Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 July 12

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 11 July	13 July >

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:00, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ambience (film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film, no significant coverage from independent sources, per WP:NF (also deproded without addressing concerns from prod or discussion) BOVINEBOY2008 23:54, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- puddleglum^2.0 02:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - With no references and no Reception section, does not satisfy film notability, and does not appear likely to satisfy notability soon. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:07, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no references in the article, and I could find absolutely no coverage of this film. -- Whpq (talk) 01:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to pass BASIC by spades. ——Serial 16:30, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Phud[edit]

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

Dab page contains three obscure slang terms and one person with this given name. I don't think there's a justification for a dab page here. Hog Farm _Bacon 22:40, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 22:40, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the purpose of a disambiguation page is not to list every possible usage of a term (WP:NOTDICT), it is to help users navigate between different Wikipedia articles with the same name. Since there is only one article with this name, the page serves no navigational purpose. Spicy (talk) 23:02, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, same reasoning as Spicy. Schazjmd (talk) 00:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard "phud" used for Ph.D. on a number of occasions (I have this qualification myself), also referring to a senile professor. The term may be more common in the UK. I have to admit the vagina definition is new to me, however, that and the person with the name "Phud" are only added for completeness. I'd argue I found the term on other websites (I'll add links if you wish), the term does exist and this justifies inclusion. New words appear all the time, circulating in use before becoming mainstream and this is just such an example. Do we remove "Mackem" because it's not commonly heard of outside the UK?Beefy_SAFC
Okay, so what changes do you want me to make to have it kept?
I'll point out I had a page on a village called "Matho" in Northern India deleted due to someone saying it was rubbish, even though I'd included a photo of said place. This is not going to into a repeat of that, an instance where I ended up being able to restore the page three months later?Beefy_SAFC —Preceding undated comment added 09:59, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per aboveMajun e Baqi (talk) 10:52, 13 July 2020 (UTC) Striking Sock !vote -- Dane ^talk 04:15, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The existence of this spurious disambiguation page inhibits the use of Search. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Nika2020 (talk) 18:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 19:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Spicy ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 05:16, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICT. Useless Dab. -- Dane ^talk 04:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per current policy. ——Serial 16:31, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 11:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Henri Vincent-Anglade[edit]

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

Non-notable artist, no significant coverage in reliable sources. The references are identical, and are from the art gallery studios that show his work. COI, creator of article owns this artists work. All I could find were ebay and auction sites selling his prints. Netherzone (talk) 22:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 22:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 00:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 23:16, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Henri Vincent-Anglade should be kept and tagged for more citations. It has been up since 2014. Not sure why you would flag this for deltion and not René Vincent, which has no citations. I agree that Henri Vincent-Anglade does not have enough secondary sources, but at least give the Wikipedia community, and me, a chance to see the artist and add to the page. Assume a bit of WP:AGF. I enjoy Wikipedia and doing the research. Since it is an ecyclopedia, it should cover artists that have public works. --Greg Henderson (talk) 23:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Henderson, you are free to AfD the other article, or PROD it. I determined that this artist was non-notable after the BEFORE search I performed. It seems interesting that this artist is in your personal collection as indicated just after you created the article. That may be a WP:COI since you might have a financial stake in this artist's notability. Netherzone (talk) 00:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. I found him in the benezit ([1]) and I believe he's notable, but that article is a copyvio. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 10:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My aticle was a translation from french to english and was not verbatim and gave credit to author. I have since been in touch with the author of the page and she has given me permission to use the picture and info. I've added the link to Benezit Dictionary of Artists to this page. Sounds like from above, Comte0 believes he's notable. --Greg Henderson (talk) 15:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We can't use any contents that someone granted permission on specific-use basis. All contents used here must be legitimately in the public domain or the owner of copyright must irrevocably surrender all future control and release under the proper Creative Commons license in a way that is independently verifiable, meaning an editor saying "owner has given permission" is not adequate. Graywalls (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of permission, the article was properly sourced from the following citation: www.montmart.org. --Greg Henderson (talk) 18:48, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, that website fails WP:RS, WP:SPS. Graywalls (talk) 19:12, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have replaced the website URL with a valid citation that meets WP:GNG guidelines. The new citation is at: www.oxfordartonline.com.--Greg Henderson (talk) 19:48, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, somewhat reluctantly. The artist has had some works appear in the higher level auctions such as Christie's and Bonham's. However, besides the Benezit and montmart.org sources, I can find nothing at all. Willing to change my vote if someone can add at least one other decent source. Curiocurio (talk) 01:14, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thanks to Greg Henderson below, I was able to find at least mentions in numerous early 20th century French sources, all respectable. With the Benezit entry, I think he scrapes over the GNG bar. Curiocurio (talk) 02:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Curiocurio A lot of Henri Vincent-Anglade showings in Paris are coming up on hathitrust.org searches. For example, he mentioned in the catalog of the Salon. 1901 - 1909; and in 15 periodicals. On archive.org/, there is a 1906 article that reads: "...bequeathed to the Beauvais Museum a picture by Vincent-Anglade entitled "Intimate," once shown at the [Paris] Salon See the Paris Letter. --Greg Henderson (talk) 21:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I imagine the article has improved since the nom, but the current sourcing is fine: independent, third party and reliable: passes WP:BASIC. ——Serial 16:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Natanya Singh[edit]

