginak (talk • contribs) 17:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Keep The problem isn't the fact that the artist is obscure, it is the simple fact that the sources are in the Basque language and are difficult to determine whether they are sufficient quality for the article. There is certainly sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:SIGCOV, proving that he is a genuine artist who passes WP:NARTIST. There wouldn't be so many mentions of him, since the graph was updated, if that wasn't the case. I think the Basque newspaper coverage in Deia combined the some references from the artistic site would be sufficient for the article as stands. scope_creep^Talk 16:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: I'm a little perplexed by your !vote. Does that mean you read Basque, and/or have verified some of the claimed sources? If he's a genuine artist who passes NARTIST, where are the sources, reviews, exhibitions, museum collections, evidence of solo shows and so on?Possibly (talk) 16:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found the Deia article, which is about his self-published book. The weirdest thing about the publication linked is that every article in it has the byline "Elixane Castresana" or "E. Castresana." It's pretty clear that it is paid editorial content. Possibly (talk) 18:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: and @Possibly: I translated all the sources listed (in the article and article talk) from either Basque or Spanish. I'm convinced the Deia "article" is just a modified press release as the wording is almost identical to some of the other sources. This seems like the work of a PR firm or self-promotion. That coupled with the fact that it's being canvassed across the world on 44 different international-language Wikipedias, mostly from IP's that geolocate to his locale near Bilbao doesn't help the matter. And the fact that the photo of the artist was uploaded as the "own work" of the editor who keeps insisting on the artist's importance yet refuses to answer how they are connected. Nor does the other photo of a sculpture Photoshopped onto several backgrounds uploaded by the same editor as "their work" help their case. I am very sorry if this sounds harsh, but all seems very fishy. Netherzone (talk) 18:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The majority of sources merely list a work of art by the artist and the few independent reviews (e.g., Bloom) are fluff pieces. Clearly, the artist's work lacks reviews by established art critics, I don't see anything even in Spanish language newspapers like El Pais. Clearly not notable.--RegentsPark (comment) 16:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Returning to the subject at hand, I have just found another secondary source for a book written by Laura Cremonini, in which the author is mentioned along with Francisco de Goya, see here:[[5]]. Here is a list of Notability sources:[[6]],[[7]], [[8]], [[9]], [[10]], [[11]]. The reference Luz Cultural is signed by Carlos J. Rascón, collaborator in various anthologies. With experience in communication and digital journalism, he is currently director and content editor of the digital magazine Luz Cultural since its inception in 2013. A significant, deep and high-quality coverage in reliable sources. [[12]], [[13]]. I do not think there are enough reasons to place this for deletion, to be honest, it seems that they have it for this particular page for some reason, it seems that because of confronting an editor, but that is not a reason to cut off his head and much less for delete the article. Sure, it is a stub, but it is reasonably well referenced, the type is notable within the Basque Country ... what is the problem? There are articles with much worse references. Netherzone, your attitude leaves much to be desired, of course you are not anyone's secretary, but you only checked three references, I discredit the sources with seems to be and seems to be and it was shown that you only told lies, there was no link to buy the book or They gave medals to all and it seems that it bothered you to see and verify that what you said was a lie, it seems that your hatred is what moves you and the truth offends you. Confronting editors is no reason to discredit sources and references.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorginak (talk • contribs)

@Sorginak: I signed your post for you, again. Possibly (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sourcing is not significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. We have Bloom Magazine, which Wikipedia cites just once, for this article. An unattributed, over-the-top promo piece by a magazine that is operated by a marketing firm, lncreatividad. USA art news isn't much better. Most articles appear to have been written by "Helen". Issuu is a self-publishing platform. [14] doesn't really say what the article claims it says. In fact it says almost nothing: " Espacios interiores Fran y Patxi Lezama Perier" is all. [15] is blog. Vexations (talk) 13:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And hit it with bloom magazine. Because you don't look at the Luza Cultural magazine. The reference Luz Cultural is signed by Carlos J. Rascón, collaborator in various anthologies. With experience in communication and digital journalism, he is currently director and content editor of the digital magazine Luz Cultural. Why don't you look at the references of the Basque newspapers Deia and the Basque government and the list of sources 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 those references are the ones that are worth and not the ones that are in the article Of those ten references nobody says anything? You have to be vague not to check them and include them in the article. Scope_creep checked those of the Deia international newspaper and agrees that they are valid and there are eight more references that no one looks at. A little serious please.--Sorginak (talk) 14:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned that I think Luz Cultural is a blog. No other sources are used in the article. I didn't mention this earlier, but I also do not see a notable career or body of work that would come close to meeting our notability requirements for artists, WP:NARTIST. No work in significant collections, no museum exhibits and no monographs, not even representation by a reputable gallery. The coverage that we do have is not a critical assessment of a body of work, but hype. The repetition of certain phrases or expressions in the sources is suspicious: "La retina de cada uno guarda en la memoria las imágenes de las obras de arte, recordando incluso sentimientos ligados a ellas." in one source, "La retina de cada un guarda a la memòria les imatges de les obres d’art, recordant fins i tot sentiments lligats a elles", in the next. That's a slightly reworded press release, not independent coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vexations (talk • contribs) 15:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I only really do one of these reversals every 1000 Afd's and it is this. The analysis above is sufficiently comprehensive and deep to elicit a change of venue. I can't see anyway it can be kept. scope_creep^Talk 17:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Elixane Castresana is the journalist who covers the Las Encartaciones area, Luz Cultural is not a blog, it is a cultural Art website is signed by Carlos J. Rascón, collaborator in various anthologies. With experience in communication and digital journalism, he is currently director and content editor of the digital magazine Luz Cultural since its inception in 2013. Coolturamagazine is a Contemporary Art website, Bonart is a magazine of the collector Anna Maria Campos and of the art critic and cultural manager Ricard Planas, Arte Historia is an Art History website, SNAC is a discovery service for individuals, families and organizations found within the archive collections of cultural heritage institutions, see here [[16]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorginak (talk • contribs) 18:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Luz Cultural has a notice on the page that is cited that says: "Suscríbete al blog por correo electrónico". In the footer it says: "Luz Cultural no se hace responsable de las opiniones vertidas en noticias, artículos de opinión, imágenes, vídeos, comentarios sobre las mismas o textos de usuarios y visitantes de esta página web." It is a blog with no editorial oversight. That's not my assumption, it says so itself. Vexations (talk) 12:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Netherzone has done a thorough examination - indeed there's enough proof of COI and ADVERT. Talking about the notability, I believe the subject fails the guidelines. The sources provided can't really be checked for reliability and independence as they are too small. The information provided is the same almost everywhere even with the same wording. Less Unless (talk) 04:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An exhaustive examination is the one that says who is the journalist and corresponding editors of the publications. Possibly, it seems to be and I think, they are just unfounded assumptions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorginak (talk • contribs) 09:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that this is a guide and not a rule; there may be exceptions. Some academics may not meet any of these criteria, but they can still stand out for their academic work. It is very difficult to establish clear requirements in terms of quantity / quality of publications. WP: NBIO or WP: NPROF have criteria that recognize that an author is notable for having a large recognized body of works in national libraries of the world and international universities in Viaf's authority control. Individuals are presumed to be remarkable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are trustworthy, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the topic. If the depth of coverage in a given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources can be combined to demonstrate visibility. People who meet the basic criteria can be considered remarkable without meeting the additional criteria. A common axiom is that "AFD is not cleanliness." Wikipedia is a work in progress and articles should not be removed because no one has felt like cleaning them up yet. Remember, Wikipedia has no deadline. If there is good and accessible content in the article, it should be preserved, developed and improved, not removed. Wikipedia's policy of trying to correct problems in articles by editing improvements, expanding, and adding trusted sources, found in Try to fix problems, is often more appropriate than removing articles entirely. Reasons for withholding content. It can be frustrating for a reader to come to Wikipedia for information and discover that the relevant article existed at one point, but has been removed [[17]] . This can put off both readers and Wikipedia authorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorginak (talk • contribs) 11:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sorginak: you need to WP:sign your posts, as instructed many times. Second, you need to learn how to WP:indent them properly. Third, everyone knows what your position is here, and you are close to WP:Bludgeoning the discussion, which you have already been warned not to do. Pasting long sections of Wikipedia guidelines into AfD dicussions is not helpful, because the editors above already know these guidelines quite well. Possibly (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First, I am not an editor, I only look for sources and references. Second, this article got Scope-creep out of her, so I'm a little perplexed by her vote when she was the very person who pulled the article. Third, it seems that the previous editors do NOT know these guidelines quite well and you probably don't know them either when you edit the "Allan & Suzi" article that the administrators remove you for not following those guidelines that you claim to know.

Reasons for withholding content.

It can be frustrating for a reader to come to English Wikipedia in search of information and discover that the relevant article existed at one point in time, but has been deleted. This can put off both readers and Wikipedia authorship. Removing this article from English Wikipedia would seriously damage Wikipedia authorship. This article is taken as a reference and permanent link to sites and institutions as important as the Library of Congress of the United States or the SNAC service, service for the discovery of authors found within the archive collections of cultural heritage institutions where their Sponsors are The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, Institute for Museum and Library Services National Endowment for the Humanities, and its Hosts National Archives and Records Administration of the University of Virginia Library.

It seems that this is a war of editors, who fight among themselves to show who is the one who best complies with the rules, to the detriment of Wikipedia without taking into account that this is a guide and not a rule and that there may be exceptions and it is Some academics may not meet any of these criteria, but they can still stand out for their academic work. If the depth of coverage at a given source is not substantial, several independent sources can be combined to demonstrate visibility. People who meet the basic criteria can be considered remarkable without meeting the additional criteria. A common axiom is that "AFD is not cleanliness." Wikipedia is a work in progress and articles should not be removed because no one has felt like cleaning them up yet. Remember, Wikipedia has no deadline. If there is good and accessible content in the article, it should be preserved, developed and improved, not removed. Wikipedia's policy of trying to correct problems in articles by editing improvements, expanding, and adding trusted sources, found in Try to fix problems, is often more appropriate than removing articles entirely. --Sorginak (talk) 12:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sorginak: sigh. Possibly (talk) 15:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sorginak: could you kindly tell us a little more about your photos of the artist and his work? I just saw that this one has been added to 60 articles globally across many different languages of Wikipedia. Thank you. Netherzone (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not your private secretary you can order around. I am currently busy looking for sources and references for other articles. It is necessary to remind you Netherzone, that I did not say to "help" me, you put the reference tag in the article and after searching and finding more than a dozen references you did not even bother to look and verify those sources. The sources were published in international newspapers of the Basque Country and the Basque Government. According to Wikipedia rules, if you put the "reference" tag, it is you who have to check them and remove the tag when someone adds the sources and references they request. The tricky questions from now on ask Scope_creep which is who took the article and by the way, I don't care if they delete the article. The wikipedia in English with editors like you or Scope_creep who take out and edit articles and then delete them, loses credibility. It is incoherent. You are not trying to correct the problems in the articles by editing improvements, expanding and adding reliable sources, which is in Try to solve problems like other editors, you are looking for problems where there are none, playing detectives swallowing the truth, going as far as lying telling that the references lead to the book link to buy it. My intention was to help and not to hinder like you.

If the image was added to 60 articles worldwide in many different languages of Wikipedia and was accepted by each and every one of the editors, administrators of those countries it will be because they all consider it important, otherwise it would have been deleted and rejected. If you want to play detectives, Wikipedia is not the right place.--Sorginak (talk) 18:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the artist is recognized remarkable in more than 45 articles worldwide in many different languages of Wikipedia and was accepted by each and every one of the editors, administrators of those countries it will be because everyone considers him remarkable, otherwise it would have been deleted and rejected.

Stop childish games.--Sorginak (talk) 21:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment given that this article was created on over 40 wikis, if this is deleted it should beWP:SALTed too. Possibly (talk) 20:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC).... and all this for posting a photo.--Sorginak (talk) 18:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

off-topic

Possibly most of your articles should NOT be on Wikipedia, they are very short summaries. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and all your articles should be in a list, but not in individual articles without content.[[18]], [[19]],[[20]].--Sorginak (talk) 11:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorginak, No personal attacks. You have already been warned about this on the article talk page. Netherzone (talk) 14:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorginak The Inuit artists you mention above are notable by our standards because their work is in multiple museum collections. Lezama Perier is not in any museum collections that we know of. Can you point us to a museum that has included his work in their collection?Possibly (talk) 15:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's Notoriety Criteria (WP: ARTIST) say that a person is (probably) notable enough for an article if it is included in multiple museum collections. "Probably" DOES NOT necessarily mean that it is and probably is NOT and also lacks primary, secondary and tertiary sources without references. It is necessary to remember that articles without content are NOT suitable in Wikipedia, you should consider creating lists or merging with other articles.--Sorginak (talk) 15:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Articles in which it is only said that the work is included in collections It does not make sense.--Sorginak (talk) 15:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sorginak: those Inuit artists have been professionally recognized by museums and the curators that included them in the collections.They meet WP:NARTIST. The reason that Lezama Perier is not notable is that that he is not in any collections, has had very few shows and has attracted very, very little attention from independent critics of art. None of the markers that we usually see for professional artists are present for Lezama Perier. Anyway, continuing to paste long sections of policy will not help to save this article. Possibly (talk) 15:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, that is, it is a "text" that seeks to summarize knowledge. There is a kind of de facto minimum limit for the individual size of the articles and your articles are not worthy of a whole articles for them to say "only" that their work is included in collections.--Sorginak (talk) 16:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Possibly (talk) 16:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All Inuit artists were represented in the collections of the Inuit Art Museum. The sculptures, tapestries and prints, original works of art for sale in the gallery and other items were purchased from the various Inuit cooperatives working in the North. As such, all proceeds from the sale at the gallery directly supported the work of Inuit artists and their communities. The museum was affiliated with the Canadian Museums Association, the Canadian Information Heritage and the Virtual Museum of Canada which closed its doors on May 29, 2016, following a decline in visitors and revenue. "All" Inuit artists are NOT notable and not all are known "only" a few, but all were represented as belonging to Inuit cooperatives. Relevance?. None.--Sorginak (talk) 16:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You should save your energy for something else. No one else has supported your position that Lezama Perier is a notable artist. Possibly (talk) 16:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It will be because "everyone" here is very consistent, starting with you and the person who published the article, Scope-Creep, who changes his mind a dozen times.--Sorginak (talk) 17:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

As I said, I don't know why they take out articles and then delete them.--Sorginak (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Akerbeltz is the only one with common sense, an expert in Basque issues, for me enough.--Sorginak (talk) 17:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK. What is your connection to Lezama Perier? I have never seen someone independently make 44 wiki articles for one person. Possibly (talk) 17:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC). I have also never seen someone write hundreds of articles saying only where their work is.--Sorginak (talk) 17:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can keep creating a million articles saying "only" that your work is included in the collections. Go editor are you done.--Sorginak (talk) 17:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The next thing you can do is another ten thousand articles by American Indian artists saying they have their work in the National Museum of the American Indians.--Sorginak (talk) 17:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorginak, This is offensive. Stop attacking other editors. Netherzone (talk) 17:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a comment. Just as you can make an individual item for each Inuit who has an object in the Inuit museum, so you can make an individual item for each American Indian who has an object in the American Indian museum. Offensive is attacking with assumptions, misinterpretations, and unfounded conclusions towards my person when I have NOT written any article. Abuse of power is gathering a small group of publisher friends to attack me without having published anything. It is offensive to lie like you said the book was for sale. Ridiculous is threatening to remove the article and remove the photos and hypocritical is asking others what you do not do.--Sorginak (talk) 18:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

... and all this for posting a photo.--Sorginak (talk) 18:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sorginak: you are disrupting the discussion here. I am also getting really tired of indenting your posts. SarahSV warned you not to disrupt things here. Please move on to something else. Possibly (talk) 18:23, 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. Sandstein 21:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Understanding Islam through Hadis[edit]

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

A book published by the author's non notable friend in USA, lacking third party significant RS coverage. Fails all the criteria of WP:BOOKCRIT. Only has few mentions in primary or non reliable sources. Article created by a promotional WP:SPA whose other articles have since been deleted. --Walrus Ji (talk) 21:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Walrus Ji (talk) 21:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Walrus Ji (talk) 21:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Walrus Ji (talk) 21:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- We cannot allow WP pages on every book. The place for this is on book sale websites. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My google book search found several mentions of the book in other works (Mostly snippets are displayed so hard to fully evaluate) I found it listed on a few lists of banned books. Jeepday (talk) 18:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Jeepday, Unless the links you are talking about are WP:Significant Coverage, (in which case I would like to see the link here), those links with passing mention or citations don't contribute anything to the notability. Everything that gets a mention online or somewhere, isn't fit for an article. WP:BOOKCRIT bar, as far as I understand is much higher. Walrus Ji (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Snippets are not significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 20:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Bearian & Walrus Ji I am using 'Snippet' to describe what is shown by Google due to Copyright issues, Google can not show the entire content of copyrighted works, therefore I can't provide details on the length of coverage in those copyrighted works that talk about the subject. But in my estimation, based what I do see, I believe that the subject of the article is notable. If your research gives you a different view on notability, I encourage you to post your findings. Jeepday (talk) 12:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Appearing pro-forma on standard lists of "ten books banned in India" or "11 controversial books" are not substantial coverage; at best, it's WP:NOTINHERITED. I'd be willing to go along with userfy this page so that more research can be done and the page can be fixed outside of normal editing, since at this moment, WP:TNT might apply. Bearian (talk) 14:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see no evidence of notability. Mentions do not constitute significant coverage, and a number of those mentions are in books by the same author; those contribute nothing, as they are not intellectually independent. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:33, 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 keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Armature Controlled DC Motor[edit]

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

~~An 'Armature Controlled DC Motor' is basically just a DC motor. I don't see the point of this article existing.~~ Merge. The page just talks about DC motors. Stuff that should be in the DC motor article. Sungodtemple (talk) 19:35, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Good grief. A 'jet aircraft' is basically just an aircraft so I might not see the point of the Jet aircraft article existing. Does any aspect of policy or guidance underlie this nomination? Thincat (talk) 21:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks like a well written and referenced article, I am not seeing anything in the nomination that says the article fails an criteria for existing. Jeepday (talk) 18:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, On deletion: this is a distinct type of DC motor not detailed in the DC Motor article. On merging: the transfer function is more digestable as it stands within this article. The wound stator section of the DC Motor article could be revised to include a summary of this type of motor, and a link to this article. SailingInABathTub (talk) 03:39, 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) 19:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Govil[edit]

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

Promotional resume of a businessman whose claims to notability seem to be that he founded several companies, none of which have their own articles. He does have a writeup in Forbes but it's typical "entrepreneurship" fluff; I don't think there's anything in it that demonstrates notability. Otherwise the article is sourced to the usual collection of press releases and commercial (as in paid-for) awards announcements. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:30, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:30, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see a Forbes contributor article about him (not a reliable source), and the rest is just routine business announcements and quotations. The article is a promotional mess. And on top of it, we deleted it for the exact same reason before! FalconK (talk) 02:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GNG.--Bettydaisies (talk) 03:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see how he can pass the notability guidelines. There are so many entrepreneurs now, we need something more then press releases and organization's awards.Less Unless (talk) 04:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTRESUME and WP:TNT. in 2021, it is unforgiveable that this mess is here. Bearian (talk) 20:44, 11 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) 19:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sung Jun Huh[edit]

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

Fails WP:NGRIDIRON, WP:GNG, WP:N. Cannot find any sources to verify this person even played football. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, unfortunately.--Bettydaisies (talk) 03:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - No reliable sources can be located. Possible there are sources about him in German, but I find that unlikely. RolledOut34 // (talk) // (cont) 05:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cbl62 (talk) 11:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ejgreen77 (talk) 17:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage whatsoever in North Carolina newspapers (and anywhere else) except for an extremely routine list of graduates from his high school. This should have been speedied as a self-promotional autobiography. Kges1901 (talk) 15:50, 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) 19:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Bonner[edit]

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

Fails basic tenets of WP:GNG. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 19:16, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 19:16, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 19:16, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 19:16, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and yet another unsourced article that has lasted for over 15 years. Local level media executives are not default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sign whatsoever of any coverage in reliable sources. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per all above. Mayoticks (talk) 17:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I googled the subject and couldn't find any useful information. Fatzaof (talk) 17:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW, WP:V, and WP:GNG. There are literally zero newspaper articles online about this person. Bearian (talk) 20:47, 11 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) 19:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Avant-garde Pictures[edit]

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

A film production company that has never produced a notable film. They seem to put out short (2 minute) films and YouTube videos. There is nothing available to show a passing of WP:NCORP or WP:GNG or any other relevant notability criteria. None of the award coverage seems to be from reliable sources.

Article created by an SPA. Spiderone 19:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 17:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . Language on the article seems explicitly promotional.--Bettydaisies (talk) 03:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:29, 9 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 19:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Political Asylum (2011 film)[edit]

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

2-minute film. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (films). Edwardx (talk) 18:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Film appears to exist, but mere existence is not sufficient for a standalone article. I would review Giacomo Mantovani for notability too. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both votes above. Donaldd23 (talk) 19:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - '242 Movie TV' is blatantly not a notable award and this meets none of the criteria at WP:NFILM Spiderone 11:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not passing WP:GNG due to a lack of significant coverage, tellingly there is no Italian Wikipedia article on this film, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:10, 11 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

9MOTHER9HORSE9EYES9[edit]

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

non notable Lunyaah (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lunyaah (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lunyaah (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lunyaah (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as creator. The topic has received substantial coverage in the reliable sources cited in the article, namely:

Alexander, Leigh (5 May 2016). "_9MOTHER9HORSE9EYES9: the mysterious tale terrifying Reddit". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 5 May 2016. Retrieved 5 May 2016.
Kastrenakes, Jacob (23 April 2016). "Someone is creating a horrifying sci-fi world in Reddit comments". The Verge. Archived from the original on 6 May 2016. Retrieved 5 May 2016.
"'_9MOTHER9HORSE9EYES9' Is Reddit's New, Terrifying Mystery". Vice. 29 April 2016. Archived from the original on 5 May 2016. Retrieved 5 May 2016.}}
"The mysterious novel in the cat video comments". BBC News. 2016-05-31. Archived from the original on 2016-05-31. Retrieved 2016-05-31.
Menegus, Bryan. "There's a Sci-Fi Novel Secretly Unfolding in Reddit's Comments". Gizmodo. Archived from the original on 2017-09-10.

This establishes its compliance with the notability guideline, WP:GNG. Sandstein 19:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In addition to the sources already present in the article, which were reiterated here, there are plenty more that can be found with some searches. For example, here is a recent book that covered the topic. The amount of coverage in reliable sources shows that it easily passes the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 23:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources indicate notability.★Trekker (talk) 13:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keek Clearly substantial coverage per the above sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the coverage clearly shows notability. Less Unless (talk) 04:50, 8 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. No compelling arguments to delete. Geschichte (talk) 15:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saga (singer)[edit]

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

This persons only claim to fame seems to be that she was mentioned once in a terrorists notes. ★Trekker (talk) 21:02, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★Trekker (talk) 21:02, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. There is an entire chapter ("Lament for a People") dedicated to her in Benjamin R. Teitelbaum's Lions of the North: Sounds of the New Nordic Radical Nationalism (Oxford University Press, 2017), which was favourably reviewed not only in academic publications but also in Swedish newspapers for the general public, like Aftonbladet. Some older references, like this article in the Guardian which predates the Utøya massacre, have also been removed from the article since the last AfD discussion, but that's not really important in the light of Teitelbaum's book and the discussion around Saga found in reviews of it, like this one in Arbetaren. I've expanded the article somewhat using Teitelbaum's book. /Julle (talk) 06:01, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To quote sv:Rebecka Kärde in her review in Arbetaren, linked above (my translation): "Sweden's biggest fascist music export is a woman, though. She calls herself Saga, is one of the most successful nationalistic artists in the world ..." ("nationalistic" here to be understood more or less in the "white supremacy" sense, or at least as ethnopluralism). /Julle (talk) 06:15, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of Notability , Samat lib (talk) 10:40, 25 December 2020 (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)} 18:10, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Discussion in a book doesn't pertain to her notability, her career and reporting on her as a person does. There is little to no notable reporting on her specifically, so she's not notable.--Bettydaisies (talk) 19:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Discussion in a book most certainly does pertain to her notability. pburka (talk) 21:25, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She seems notable based on the comments above and the sources in the article. 136.34.184.131 (talk) 21:32, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She is an repulsive person. But sadly notable within WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 17:51, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Escapee (talk) 18:26, 5 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. — The Earwig ^talk 20:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Japanwala[edit]

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

Unfortunately it appears there is almost no secondary source coverage of the subject, thus failing GNG and NPERSON. As there are instances of writing by the subject, it may be a case of TOOSOON but does not currently meet the notability threshold. Innisfree987 (talk) 07:06, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete per nom + it just sounds like someone's resumé. LeBron4 (talk) 15:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Escapee (talk) 18:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sourcing does not rise to the level of passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:27, 5 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) 19:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apple Media Services[edit]

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

This article is a gigantic table which appears to be a data dump from Apple websites. No indication of notability or encyclopaedic value. Mccapra (talk) 18:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 18:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 18:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 18:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:INDISCRIMINATE ~RAM (talk) 03:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The title and the content are a mismatch, and neither topic establishes its notability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR. We are not a mirror of Apple's for-profit website. Tim Cook is rich enough. Bearian (talk) 20:49, 11 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. Participants do not consider that this actress has had the level of coverage to meet the relevant notability guidelines. I am happy for any admin to restore it to draftspace if anyone does think they can demonstrate otherwise. ~ mazca ^talk 12:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nova Firoze[edit]

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

BLP about an actress who does not appear to have had significant roles, won any significant awards, have a cult following or made unique or prolific contributions to her field. Indeed according to one of the sources cited she now has another job off screen. From what I can see she had a few years of a career on tv, but nothing that passes WP:ENT. Mccapra (talk) 06:21, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:21, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:21, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:21, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:21, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is notable actor. This article meets the WP: ENT policy. She won the Pantene You Got The Look 2008 contest, a national level beauty in Bangladesh. And also received the CJFB Performance Award for acting. She is a well known actress in Bangladesh. And has done many dramas, television shows, stage performances.-Alamgir64 (talk) 07:17, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of any notability, Ofcourse I don't speak Bengali so may have missed sources but from what I've seen there only seems to be tabloid stuff. –Davey2010^Talk 16:57, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:38, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Escapee (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: has significant roles, awards and well known actress in Bangladesh. Thank You.-Alamgir64 (talk) 05:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Alamgir64: you can comment multiple times but you can only !vote once. Mccapra (talk) 07:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't add vote multiple times which I have strikethrough. Feel free to add new comments but repeating the same point is unnecessary. RationalPuff (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't really seem to meet WP:NACTOR. Received one notable award, and one redlink award. Checking through the films/TV shows she is listed as appearing in, most do not have articles; Doll's House (TV series) and Hello (2017 film) do, but neither of these articles mention a "Nova" being in them at all (not even the IMDb entry for Hello includes her in the cast). jp×g 21:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify to give editors interested in the topic an opportunity to find better evidence of notability. BD2412 T 03:53, 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. Geschichte (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prashant Patel umrao[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL a politician-lawyer who has not won any election. As a lawyer he was covered once, it falls under WP:BLP1E. The page has been speedily deleted three times at the location Prashant Patel by GSS and has been recreated at another location. The author has now been blocked for sock puppetry. --Walrus Ji (talk) 16:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Walrus Ji (talk) 16:17, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Walrus Ji (talk) 16:17, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Walrus Ji (talk) 16:17, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Escapee (talk) 17:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails notability guidelines for both politicians and lawyers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above Fails WP:NPOL. Mayoticks (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Johnpacklambert et al., failing WP:GNG, NPOL, and my standards for lawyers. Bearian (talk) 20:53, 11 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marita Covarrubias[edit]

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

WP:FANCRUFT this is an Encyclopedia not a Wikia fandom site. There is literally no reason to have an article here on this character. There is a reason we have a list of characters section. Delete this please. thank you . BTW this should be turned into a redirect to a List of X files characters. We can't have articles for every character on every show. This article should never have been created in the first place. IlluminatingTrooper (talk) 17:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 19:12, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 19:12, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per WP:GNG, we have articles for characters that are covered by independent reliable sources. This article has worthwhile coverage from Cinefantastique, Entertainment Weekly and several published books examining The X-Files. There's a good Reception section in the article. This article is in a lot better shape than most; there's no reason to delete. – Toughpigs (talk) 18:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree completely with Toughpigs. Daranios (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Questionable nomination. Seems like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Reading the nom, I expected to see what a lot of bad fictional character articles have: only in-universe info, no reception, no real-world info. Then looking at the article, I find a well-written well-sourced reception section based on real-world coverage. It's even at Good Article status... It is true that we don't need an article for every character on every show, but that does not mean we cannot have articles such as this when they meet WP:GNG. -2pou (talk) 18:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The nominator have not articulated why the sourcing of this article, or the potential availability of other reliable sources not used in this article, does not met the GNG requirement. 2pou is right about it coming across as WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Haleth (talk) 17:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the nominator doesn't cite policy. The article looks fine. There is a sourced reception section. Maybe some of those sources are short on detail but it's enough that it looks like a solid Wikipedia article. Even if he has a point that we have lists for more minor characters we should merge and not delete. Archrogue (talk) 19:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep fan-popular does not mean fancruft. She was a recurring character on a top 10 TV show, and it's well-documented. Bearian (talk) 21:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not any valid reasons given for AfD. This is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. - The9Man ^(Talk) 07:09, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda Liz Lopez[edit]

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

Winning a beauty contest is not in and of itself a sign of notability. The sourcing in the article is to a once sentence mention in a newspaper article, this is not enough to pass GNG ever. A search for more sourcing found a non-reliable entry in IMDb, and a bunch of other non-reliable sources and a few Wikipedia mirrors but no reliable, substnatial coverage to add toward passing GNG. This article has been tagged for needing more sources for 9 years and existed in this insubstantial state for 11 years. John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:37, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:51, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:51, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:55, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:55, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - at best this is a WP:BLP1E; way short of GNG; this shouldn't have existed for 11 days let alone 11 years Spiderone 14:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The scary thing is I have seen articles with less sourcing that have lasted over 15 years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:15, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - So she couldn't claim notoriety even as the subject of a longest-lasting WP article without a challenge. Mercy11 (talk) 22:06, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, that would be a horrible case of self-referentialness. However she is not even close. Barahir lasted for over 15 (maybe even over 16) years with 0 sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:11, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Escapee (talk) 17:48, 5 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) 19:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Itaf[edit]

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

I haven't been able to find any reliable evidence that this film exists. The only things that come up in a search of "Itaf 1988" are wiki mirrors, and going to "Images" shows one screenshot that I assume is from the movie. There aren't any sources in books or news, and this page has no interwiki versions. Ultimately, it doesn't seem notable, and no good sources exist. Scrooge200 (talk) 17:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Scrooge200 (talk) 17:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't see this passing WP:NFILM or WP:GNG at all. I'm also not sure Jean Knoertzer is notable. Spiderone 18:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further to this comment, I've given the director a PROD for multiple reasons. Interestingly, the French Wikipedia article was deleted way back in 2009 for failing their notability standards. Spiderone 18:35, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing comes even close to showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 19:08, 5 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. (non-admin closure) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 04:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Peltz[edit]

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

I came across this version of the article. It seems to have a lot of sources, so I started doing some editing to trim away the puff, but as I dug deeper I found that the sourcing wasn't really there - many of the cites were to the subject's own website and social media accounts, or to a Forbes piece by a 'contributor' (see WP:FORBESCON); the news articles include passing mentions and apparent press releases, and there are interviews with one of the investors in his company. If we were to cut it back to what the reliable, independent sources say (and we'd need to assume that they are all talking about the same Doug Peltz), we'd be left with an assertion that he once saw a fireball in the sky, and an assertion that he found an invasive insect in California (not that he wrote the paper about it - he's just listed in the paper about it as one of the people who found the insects). Looking for sources online I can see more press releases and interviews, but I can't see anything which is reliable, independent, secondary and which gives him significant coverage - I don't think he meets GNG. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:44, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:44, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:44, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:44, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:44, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, coverage is minor and rarely directly about him. – Thjarkur (talk) 12:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only an intermediate wikipedia editor so I've never replied to a deletion comment like this. I hope I am doing it correctly. I don't see a "reply" link anywhere so I hope it's okay for me to simply reply beneath your text. I was the one that created this page. Doug Peltz is a bigger celebrity today than Bill Nye. He is the modern day Bill Nye or Mr. Wizard or Magic School Bus. He is a huge celebrity with kids today. My kids are crazy about him, all of their friends know who he is. I was surprised to find there was not a page about him so I did my best to create one.

I will spend some time reviewing the sources I found more closely, but there is no question in my mind that we should have an entry for him. His company, Mystery Science, is *the* thing that I and pretty much every teacher uses with students in their classrooms. As I was reading more about him, I see that investors have given him millions of dollars and his company is now part of Discovery Education. Maybe those sources will be more credible? I'll do an edit now to improve this. Jjwilliamson (talk) 15:00, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added multiple additional sources of significant coverage that I found after some more searching. Now that I know how to tag :) I'm tagging you here GirthSummit Jjwilliamson (talk) 16:27, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did further research and added more sources that are directly about him, and better organized the opening section to group the different areas of coverage. GirthSummit, I'd love to have you share any further feedback. I appreciate your early feedback and I think this article is a lot stronger now because of it. I hope you agree. Jjwilliamson (talk) 05:26, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Umakant_Bhalerao or CaptainEek, I'm tagging you because I saw you were involved in helping resolve previous "flagged for deletion" pages. I've been a casual editor of wikipedia for awhile, but this was the first time I was inspired to create a page from scratch with some holiday downtime. GirthSummit gave me some great feedback about my original version and I've put in a lot of time to source better material that are primarily about the individual and speak to his notability. (I'm a fan of this individual myself and thought he really deserves a wikipedia page when I discovered he didn't have one.) In any case, I wanted to see if one of you could help resolve the pending state and help me get this approved. Thanks! Jjwilliamson (talk) 20:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jjwilliamson, Can you link the three best sources in the article that shows Peltz is notable? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! And thanks for chiming in to help CaptainEek. I appreciate the response and encouragement. I feel like I've become a crash-course expert on the guy so it's fun to try and summarize.

To answer your question: if I had to point you to the top 3 sources that he is notable: (1) EdSurge article reporting on the company he co-founded being acquired for 140 million dollars which is used in 50% of U.S. elementary schools^[1] and he was quite literally the face of the company—he's the star of every video of theirs which I show my students (TechCrunch also covered this Discovery Education acquisition, not sure which source we consider more reliable, I linked you to EdSurge since it included more detail and they're more reputable for us educators); (2) his recent feature on NPR as their special guest answering kids' questions live on the air in response to the coronavirus^[2]; (3) Business Insider coverage of his partnership with Google around the big solar eclipse^[3] (also covered by TechCrunch and Mashable, not sure which we consider the most reputable). Does that help summarize things?

I know that the GNG say that "fame, importance, or popularity" are not primarily what makes someone notable, "although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject." To that end, there are numerous claims that 1 out of 5 kids (or 4-5 million kids) in the U.S. watch his videos. There were some secondary news sources that repeated this claim so it's not just coming from the company, however I couldn't verify that statistic myself beyond news coverage stating it. I know my class (and all the other teachers I know) just watches his videos on the website (mysteryscience.com) and they don't have viewership numbers publicly displayed on there. But I did find that they cross-post their videos to YouTube and we can see view counts on that website with many videos more than a million: https://www.youtube.com/c/MysteryDoug/videos?view=0&sort=p&flow=grid . But I think most people just watch on mysteryscience.com

But just to give you a sense of this guy's fame, there were photos going around FB every year of kids across the country dressing up as him for Halloween. :) I've heard stories of him visiting school districts and they literally pull all the kids out of class and do an assembly with him (I wish my school would do this!) I mention all this only in the spirit of "enhancing acceptability of the subject." I understand we need to rely on the primary GNG guidelines which I tried to summarize for you above with those top 3 sources.

How's all that?

^ Tony Wan (3 November 2020). "Discovery Education Acquires Mystery Science in $140 Million Deal".
^ "Mystery Doug Answers Your Science Questions". 10 April 2020.
^ Chris Weller (3 August 2017). "Google is giving away 15,000 pairs of solar eclipse glasses to schools across the US".

Jjwilliamson (talk) 04:17, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Jjwilliamson, would you mind if I reformat your comments here into a more standard format? It's probably hard for others to understand what you're saying. Jmill1806 (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jjwilliamson, I reformatted them to help with legibility. Feel free to undo. There is no rule on Wikipedia that you have to format a certain way, but it helps other editors understand your point of view. Jmill1806 (talk) 13:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article and discussion on this page are obviously cluttered and messy, which makes it hard to see what the best case is for WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:CREATIVE. The best case I can see are mentions of Peltz in Forbes (looks like an opinion piece, not journalistic), TechCrunch 1 and TechCrunch 2, Mashable, and Business Insider. There is also a list mention of Mystery Science in WSJ and coverage in niche outlets and regional news such as Wisconsin Public Radio. To me this meets the bar for WP:BASIC. I can help clean up the article if we keep it. Jmill1806 (talk) 23:00, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thank you Jmill1806. You did a good job of summarizing the case for WP:BASIC, making it much more clear than I did. Let's go ahead and move forward with the clean up, unless someone objects. I appreciate any help you can provide. Jjwilliamson (talk) 01:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome! Thank you for your hard work on this article. Please don't feel bad if the result of this discussion is Deletion. You could use a guide like WP:YFA to try to avoid this in the future by selecting a more clearly notable subject, or you could focus on adding information to existing articles, which is often less controversial among Wikipedia editors. In this case, consider adding the info to Mystery Science if the Peltz page is deleted. Feel free to drop a message on my Talk page anytime. Jmill1806 (talk) 13:11, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jmill1806 the Forbes piece is from a 'contributor' - see WP:FORBESCON, there's consensus that articles like that are generally unreliable, and therefore don't convey notability. The Tech Crunch articles, in my view, are really about the company - they namecheck this subject, but they contain no information about him at all except that he's a former science teacher. See also the RSP entry for TechCrunch, which questions its usefulness for determining notability because of their willingness to use PR material from companies. The same for the Mashable and Business Insider pieces (which seems to be a recycled press release) - they're about the company not the founder. I think that a case might be made for the company being notable, but for me there isn't enough for a BLP about the founder. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC) (amended GirthSummit _(blether) 08:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

I appreciate your point of view and agree with the contributor issue for Forbes and the PR-recycling issues for TechCrunch, Mashable, and Business Insider. To me that still meets the bar for WP:BASIC/WP:GNG. Moreover it seems that, in this field of science education, Peltz is probably prominent enough to meet something like WP:CREATIVE#3 for the creation of Mystery Science. Jmill1806 (talk) 13:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jmill1806, respectfully, the sources in the article are clearly not enough to pass WP:BASIC - that calls for multiple sources that are reliable, independent, secondary and give significant depth of coverage. I can't see any that tick all of those boxes. NCREATIVE#3 might be closer - I'm not persuaded, but I'll grant you it's nearer the mark. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
GirthSummit you are much more experienced at this than I am, however, WP:BASIC explicitly says, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined." So we shouldn't rule out all of the sources that don't give significant depth of coverage of the person because we can consider them in combination. So I think the key question is: do we have multiple sources that are reliable, independent, and secondary which, combined, cover the subject enough? If we are discounting the Forbes article, here are four that are all clearly secondary sources, they are reliable organizations, and they are independent of the person. And they're all about the person himself (in addition to also being about his organization, but they're not solely about the organization): Wisconsin Public Radio, Business Insider, Orange County Register, EdSurge. Maybe we should shift the evaluation to WP:CREATIVE#3 instead, if that's easier, but I'm still struggling to understand why this doesn't meet WP:BASIC so this further elaboration on my part is also for my own learning. Jjwilliamson (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jjwilliamson, so, first off we have to consider whether or not the articles are truly independent. The Business Insider source looks like a rehashed press release - they even link to the press statement that they draw their information from - that's not independent. The Wisconsin Public Radio source is also non-independent - it's a profile on the website of a radio station he is affiliated with (he does a short slot on their morning show) - that also rules it out. Even if we were to accept all of these sources though, I'd question the validity of combining multiple insubstantial sources that all say the same thing about a subject. I can see why one would want to pull together different bits of information from different sources, but in this case all of these sources tell us the same basic facts: he used to be a science teacher, and he founded MysteryScience. The information they tell us about this subject could be summed up in a single sentence in an article about the company itself, we don't need a separate article on him. That's my take on it anyway - the discussion has been relisted, so will run for another week, let's see what others think. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GirthSummit we'll wait for others to chime in, but since you articulated two assumptions that were informing your judgement which I believe are mistaken, I should at least clarify these for others reading this. (1) there is no evidence Peltz is affiliated with Wisconsin Public Radio. They clearly make a "guest profile" page for every guest they have on every show. (example); (2) the Business Insider piece is not just a re-hash of the press release, they clearly interviewed Peltz. I found the press release and there were clearly details in the article that were beyond the scope of the press release. Again, we'll wait for others but just wanted to correct those. Jjwilliamson (talk) 21:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Escapee (talk) 17:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article is good enough to pass WP:BASIC with the reliable sources indicated by Jjwilliamson and Jmill1806. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 14:35, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oge Modie[edit]

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

I think this fails WP:NOT. I am gradually stripping away layers of unsourced, promotional crud from this biography, and expect to find that Modie will also fail WP:NBIO. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A before search shows most of the reliable sources that discuss her aren’t independent of her thus a WP:GNG fail. Celestina007 (talk) 17:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 17:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete! Fails Notability woefully. Em-em ^talk 03:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this self-promotion. Very little in the news about her. FalconK (talk) 02:44, 7 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kofi Koranteng[edit]

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

BLP of a person whose notability arises mainly from a controversial election in which he was unsuccessful, so I don’t believe he meets WP:NPOL. Mccapra (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article meets WP:GNG he has been a key advocate for the Representation of the Peoples’ Amendment Act (ROPAA)to be considered and passed in the Ghanaian parliament since 2015 and has become considered. His disqualification under such circumstances serves as precedent and is considered a major timeline in the 2020 elections of Ghana Ampimd (talk) 00:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found this https://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/NewsArchive/Post-Election-2020-Kofi-Koranteng-to-contest-again-in-2024-1148042 I am not sure if GhanaWeb qualifies as a secondary reliable source, but if it does, would seem to support his notability. Jeepday (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article meets WP:GNG guidelines. Webmaster862 (talk) 03:18, 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. — The Earwig ^talk 03:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Energy managers association[edit]

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

Promotional piece on a non notable “association” who are yet to be discussed with in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. A before search shows hits in websites which are “LinkedIn-like” and a review of the sources used in the article shows only primary sources are optimized. Celestina007 (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SPAM, WP:RS, and WP:NCORP. The citations are entirely self-referential. If this is not a walled garden, it looks and smells like one. Bearian (talk) 20:57, 11 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. — The Earwig ^talk 03:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Holloman[edit]

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

Can't find enough in-depth coverage to show that they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:43, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to being a notable statistician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:43, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR and WP:PRIMARYSOURCES. This stub is entirely original research and/or primary sources. That's unacceptable for a WP:BLP. Bearian (talk) 20:59, 11 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.

Zhao Wei (gangster)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by unanimous !vote and WP:GNG satisfaction. (non-admin closure) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 03:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Subject of the article is probably quite famous but definitely isn’t notable. He is an alleged criminal who fails to satisfy either WP:CRIME nor does he possess in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources that satisfies WP:GNG. A close observation of the sources used and following a before search shows events linked to the subject are discussed but the subject per se isn’t discussed with WP:INDEPTH WP:SIGCOV, in summary this falls below our notability threshold. Celestina007 (talk) 16:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added sources that describes the subject in detail, which was EIA report and [21]. Zhao Wei is known not only on one event but multiple events (not just Ban Mom port but wildlife trafficking which I will add to the article sooner), and these sources suggest that. Mario Jump 83! 13:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MarioJump83. I think it with the coverage it probably a keep. It satisfies WP:BASIC and GNG. VocalIndia (talk) 17:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with above. HAs enough coverage. Peter303x (talk) 02:08, 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. — The Earwig ^talk 03:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Didi Priyadi[edit]

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

This subject doesn't seem to meet WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. A couple of guest appearances for a notable band, but other than that no notable work. The given references are either dead links or self-published primary sources. No charting albums or non-trivial coverage. Mikeblas (talk) 15:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:19, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:19, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as creator. I created this article back when I was a new editor and still learning about content guidelines. I don't know if it is notable or not. Priyadi very well could be notable in Indonesia, but I have no idea how to demonstrate that for this English wiki. I anticipated for years that this article would be nominated for deletion.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:42, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: I did find some sources in Bahasa Indonesia that verify that Pentagressive is notable (this, this, and possibly this. However, I'm not sure if that notability transfers to Priyadi.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:54, 30 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 16:29, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a WP:BLP without any WP:RS. Sourcing includes two links to MySpace. In 2021, that's insulting to read. Bearian (talk) 21:01, 11 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 already deleted by Materialscientist for reason: "Mass deletion of pages added by Jamie1986 1". (non-admin closure) Seagull123 Φ 16:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robo of Death[edit]

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

While nominating Challengers Friendster for deletion, I came across this article, created in a similar way (Jamie1986 1 creates it with the words "Coming soon", it's then nominated for speedy deletion, an IP editor then replaces it all with the current content). Most of the article again appears to be copied from https://darkshadows.fandom.com/wiki/3 (CC-BY-SA licence); but the cast section appears to be for a Neighbours episode. Cannot find anything for "Robo of Death", possible hijacked article/hoax/both? Seagull123 Φ 16:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Seagull123 Φ 16:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've managed to nominate this for deletion at the same time this was tagged for speedy deletion under WP:G3. Seagull123 Φ 16:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - blatant hoax; also be wary of edits by User:JamieTheFan1986 1 Spiderone 16:27, 5 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 16:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heliotrope (musician)[edit]

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

Promotional article for a non notable musician and “Dj” who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them and do not satisfy any criterion from WP:MUSICBIO. A before search literally turns up nothing. Celestina007 (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, has not received any coverage. – Thjarkur (talk) 16:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm a massive fan of electronic music and was curious as I've never heard of him. My search also came up with nothing. Even on Spotify, he is unknown. One of his remixes has just over 4000 plays while none of his other songs even have 1000 plays. He has almost no online presence. I'll happily change my stance if reliable offline sources come to light. Spiderone 16:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 17:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any news on him. Although, he may be talented with so many albums. Expertwikiguy (talk) 10:57, 6 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 merge to Humboldt Hill, California. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spruce Point, California[edit]

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

Prodded, and then deprodded with "passes WP:GEOLAND". In my opinion it does not, since it is located within Humboldt Hill, California and ss a neighborhood there should be merged at best. Geschichte (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Merge into Humboldt Hill, California. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to Humboldt Hill, California. No post office. Newspapers.com finds mention of a farm service/grange building at Spruce Point and of a possible sewer service: [22], [23]. Newspapers.com did have trivial mentions of an accident and an arrest at Spruce Point, but I found no mention of someone being born, living or dying there. GBooks has a number of mentions of Spruce Point, but none are notable, non-trivial coverage of a community. Spruce Point is at best a locale and possibly a non-notable neighborhood because there is topographic evidence that people live there. Cxbrx (talk) 18:05, 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 already deleted by Materialscientist for reason: "Mass deletion of pages added by Jamie1986 1". (non-admin closure) Seagull123 Φ 16:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Challengers Friendster[edit]

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

Originally created by Jamie1986 1 with the content "Hello Episode". Tagged for CSD A1 by DMySon, then an IP editor replaced all of that with the current content. I don't know if "Challengers Friendster" even exists, as I can't find anything for it (or "Cool Spot", which is supposed to be the series this 'episode' is from). Quite a lot of the page appears to be copied from https://darkshadows.fandom.com/wiki/2 (that page is licensed under CC-BY-SA), and the "cast" section seems to be copied from a page about Neighbours. This appears to either be a hijacked article, or possibly a hoax, or both. Seagull123 Φ 16:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Seagull123 Φ 16:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - WP:G3; Kylie Minogue and Jason Donovan starred in no such thing Spiderone 16:23, 5 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. — The Earwig ^talk 03:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NOI Polls Limited[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Only one reference, which is to the company's website and the particular page linked to no longer exists. My WP:BEFORE search found lots of mentions but no independent, in-depth coverage of the company itself. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability in sight. FalconK (talk) 02:52, 7 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 16:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Teejay Karthi[edit]

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

PROD concern was Lacks coverage required for WP:BASIC and his role in the film industry does not make him inherently notable. Borderline WP:A7.. Removed without explanation.

Supposedly a notable director but I can't find any reliable evidence. None of the five references used mention him even once. Even his IMDb page is completely empty! Spiderone 16:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a single cited sources has even a passing mention. This should have been CSD instead. Creator's name uncannily similar. Looks like a vanity article to me. RationalPuff (talk) 16:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 17:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily Delete vanity article and a poorly written one at that. I assume somewhere exists a notable poster designer but this is not the day I read about one.Slywriter (talk) 01:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7. None of the sources in the article mention him and the only results my searches turned up were his own social media. He's described on his social media as a poster designer, and I can find no evidence that he has ever directed or screen written a movie, as the article claims. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 12:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Someone tagged the article for speedy deletion per G3. Presumably this has to do with the incredible claims that failed verification. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 10:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G3, G4 and A7 Since every claim is tagged either that it requires verification or that the reference given does not support the claim, this should be deleted per WP:BLP. I concur with above contributors, that none of the claims can be verified from any other available sources. 86.142.79.215 (talk) 13:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources supporting the article provided. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 17:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: utter spam and totally non-notable. Java Hurricane 11:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. In theory, a poster designer or publicist could become notable, but not this person. Bearian (talk) 21:03, 11 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 16:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Madrigal Shipping Lines[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, no references and the links are dead. There is some blatantly incorrect info in the article re building and owning the cruise liners Sun and Dawn Princess. Googling I am not even convinced that the shipping line ever existed in Australia Lyndaship (talk) 15:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agree completely outdated info, but reads as if company is still active. the BLU ASX rego now belongs to another company. Parent link in info box now points to MBCGame StarCraft League. Teraplane (talk) 23:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - Not only is this not notable, but I have strong suspicions that this may be a hoax (and who knows why the article has been in existence for 12 years!) and liable for speedy deletion. Fails WP:V and WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. There was a Madrigal Shipping Company in the Philippines from around the late 1940s to 1960s (see here and here for examples), and there is a Madrigal Shipping Company registered in Cyprus (link) but those companies bears no resemblance what is described in the article. Some things that make me suspicious are:
- The company does not appear on the ASIC or ABR registers (which it should if it is registered as a company in Australia (particularly as part of a publicly listed company), or even if it is a foreign company headquartered in Australia);
- Bluefreeway's ASX announcements are still available on the ASX website even though the company has been delisted, but there is nothing about any sort of deal with Madrigal Shipping around 2008 (and BlueFreeway was a digital marketing business, so why on earth would it be buying ships?). Even a month after the so-called "deal" was made Bluefreeway entered into a major contract with Lion Nathan for its beverage marketing, which leads me to believe that it was not also investing in shipping at the same time;
- As Lyndaship points out, the information about the company building and owning the cruise liners is blatantly false. The Sun Princess (now Pacific World) and Dawn Princess (now Pacific Explorer) were built by Fincantieri in Trieste, Italy. As far as I can tell the ships have (at least until last year) been owned by P&O or Carnival Cruise lines;
- The Internet Wayback Archive has no listing for the company's website listed in the article, ever (which would be unusual if the website had been in existence). A Google search turns up nothing either;
- Google searches for the properties listed under Madrigal's assets bring up no results. I suspect these are also hoaxes.

Deus et lex (talk) 00:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Deus et lex. Fails WP:NCORP, WP:GNG. Could not find reliable sources via database search of Australasian newspapers. Cabrils (talk) 02:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV and WP:V. Not only are there no news nor newspaper stories about this company, I can't verify key facts. Bearian (talk) 21:05, 11 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 16:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bell Ihua[edit]

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

Non-notable: fails WP:NBIO and WP:NPROF. Promotional. References are not WP:INDEPENDENT - they are press releases, connected sources or articles Ihua has written. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Unfortunately I couldn’t locate at least three solid sources that are not sponsored that discusses subject of our discussion in a manner that satisfies our general notability criteria. Celestina007 (talk) 16:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have also nominated NOI Polls Limited. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:11, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no in-depth coverage in independent sources, no indication of notability by our standards; specifically, he does not meet WP:NPROF. One verifiable mention on Gbooks, five articles with at least one citation on Scholar, nothing on Jstor. According to Scopus he has an h-index of 2. He has published two books through Inkomp Systems Publishers; that august house has not one publication listed in Worldcat, and the only references to it that Google finds are in relation to this person. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see the same lack of notability as the above commenters, and add that the article's creator User:Ojadeyemi may have been a WP:UPE FalconK (talk) 02:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS and WP:BLP - lack of independent sources. Bearian (talk) 21:07, 11 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 16:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ehigie Ikeakhe[edit]

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

Promotional article, written by an editor with a history of writing promotional articles. Not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — serial entrepreneur? yeah right! Possible covert UPE for a non notable serial entrepreneur who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Celestina007 (talk) 16:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both of the above Spiderone 16:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 17:40, 5 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. — The Earwig ^talk 20:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shibu Chakravarthy filmography[edit]

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

Doesn't seem like a suitable WP:SPLIT of Shibu Chakravarthy, which has pretty shaky notability claims already. I'm not sure we create Filmographies for song-writers/lyricists Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Shibu Chakravarthy. Notable lyricist ^[1] RationalPuff (talk) 16:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

please mention the reason why my article chosen for deletion.how can i improve the article ? please give me some advises to improve the content and protecting the article page from being deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiloverdeepak (talk • contribs) 16:52, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (selectively) to Shibu Chakravarthy. I don't think such an extensive list is justified even there. It could be a "Selected Filmography" in which some of the more notable examples are included, and notable requires significant and reliable media coverage. Regarding the question from the article's creator above, note that IMDb is not considered to be a reliable source here in Wikipedia. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, I'm not convinced that they appeared in, or wrote the full screenplay for these films. It looks more like they were involved with writing song lyrics for the films, I'm not sure this is really a suitable filmography. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~In that case the solution could be a simple redirect, if there is nothing worth merging because the info is unverifiable.~~ ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is a CFORK of a BLP. There is not enough sourced material for a merge. Per Lee Vilenski, the role this person played in these items is unclear. We cannot merge unsourced unclear information into a BLP. The merge target is another discussion. // Timothy :: talk 15:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Changed Vote: Delete - I voted above to merge but am now convinced that there is not enough verifiable information to justify a merge. Delete per the content fork problems described by previous voters. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Shibu Chakravarthy". IMDb. Retrieved 2021-01-05.

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

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

The result was delete. — The Earwig ^talk 20:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Live and Learn in Kenya[edit]

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

Promotional article. Fails WP:NCORP. Edwardx (talk) 14:11, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional with little to no sources. Support delete. Oaktree b (talk) 14:22, 5 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 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in California#District 43. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Collins III[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN . See WP:POLOUTCOMES. Promotional article, likely paid editing/COI. Edwardx (talk) 14:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in California#District 43. Failed politician fails WP:NPOL and I echo the PROMO concerns of Edawrdx. Bkissin (talk) 15:43, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being a candidate for US house is not a default sign of notability, and nothing else here suggests notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they did not win, and nothing here (neither in the depth and range of the sourcing nor in the substance of what they support) is enough to make him more special than most other candidates. Bearcat (talk) 22:29, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested by Bkissin, and as we do often (but not always consistently). Bearian (talk) 21:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect per Bkissin. I also share the WP:PROMO concerns. Zazpot (talk) 05:05, 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:45, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Çamlıca TRT Television Tower[edit]

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD. The article makes no claim for general notability WP:GNG or historic, social, economic, or architectural importance WP:NBUILD.

Sources in article:

"Farewell time for TRT Camlica Tower, which has been in service for 48 years"

Short local news nostalgia piece about the structure closing. No SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.

"A fire broke out in TRT's transmitter"

Short routine mill coverage of a non-notable fire at the site. No SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth. It wouldn't even contain SIGCOV about the event, and definitely not about the structure.

"Prime Minister Yıldırım examined the construction of Küçük Çamlıca TV-Radio Tower"

This is not about the subject; this is about another tower. The subject of the article (Çamlıca TRT Television Tower) was built in 1972, this completely different structure (Küçük Çamlıca TV Radio Tower) was built in 2017 and has it's own article.

WP:BEFORE revealed mentions in routine mill coverage. No SIGCOV, article is not notable. // Timothy :: talk 13:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Major landmark in a major city for nearly fifty years. Can't see any good reason for deletion beyond the usual pedantic citing of non-existent "rules". Does its deletion benefit Wikipedia? Absolutely not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A structure of that size in that period in a major city, is sufficiently important to be presumed notable . This would be difficult to fully source, because I expect the sources would be Turkish newspapers, or engineering or broadcasting publication. DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Keep voters state sources must exist, but they provide no sources. Clear case of WP:MUSTBESOURCES. There is no guideline that states broadcast masts must be presumed notable. No one has provided anything that shows this meets NBUILD for historic importance. WP:BEFORE shows nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: t | c | a 05:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A LOT of sources about its demolishment exist: [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29]. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 12:36, 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. — The Earwig ^talk 03:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bethat Educational TV channel[edit]

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

PROD from User:Fram stated Lacks all notability

PROD was then removed by article creator without addressing the notability issue.

A WP:BEFORE search did not show any significant coverage for this supposedly international TV channel. I'm happy to be proved wrong but this doesn't look to pass WP:GNG. It could perhaps be merged somewhere if reliable sources are found. Spiderone 13:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Perhaps non-Latin searches can find more about this, but searches with the Latin alphabet resulted in extremely few hits for this "TV" channel (vimeo only channel? Just 16 posts in more than 2 year? 5 Followers?) https://www.google.be/search?q=%22Bethat+Educational%22&ei=jXD0X7T2CajpsAf856KoDg&start=10&sa=N&ved=2ahUKEwj08JfT-YTuAhWoNOwKHfyzCOUQ8NMDegQIBBBD&biw=1536&bih=754]. Fram (talk) 14:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best this is non-notable, but I have a suspicion that at least some of the content of this article is a hoax. It claims to broadcast on sky channel 548, but sky does not have a channel 548, per this tv listing, and their religious channels are assigned to the block 580-600. It's not a digit transposition either, 584 is "Inspiration TV" which is an unrelated Christian channel. Per fram the only latin alphabet mentions that google turns up are 2 facebook posts, their own website, their own app and vimeo. I would expect more coverage of a channel that claims to broadcast in English over satellite to the whole of the UK and Ireland. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 16:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears that a lot of the content of this article is a modified version of the HadiTV article, which explains why many of the references seem unrelated. This only increases my suspicion that this TV station does not exist as a TV station and the content of the article constitute a hoax. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seems non-notable. Perhaps a merger with Syed Jawad Naqvi would be better. USaamo ^(t@lk) 06:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the sourcing in the article is good enough to justify a merge, most of the claims in the article are currently either unsourced or extremely poorly sourced. The 10 sources in the article currently consist of 2 Facebook links, 5 links to what appears to be there own website, a link to the homepage of an Iranian news network with no relation to the TV Channel, a link to HadiTV (which seems to be unrelated), and a link to the HadiTV app (also unrelated). At the moment I'm not seeing any evidence that this "TV station" exists as anything more than some videos on Vimeo. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Unless this can be verified by reliable sources, deletion is the only option Spiderone 20:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 15:08, 8 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. — The Earwig ^talk 03:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HornBlasters[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't appear particularly notable, predominantly a lot of promotion for the product this company makes and some minor remarks on the business itself. It's a relatively small private business that sells (loud) air horns. Deleted before for roughly the same reasons. Lymantria (talk) 13:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.

–Cupper52^Discuss! 13:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:27, 5 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) gidonb (talk) 16:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jasna Gabrič[edit]

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

Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and being the mayor of a small town doesn't pass WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:18, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:18, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As article creator. I found two in depth articles in Delo,^[30][31] an article in Večer,^[32], and one in Savus.^[33] Mind you, I don't speak Slovenian, and this was a search that took a minimal amount of effort. I am sure there are other articles out there. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 07:13, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Fails WP:NPOL. @MJL, please support your argument by listing which of the specific criterion of Wikipedia:Notability_(politics) she meets? Thank you, Kolma8 (talk) 09:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kolma8: It meets WP:GNG. Wikipedia:Notability_(politics) is just a draft policy I authored 11 months ago. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:59, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As MJL notes, there are plenty of sources in GNews providing specific and detailed coverage, and the sources MJL cites are already sufficient to pass WP:GNG. Also, for example, the subject was a runner up for the 2018 World Mayor Prize, see here [34]. Nsk92 (talk) 20:26, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:40, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per MJL and Nsk92, there seems to be enough to lend a credible claim to GNG, though I cannot speak Slovenian. Failing NPOL doesn't inherently make somebody non-notable. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:12, 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 keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:03, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

King's Residence (skyscraper)[edit]

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

Does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:GEOFEAT. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:36, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:35, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:35, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. 周盼儀 (2020-01-23). "京城King Park 擘劃高雄未來的美好生活願景" [King Park plans a vision for a better life in Kaohsiung for the future]. zh:商業周刊 (臺灣) (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2020-12-23. Retrieved 2020-12-22.
  This is a profile of 京城King Park in Business Weekly (Taiwan) that is over 2,000 words long.
2. 林耀文 (2019-11-04). "「京城King Park」今年成交12億坐穩高雄豪宅王" [King Park sold for 1.2 billion this year. It's comfortably positioned as the Kaohsiung mansion king]. Liberty Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2020-12-23. Retrieved 2020-12-22.
3. 陳建宇 (2020-01-25). "【高雄豪宅王】南台灣土地公代表作「京城KING PARK」　創年度最貴紀錄" [[Kaohsiung Mansion] Southern Taiwan Land Corporation's representative work "Capital King Park" sets annual expensive record]. zh:ETtoday新聞雲 (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2020-12-23. Retrieved 2020-12-22.
4. 顏瑞田 (2018-08-15). "京城京城穩居高雄豪宅榜首" [Capital City, Capital City firmly ranked first in Kaohsiung's luxury home list]. China Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2020-12-23. Retrieved 2020-12-22.
5. 陳建宇 (2019-07-12). "高雄富人撐不住？京城地標型豪宅最低單價戶　面臨5字頭保衛戰" [Can the rich in Kaohsiung support it? The lowest unit price households of landmark luxury houses in capital are facing the battle]. zh:ETtoday新聞雲 (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2020-12-23. Retrieved 2020-12-22.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow 「京城King Park」 to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 06:32, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of tallest buildings in Kaohsiung. A condensed summary of the building description can be added to the notes for its listing on that table. BD2412 T 20:39, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I oppose a redirect to List of tallest buildings in Kaohsiung because 「京城King Park」 has sufficient coverage (including the 2,000-word profile in Business Weekly (Taiwan) to establish notability and to support a standalone article.
Wikipedia:Notability#Whether to create standalone pages says:
Does other information provide needed context? Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article, where there can be more complete context that would be lost on a separate page (Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012#Other initiatives and Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012#International trip, for example). Other times, standalone pages are well justified (as with President of the United States as well as standalone biographies of every individual President). One should particularly consider due and undue weight.
Covering 「京城King Park as part of a larger article (List of tallest buildings in Kaohsiung) does not provide "more complete context that would be lost on a separate page", so I would prefer a standalone article over a merge to a lengthy list.
Cunard (talk) 08:30, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:40, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources provided by Cunard. There is enough to establish notability. VocalIndia (talk) 05:48, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to significant coverage. Remember to be careful when assessing 'significant coverage' for subjects primarily covered by non-Anglophone sources. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 12:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, appears to be notable per Cunard. Weak because I can't read the sources in their native language. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gotstyle[edit]

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

This retailer has one store according to the website, most of the references mention the store once and do not go in-depth. Fails WP:NCOMPANY and WP:ORGDEPTH. JayJay^{What did I do?} 02:06, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 02:06, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 02:06, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 02:06, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Zekas, Rita (2013-03-13). "Trendy menswear shop opens doors to women". Toronto Star. Archived from the original on 2020-12-28. Retrieved 2020-12-28.
  The article notes:
  Gotstyle has always been cutting edge in menswear, with owner Melissa Austria sourcing the globe for esoteric Euro brands like Circle of Gentlemen.
  It was time for a women's section because of demand: women and men shop together in the flagship location at 60 Bathurst St., where the femmes kept asking why Austria didn't have womenswear.
  Gotstyle Woman, at 21 Trinity St. in the Distillery District, carries businesswear and clubwear, as well as footwear, outerwear, underwear and accessories.
2. Brown, Ian (2007-07-06). "Male jeanius". The Globe and Mail. Archived from the original on 2020-12-28. Retrieved 2020-12-28.
  The article notes:
  Thorstein Veblen wasn't in the Gotstyle store. How could he be? He was born in 1857, and Gotstyle, a stratospherically hip men's clothing store in downtown Toronto, is so up to the 2007 minute it barely exists. Veblen invented the term conspicuous consumption. The Gotstyle store was where your correspondent went to sneer at one of the hottest fashion trends on Earth at the moment: designer jeans for men. In the $5-billion North American jeans market, sales of man jeans that cost more than $100 have been doubling annually.
  ...
  the test drive Which is how your correspondent, armed with still graspable but drooping indignation, ends up at GotStyle. It's a discreet place, thank God, tucked away on the second floor of a classic Victorian office building, light and clothes hanging in midair, and staffed by attractive examples of both genders. The back of the store is devoted to an in-store men's spa staffed by female attendants. For $49, one of them will shave you with a straight razor, Sir. On Saturdays, a DJ plays music and free champagne is served to women who drag in their boyfriends. [quote from co-owner Kelly McBride]
3. Gibson, Valerie (July–August 2011). "GotStyle: What one of Canada's top 10 menswear stores can teach you about selling to men". Cosmetics. Vol. 39, no. 3. p. 20.
  The article notes:
  GotStyle, a Toronto-based menswear store, was founded in 2005 by Melissa Austria, a veteran of the menswear business. Located near Bathurst and Wellington, a part of the city that is at present empty of other retail, it has still established itself as a destination store for men looking for great style.
4. Pearce, Tralee (2005-05-07). "Gotstyle". The Globe and Mail. Archived from the original on 2020-12-28. Retrieved 2020-12-28.
  The article notes:
  A few days in advance of last night's "friends and family" opening at Gotstyle, it was hard to believe Melissa Austria and Seamus Clarke's retail baby was ready for birth.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Gostyle to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:22, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:40, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations is WP:NCORP and applies a stricter interpretation of requirements than for other topics. In short, WP:NCORP requires 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. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. No trivial content such as being included in lists or a one-line description.

As to the references posted above by Cunard, reference 1. simply talks about the opening of a new part of one of the stores and then describes the products that are for sale. In fairness, it is a detailed description of the store but this article is not about the company. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Reference 2. is also very light on any details and opinions on the company and it is essentially a promotion for all the different types of jeans that the journalist was shown by the founders in a store, again fails WP:CORPDEPTH. I'm unable to look at Reference 3 right now but the snippet also appears to fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Reference 4. is based entirely on an interview with the owner in advance of opening a new store, fails WP:ORGIND.

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⁺⁺ 21:46, 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 no consensus. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:34, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seventh Channel Communications[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 04:18, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 04:18, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:40, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:43, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:43, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:43, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Hi Hatchens, we would need way more clarity when it comes to proposing AFDs. The article - as it stands - (i) clearly highlights the studio's credentials when it comes to film production: 20+ projects, involvement in nationally significant work like Mahabharat, work with some of India's biggest actors such as Kamal Haasan and Vijay. (ii) has reliable links from sources announcing notability (New Indian Express calls it "one of the early producers for TV") (iii) has organised notable events which have lasted for over a decade (the International Tamil Film Awards and the Tamil Nadu Film Festival]). It also meets the criteria for WP:NACTOR through its work if production studios are included. Neutral Fan (talk) 17:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral Fan, I acknowledge your opinion. But, I beg to differ from your assessment. The primary reason - one can't use some other entities' notability as a pivot for another entity's page. Independent merit matters. - Hatchens (talk) 01:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:41, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as per User:Neutral Fan, there seems to be enough evidence to support notability, and nom makes no effective case to the contrary. Ingratis (talk) 19:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per User:Neutral Fan Donaldd23 (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations is WP:NCORP and applies a stricter interpretation of requirements than for other topics. In short, WP:NCORP requires 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. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. Also nothing that points to inherited notability such as being involved in well-known productions, etc. 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⁺⁺ 21:36, 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 keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Savaari (2018 film)[edit]

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

This is yet another film article that fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG.

The general notability guideline states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list."

Then more specific:

The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.

The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following:

Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release.

The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release.

The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release.

The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema.

The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.

The film was selected for preservation in a national archive.

The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program.

Fails all of the above.

Now let's look at the references: Half of the references are the database entries. The rest is a very modest mentioning of 2-3 paragraphs with essentially negative or neutral reception.

Kolma8 (talk) 08:53, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 08:53, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:50, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has two full national reviews referenced in the article such as The Times of India so passes criteria 1 of WP:NFILM. The fact that the reviews are negative has nothing whatsoever to do with notability or any other policy at all, it just demonstrates that the reviews are independent critical analysis, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:42, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Atlantic306's rationale. Donaldd23 (talk) 19:04, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per two full length reviews from TOI and Matrubhumi. Critical perception is orthogonal to its notability. -- Ab207 (talk) 11:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It passes the criteria of WP:NFILM. - The9Man ^(Talk) 07:02, 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 keep. Geschichte (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thalastaanam[edit]

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

This is yet another film article that fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG.

References: One, which is dead.

Article was tagged for verification in 2014 without any significant improvement. Kolma8 (talk) 18:35, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 18:35, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 18:35, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep i add refences on Thalastaanam and don't delete by --Sunuraju (talk) 05:02, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have added this reference. Please can you explain how this helps establish notability? Spiderone 08:47, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:43, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clear failure of WP:GNG and WP:NFILM Spiderone 15:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Times of India source states that it was a hit and now has a cult following, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:49, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per above, the film has been translated to Telugu and has a cult following. -- Whiteguru (talk) 09:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above comments. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a cult following and successful film. Majority of the Indian films from the 60/70/80/90s can't fulfil the criteria of the WP:NFILM due to the unavailability of any proper databases to refer. Already this concern is raised at [35]. This is unfortunate to see these good faith articles go just because of the lack of online references. Please STOP these mass AfD. - The9Man ^(Talk) 06:52, 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 no consensus. Based on minimal participation, this has been open approaching a month and there's no indication that a third relist will get any further input. Closing as no quorum with no prejudice against speedy renomination. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:09, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Asthram[edit]

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

This is yet another film article that fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG.

References: All three references are the database entries. Kolma8 (talk) 19:05, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 19:05, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sources from two books added. Shahid • ^Talk2me 23:38, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Shshshsh: Are you seeing an actual entry for the film in Encyclopedia of Indian Cinema? I'm not seeing any description in the preview I get, just some notes that someone had it in their resume. The second book ref looks like the same, just a mention of someone's participation in the film, vice the film itself. -2pou (talk) 21:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@2pou: Hi there. I'm sorry, it's all I've found so far. The first source has a bare mention which states its release year, director, and that's why I believe it's a good source - not every film receives a mention in Encyclopedia of Indian Cinema. The second one actually does decribe it specifically, and I provided a quote. I don't know this film, just trying to save the article. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:43, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:45, 5 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 21:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2012: Ice Age[edit]

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

I see blog-like reviews; streaming sites; and interference with Ice Age: Continental Drift, which was released in 2012; but no evidence of notability so far. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:11, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:11, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:11, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Review at Blu-ray.com [[36]] Donaldd23 (talk) 02:17, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Based on reviews of similar pages about movies also lacking lots of resources, I don’t see why this does not qualify to be retained.WikiSzeman (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The three different reviews (including the Blu-Ray) are substantial enough to satisfy WP:NFILM -- Whiteguru (talk) 09:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete the keeps don't make any policy based arguments. There is 0 in depth coverage of this and the reviews are from fanblogs and other non rs save for the blue-ray one which is still questionable. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 00:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete has no coverage from any reliable media. I don't see how this meets GNG or any specialized notability category. The only 2 sources noted are primary. Tennis Anyone?^Talk 02:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage, doe snot meet WP:GNG. Webmaster862 (talk) 03:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could not find the kind of sourcing necessary to establish notability under either NFILM or GNG. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:35, 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 keep. — The Earwig ^talk 20:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heroine (1972 film)[edit]

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

Non notable film, nothing found in a WP:BEFORE to help this pass WP:NFILM. PROD removed because of several reasons, including "Several notable actors listed", but notability isn't inherited. Film needs to stand on its own...not for who is in it.

Another reason given for PROD removal was the Spanish article...which I checked, no good sources listed there to help it pass WP:NFILM.

Also, page creator NOT notified per their request [[37]] Donaldd23 (talk) 22:52, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 22:52, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 22:52, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I found another source since removing the prod template. Based on that source, the film seemed to have been successful in the box office in Argentina. The film is Spanish-language and I still found English-language sources for it, and I'm sure there are more sources to be found in Spanish, especially since the film has a notable director and actors. Unfortunately, I don't speak Spanish, so I'll need to leave that up to someone else. ~EdGl talk 05:01, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment looks like there are sources from a google book search but the previews are often not helpful... ~EdGl talk 15:31, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After reviewing the sources and doing my own search I don't see the film passing WP:NFILM and I support the nom. Kolma8 (talk) 08:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NFSOURCES and per some WP:NFOE criteria. Does Heroína fulfills "The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career." criterion? Yes. Graciela Borges is a quite notable actress in Argentina cinema since the 1960s, and she was a leading role in several works of prolific director Raul de la Torre, who btw made this film. In this 2019 interview, Borges said that she was really moved by her role in Heroína, and that she felt identified with the character of Peny Crespo at the time. Critic Ricardo Manetti wrote that her role in Heroína was among the best in her long career. The film was also a mayor box office success in Argentina, "with 78000 spectators in the first week". The same source cites another critic pointing out to Heroína as an example of de la Torre as a "careful observer of Argentine upper-middle class".----Darius (talk) 22:04, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I did a search of a few sources, I could only find the Aguilar reference, which was already in the article. I think considering the references here, and the context for the Aguilar reference, we should keep it. No doubt better covered in Spanish sources. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:17, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:44, 5 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 Speedy Delete. G7 by GB fan. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Davies (linguist)[edit]

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

Please note that Simon Davies himself has requested that the article be deleted; see here. I, unfortunately, can't see this passing WP:BASIC as he does not yet have sufficient coverage in sources independent of him, which the article creator has admitted themselves. Elefen is an organisation that he is connected with so does not support independent notability and the other references are brief or unreliable. I found nothing in my WP:BEFORE search. Spiderone 12:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete it, the person referred to in that articles as asked the article to be removed. --Caro de Segeda (talk) 12:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This has now been logged as a speedy deletion. Many thanks Spiderone 12:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Bearian (talk) 21:20, 11 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) 17:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2013–14 FC Bihor Oradea season[edit]

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

Initial PROD reasoning No evidence of notability as not within the scope of WP:NSEASONS; does not pass WP:GNG as there is nothing about the season that indicates that it needs its own article.

Contested with Liga II season, I don't agree at all, is just an abuse.

This article is an unnecessary WP:CONTENTFORK. This season is already summarised and sourced adequately in FC Bihor Oradea so this article isn't needed. The only thing this article adds is a list of match reports, linked to Soccerway and a squad list but Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate statistics database nor should it be. Spiderone 11:35, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability, does not meet GNG. Giant Snowman 11:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not sure how content fork applies, but this does fail NSEASONS. Govvy (talk) 14:17, 11 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 12:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Carr (musician)[edit]

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

Non-notable musician, has been tagged for 10 years and I could not find any sources. JayJay^{What did I do?} 07:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 07:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 07:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no evidence that he is a notable musician, or that the bands he's been part of are notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - has no coverage in actual reliable sources Spiderone 11:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to meeting our notability guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable as per wiki guidelines. Went looking for further refs but found a different Chris Carr, known as LeftyChris, a musician with two solo albums to his name who is probably more notable!Davidstewartharvey (talk) 15:29, 5 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:45, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hexes (band)[edit]

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

Non-notable band, has been tagged for 10 years. Fails WP:BAND. JayJay^{What did I do?} 07:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 07:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 07:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although weak, their album was reviewed by ox-fanzine and rock sound which makes the album notable, and so on that theory the band must be too. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's tough to find anymore news on this one, due to the word "Hexes" being a common term used a lot on the web. I don't think that one review in "ox-fanzine" is enough. If there is only 4 news articles on them, it is definitely not notable and I don't see that they meet WP:BAND criteria. Expertwikiguy (talk) 00:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Possibly more claims than the other article where I have just voted Delete, but ultimately not notable for a general encyclopaedia. RobinCarmody (talk) 02:05, 9 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 Paatal Lok#Cast and characters. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Niharika Lyra Dutt[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. A case of probable WP:TOOSOON - The9Man ^(Talk) 07:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - The9Man ^(Talk) 07:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. - The9Man ^(Talk) 07:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - The9Man ^(Talk) 07:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:30, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One role only, perhaps too early for an article. Unless she was the lead of show, not notable at this time. Oaktree b (talk) 14:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the guidelines say multiple significant roles in notable productions. 1 role is never multiple (I have my doubts if someone is at just 2, but 1 role is never enough on its own).John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Paatal_Lok#Cast_and_characters where she's mentioned to preserve the history in the event she's notable enough down the road. StarM 00:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of nobility yet. RationalPuff (talk) 07:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Paatal Lok - no notability outside of that Spiderone 11:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Paatal Lok. -Nizil (talk) 16:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 15:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination Fatzaof (talk) 17:39, 9 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Creators Society[edit]

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

Non-notable association. Discounting references to the subject, we are presented with Eric Miller Animation an interview with the subject's founder on the subject founder's website blog; Voyage LA an interview (local story) with the subject's founder in which the Society is thrice mentioned; New York Film Academy blog of an event in which the subject was involved, and New York Film Academy another blog post from the same organisation on the same event. Tagishsimon (talk) 07:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Few, if any independent sources and do not see how it passes WP:NORG. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 21:35, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above comments. If this is all the news they have, it is not enough. Webmaster862 (talk) 03:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I previously soft-deleted, but it was ineligible. I've since conducted a search on several databases and found no coverage indicative of notability. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:56, 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 speedy delete. G7 by Athaenara. (non-admin closure) - The9Man ^(Talk) 07:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bitto (singer)[edit]

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

Fails the requirements of WP:MUSICBIO, the references provided are either primary sources or mentions in passing (more to do with the band rather than the individual). Dan arndt (talk) 07:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 07:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 07:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable rapper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NMG. Abdotorg (talk) 14:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to UP10TION - no notability outside of being in this band unless you count the story of him testing positive with COVID-19, which is nowhere near enough to make him notable Spiderone 15:05, 5 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 19:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abdurahman H. H. Osman 'Mallay'[edit]

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

Fails verification. I could not determine that a person of this name exists, much less was ambassador from Somalia to Germany. I did find Abdurahman Abdulle Osman "Shuke", a Somali politician and director of the Puntland Development Research Center, but don't believe they were ambassador to Germany either. I could verify every entry on List of ambassadors of Somalia to China, so expect that if he were ambassador there would be some reference online. The only reference in the article is a collection of German poetry; WorldCat says it is not in any library in the United States. Whether or not he actually was ambassador (or some other position in the embassy), I don't think he is notable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:29, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:29, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:29, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:29, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an unverified article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: This is clearly heading in the direction of deletion, however, given just one reaction, could use a bit of extra time to make absolutely sure that no identification error was made.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, gidonb (talk) 04:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find anything (in English, Somali, or German) that refers to him, so even if he were an ambassador (a dubious proposition at best), he still would not be notable. (Even if he were notable, the article would still have to go as unreferenced.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Can be closed as delete. gidonb (talk) 04:24, 11 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) gidonb (talk) 04:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Bianchi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG as a clear WP:PROMO piece. KidAd talk 02:37, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the only coverage close to being GNG coverage was the NYT article about her wedding; says it all Spiderone 16:25, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is ridiculous. She's an important political operative who was just added to the transition team after two decades of playing visible roles in Democratic presidential campaigns where she was the subject of coverage. She obviously should have a Wikipedia page. Lysander96 (talk) 17:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

^ Seems like WP:ILIKEIT. KidAd talk 19:30, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She is not an important political operative, she is a former low level government appointee. Nothing here suggests she is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:13, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Additional research and updates to the article appear to show WP:BASIC, including because "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." Beccaynr (talk) 14:55, 30 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beccaynr (talk • contribs) [reply]

Comment Apologies for not signing my comment above, and thank you for the correction. To clarify, I think that with the New York Times profile of Bianchi early in her political career (separate from her wedding announcement), and the ongoing coverage and commentary about her political career in e.g. USAToday, The Hill, and The New York Times (separate from her wedding announcement), as well as coverage of her private sector career in Bloomberg News and CNBC, and the recent news reported by Politico about her leadership position in the Biden transition team, all of which either were or are now included in the article, there appears to be notability per WP:BASIC based on these multiple sources over time. There also seems to be notability in how Bianchi is not WP:LOWPROFILE, due to giving "one or more scheduled interviews to a notable publication" as an "expert." Beccaynr (talk) 22:10, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Since this deletion was opened, several significant sources have been added to the article and it has been extensively revised and enhanced. I reviewed these changes and I think it is clear the subject meets WP:GNG at this point. --Krelnik (talk) 18:24, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:41, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, gidonb (talk) 04:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A case of WP:HEY. XOR'easter (talk) 12:40, 5 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 12:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Country Store, Virginia[edit]

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

I have absolutely no idea what this is. GNIS entry is sourced to a county highway map. Name does not appear on topos, which seem to show a small planned neighborhood with no name given on the topos. Newspapers.com results are for literal stores. This looks promising, but the intersection stated to be the store's location is further southwest, near the local school. I just don't know what this is, but there doesn't seem to be a WP:GEOLAND-passing community at the site. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As nearly as I can determine, the "country store" here is "Greenwood Antiques", in a historical building called the "Greenwood Country Store", and located in Crozet, Virginia rather than neighboring Greenwood. The original building (since replaced) is old enough that it may have been designated for postal service back when the post office did that, but I see no evidence of an unincorporated community apart from that. The coordinates in the article do match the description of the intersection this structure is on in the article linked above by Hog Farm. In short, I do not think there is a community here distinct from Greenwood and Crozet, and the building that this probably refers to does not seem to be a listed historical structure or the like. It does have history, just not the kind that earns a Wikipedia article. 50.248.248.233 (talk) 04:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Mass-produced unverfied junk. There are 2,500 pages in Category:Unincorporated communities in Virginia so let's please just bulk redirect (or prod) these rather than have an unending stream of time-wasting AFDs. Too many are neighborhoods or subdivisions or not populated places at all, and it's easy to see those that have not gotten any attention in the decade+ since bulk-creation. Reywas92^Talk 07:11, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just clicking on three random articles in on the first page of that cat, Amonate, Assawoman, and Axton all have their own post office and ZIP code and clearly satisfy GEOLAND. Strong oppose any bulk solution for the cat. I agree this particular article fails, though. Smartyllama (talk) 22:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am not surprised this location showed up in GNIS from appearing on a state county map. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Germans Corner, Virginia, I learned that Virginia county maps in rural counties can include a lot of locales that may not be notable for purposes of having a separate "unincorporated community" article on Wikipedia.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think this must have been created in error. Bearian (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above but oppose any bulk solution to all the items in the cat since many of them are clearly notable. Smartyllama (talk) 21:59, 11 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 Cerebos Pacific. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BRAND'S Essence Of Chicken[edit]

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

Notability seems questionable at best (the best sources I could find are: 1 2). Redirect to Cerebos Pacific repeatedly challenged. Adam9007 (talk) 03:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Adam9007 (talk) 03:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Adam9007 (talk) 03:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - not enough evidence of notability; would also want to see redirect protected due to repeated unexplained reverting by IPs and a now-indef blocked user Spiderone 11:11, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and consider WP:SALT. It's a non-notable topic and the page has a history of promotion. CockpitJim (talk) 20:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cerebos Pacific and protect to stop recreation by IPs and block evaders (it hasn't been "repeatedly challenged", it's been edit-warred. All the challenges have been by the same editor (Daivanco) evading their initial block). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia isn't a directory or a platform for promotion. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:45, 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 delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

American Russell Terrier Club[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Can find no reliable sources anywhere about this organisation, just their own website and some breeder’s webpages. Cavalryman (talk) 03:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article as per nom - self-promotion. William Harris (talk) 11:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. Fails in WP:GNG and WP:PROMO too. Mayoticks (talk) 18:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no sigcov found on a search. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:58, 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:45, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Velasco[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted in 2005. The article has returned, but it seems to be a primarily promotional piece. The sources cited do not show significant coverage in WP:RS - the Strategist reference is a shopping list, the ssense interview is a dependent source, and the Columbia Journalism Review is more about Artforum than Velasco. Relevant information about him could be merged into Artforum to the extent that it isn't already present; he seems to have no notability independent of the company. FalconK (talk) 01:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 01:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an overly promotional article on a non-notable writer and editor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FalconK notes that the page was deleted in 2005 when the writer had few articles published and was not an notable art publisher, writer, critic or editor-in-chief. Striking a balance for writer’s Wiki pages is challenging, I'll admit. Their pages have to show a list of original, notable, and historically influential written and commissioned pieces for major publications while not appearing to be promotional or written in a press release format. To combat this, I’ve added books the artist has published, written introductions, and co-edited as well as major pieces the editor has published in various magazines. FalconK makes a fair point about the Strategist and SSENSE interview; they are not completely objective pieces. The Columbia Journalism Review and the Vulture review, however, highlight the major shift David has had in both the art world and the magazine’s history, one that has published articles that have major life-altering consequences for the Sackler family and those suffering from opiate addiction, The Whitney Museum's murky affiliation with Safariland tycoon Warren Kanders, and more. I’ve added additional references and links to Velasco’s credibility as an influential writer, critic, and editor/publisher via the McNally Jackson book launch of David Wojnarowicz’s Weight of the Earth, a book of tapes by the artist the writer has helped transcribe and publish, The Walker Art Foundation’s background to Velasco’s research process to writing the Sarah Michelson monograph, various New York Times articles about the publication of Nan Goldin’s essay on opiate addiction and the Sackler scandal and Hannah Black’s essays on the failures and follies of the Whitney Museum. I’ve also cited various publications (MIT Press, Semiotex(e), NYT, ArtNet, Dazed Digital, and more). Let me know if there's anything else I can add or edit to complete this page as it seems like this guy has contributed something both notable and influential to the world.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Frutti xperiment (talk • contribs) 22:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for UPE. MER-C 11:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - undisclosed paid-for spam. MER-C 11:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- MER-C, I strongly object to the characterization of the author as an undisclosed paid editor. As I have explained on their talk page, I am familiar with their work and have good reason to believe they edit in good faith. The other problem is that if we assert that someone paid the editor to write that article, we imply that either Artforum or Velasco himself paid to have this published. That they would do such a thing strains credulity. Vexations (talk) 21:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per WP:SIGCOV and WP:NOTINHERITED. Being an editor or publisher of ArtForum is not automatically notable. There's a lot of sources, but they are either in passing or self-referential. Not the worst I've seen. Bearian (talk) 21:27, 11 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. Possible case of WP:TOOSOON. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Last House Standing[edit]

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

Non-notable film, does not have significant coverage by independent sources, does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 01:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:52, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. This has screened, but hasn't received coverage in any place that Wikipedia would see as reliable. It did win a film festival award, but it isn't an award Wikipedia would see as so notable that it would warrant a keep on that alone. (To be fair, most awards aren't at this level of notability.) None of the screenings were at a place Wikipedia would see as notability giving, such as the Un Certain Regard section at Cannes, which is extremely selective as to what is shown. If more coverage comes about from the TV screenings later this year then it can be recreated but not before coverage becomes available. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Mayoticks (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The film is currently airing on public broadcast stations in Orlando, Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, Norfolk, Charleston, SC, and at least 10 other markets, with numerous more airings in 2021. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JCohn371973 (talk • contribs) 13:42, 8 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 Withdrawn (non-admin closure)

Battle Fever J[edit]

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

This and nine other articles listed below may be controversial nominees that would be accusations of WP:IDONTLIKEIT for deletion but some of these articles are WP:FANCRUFT that have been also been tagged as WP:OR and references that may only interest a particular audience with in-universe information for years now. While these may be notable Japanese programs that include three that were adopted into seasons for Power Rangers back in the late 90s/early 2000s. I'm thinking maybe perhaps to avoid deletion maybe WP:BLOWITUP these articles to avoid having things that are better suitable for RangerWiki be a part of them.

And here the nine other related articles for the same reasons listed.:

:Taiyo Sentai Sun Vulcan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
:Dai Sentai Goggle-V (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
:Kagaku Sentai Dynaman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
:Dengeki Sentai Changeman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
:Hikari Sentai Maskman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
:Chōjin Sentai Jetman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
:Denji Sentai Megaranger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
:Seijuu Sentai Gingaman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
:Mirai Sentai Timeranger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Pahiy (talk) 01:29, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 01:29, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 01:29, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 01:29, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question for Pahiy: None of the essays that you cite are reasons to delete a page. The relevant policy is WP:NTV, which says "Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope), or on a cable television channel with a broad regional or national audience." All of these series aired on national television in Japan. If they are notable in Japan, then they are notable for English Wikipedia. Why do you think that these ten shows fail WP:NTV? — Toughpigs (talk) 03:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable TV shows, and the articles are not in such a shape that TNT is needed. Just deleting or stubbing the character sections would resolve 99% of the fancruft issue. Jumpytoo Talk 03:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All - Just to start, bundling all of these articles together as a single nomination was probably not a great idea since the amount of coverage for each individual series varies quite a bit. Case in point, while some of the more obscure entries here have very little in English sources, there are ones like "Taiyo Sentai Sun Vulcan" that actually do, due to the involvement of Stan Lee in trying to get the license to bring it to the United States long before Power Rangers became a thing. And that's just taking English sources into account - as the shows were aired in Japan, there is certainly a lot more information in Japanese sources. Each of these series' equivalent pages on the Japanese Wikipedia have a number of sources being cited, and while a quick look with Google Translate shows that many of them are not actually from reliable sources, there are some on each article that look like they are. As stated by Jumpytoo, pretty much all of the issues regarding Fancruft in these article can be easily solved by removing the extensive sections on the robots/monsters/characters. The remainder of the articles, such as the episode lists, cast, etc, are pretty standard pieces of information for articles on TV series. Rorshacma (talk) 16:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator Withdrawing the article from deletion, Moving discussion about this to televison. Pahiy (talk) 18:43, 6 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strongarm and the Bullies[edit]

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

Non-notable band, can't find any sources to meet WP:BAND and has been tagged for 10 years now. JayJay^{What did I do?} 00:48, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 00:48, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 00:48, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It looks like this is OR/SYNTH. They had one album on label from the Netherlands. I found a MySpace page, but no other official looking social media. The label posted this about them in August 2020, its not SIGCOV, but maybe they are planning a new album. I was hoping to Keep, but couldn't find anything that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. If anyone does find SIGCOV, ping me and I will switch to Keep. // Timothy :: talk 01:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with user:TimothyBlue. Expertwikiguy (talk) 00:17, 8 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moe Pipe Organ Company[edit]

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

This article was previously PRODded in the past but restored after someone contested the article's deletion. I find nothing to indicate notability about this small company and has been tagged for 10 years. Any sources I could find are trivial mentions and do not meet WP:COMPANY or WP:ORGDEPTH. JayJay^{What did I do?} 00:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 00:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 00:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I also ran the principal searches with just "Moe Pipe Organ" and there was nothing additional there. Kablammo (talk) 12:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant additions since PRODding with the exception of a fairly poorly curated selection of external links, none of which seem helpful in establishing much of anything, and I certainly haven't been able to turn up more substantial sources. Also, while not technically relevant to AfD, I find it a little odd that the original creator only ever worked on this one article, despite seeming to imply that they were inspired by a redlink. AngryHarpy‍^talk 12:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I did my best to trim and improve this article to see if it could be saved. I found four newspaper (local) references that at least had a paragraph on renovations by the company, and commented out the rest of the long list. I also removed most of the external links, which were either dead or didn't mention Moe. Although pipe organs are inherently cool, I'm not sure that my edits demonstrate notability for the company. Leschnei (talk) 14:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - IRL I was a director of The Friends of the Choir for six years. This is not one of the top pipe organ companies. At best it's locally known. Bearian (talk) 21:12, 11 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 12:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Schwedler[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 00:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 00:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 00:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 00:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while his rank arguably satisfies #2 of WP:SOLDIER that is just an essay and he lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS to meet WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our notability guidelines for soldiers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above. Mayoticks (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Mztourist. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:52, 8 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Night of the Wild[edit]

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

Non-notable television film, does not have significant coverage by secondary, reliable sources, per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 15:28, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:39, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find much coverage on this in Google news. Expertwikiguy (talk) 10:41, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has coverage in reliable sources 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 There is also this Daily Mail article, that while not a reliable source, does indicate that its not a "nothing production" so to say.★Trekker (talk) 16:29, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as has substantial coverage in reliable sources as linked above. I'm not familiar with all of those sites so it is a weak keep, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:20, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steve Smith (talk) 06:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Support keeping the article if it's being updated with the sources given above. From what I see now, it's not much to go on. Oaktree b (talk) 14:30, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above listed citations. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:35, 9 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.

[EdSurge-1] Tony Wan (3 November 2020). "Discovery Education Acquires Mystery Science in $140 Million Deal".

[NPR_Interview-2] "Mystery Doug Answers Your Science Questions". 10 April 2020.

[Business_Insider-3] Chris Weller (3 August 2017). "Google is giving away 15,000 pairs of solar eclipse glasses to schools across the US".

[4] "Shibu Chakravarthy". IMDb. Retrieved 2021-01-05.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]