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

Unsourced actress who appears in item numbers/lead roles. TamilMirchi (talk) 22:00, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 22:00, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 22:00, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 22:00, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it is high time we stopped allowing articles sourced only to IMDb.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Passing mentions and no reputable sources featuring the subject. — Infogapp1 (talk) 21:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. IMDb is a completely unreliable source. Fails GNG. Could not find much reliable coverage to satisfy notability guidelines. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 02:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails the most WP:BASIC requirements of sourcing, but I cannot find any more. ——Serial 16:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Review of Books[edit]

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

This magazine appears to be of recent vintage (2017) and a student production at Oxford University. Nothing wrong with that, but Sufficient Independent Coverage Required nonetheless, and that is lacking. Almost all provided sources are either in-house or listings. The one semi-substantial other bit is this, which frankly strikes me as an arranged puff piece. (I'd also like to add that this 'About' page makes me want to erect a barricade and start throwing bricks...) I've had no look finding anything online to fill the coverage gap; suggest insufficient notability for an article at this point. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Based on a quick online research, it does not seem to be sufficiently notable. It might become in the future though. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I haven't been able to find coverage beyond the single (probably) reliable source identified by the nominator. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:04, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete probably TOOSOON, but right now the sourcing is embarassing: blogs, facebook, self-published. ——Serial 16:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This discussion is being closed early per WP:SNOW. In my view, the article likely also qualifies for speedy deletion under WP:A7 and WP:G11. Mz7 (talk) 19:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Katey Cattlehand Pluck[edit]

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

Non-notable "actress, musician, designer, and cheerleader". I can find no significant independent coverage to support notability for any of those occupations, nor for general notability. Appears to be an autobiography. Schazjmd (talk) 21:25, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Schazjmd (talk) 21:25, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete complete GNG fail, no evidence of notability, autobiography. Borderline A7 material. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I hesitated on A7 because of the "signed to record label" claim, figured this was more prudent. Schazjmd (talk) 21:47, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sole independent source is an article about Hurricane Florence which is used to support an audition she had. Um, no. No evidence of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources and solely exists for promotional and webhosting reasons. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, preferably speedy - A7, G11, take your pick. Being signed to a record label isn't a claim of significance if the label isn't notable. Cattlehand Pluck debuted as a solo SoundCloud artist on June 12, 2020 - really! One of the worst vanity pages I've ever seen. Spicy (talk) 22:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete autobiography, created by who appears to be the subject, full of original research. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was unable to find any significant coverage of this person in reliable, independent sources. This appears to be a self-promotional autobiography. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject clearly fails WP:GNG. Could not find any reliable coverage. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 09:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Everyone above is correct on lack of sources and shameless self-promotion. Just to pile it on, we can assume the woman wrote this drivel herself because it contains the same types of woeful grammar as her social media, such as "Everyone hurts, except sex" or "along with her teammates, including Plucks, her favorite yellow bug." The time I spent reading this travesty would have been better spent watching paint dry. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject clearly fails WP:GNG. Nika2020 (talk) 18:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:10, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Randolph Roy Bruce[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG as a whole and WP:SOLDIER. Lettler^hello 21:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^hello 21:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^hello 21:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Lettler^hello 21:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. I assume that the page creator User:Peterbruce01 is a relative so I would also add WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Mztourist (talk) 03:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per above, fails WP:GNGDelete clearly not notable by rank or awards per WP:SOLDIER, no indication of any chance of meeting GNG, also WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 19:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment not entirely convince on him not being notable checking Trove shows some coverage over 30-40 year period see Talk:Randolph_Roy_Bruce#Trove_links none of those would meet substantial coverage criteria but they do indicate potential for more coverage in sources not online. As I'm not in South Australia I dont have the capacity to access such sources. Relying on full name google search when most records wont be using that name is not an effective judge of notability. Trove is a one of the better indicators to notability for Australians. Gnan garra 05:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The point about TROVE is taken, but I'm still not seeing evidence that he did anything notable. As a kid I used to like getting my name in the newspapers or my face on TV. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looking across a range of search terms, I couldn't find any references in any newspaper databases available via NSW State Library. Cabrils (talk) 01:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, fails WP:GNG. Nika2020 (talk) 12:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 04:13, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have been unable to find any third-party, independent sourcing for the subject, so the article fails WP:BASIC. I also note that winning the MM is insufficient to pass WP:NSOLDIER. ——Serial 16:39, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No consensus to delete, and a consensus that the subject is independently notable; concerns on how this article is integrated with the broader series can be handled outside of AfD. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 20:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Divas Lip Sync Live[edit]

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

Delete per WP:GNG - the topic did not receive extensive coverage that warrants an independent article. The article is made up of information taken from the main series page at RuPaul's_Drag_Race_All_Stars_(season_3)#Episodes. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 21:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 21:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG. Notable people impersonating notable people in an episode which received sufficient coverage by independent reputable publications. The article should be expanded, not deleted, and actually this would make a nice little Good article with a bit of work. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:35, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG, concurring with Another Believer. Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To expand on what Another Believer wrote, this episode is about notable people impersonating notable people on a notable show. There's also adequate sourcing. I agree with expanding, not deleting. --Kbabej (talk) 01:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly passes GNG. The article cites plenty of standalone coverage in publications like Billboard and The New York Times. Armadillopteryx^talk 06:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

question for Another Believer, Gleeanon409, Kbabej, Armadillopteryx - What does this article add that couldn't be contained or isn't already covered at RuPaul's_Drag_Race_All_Stars_(season_3)#Episodes or List of Drag Race Episodes? One of the things about independent articles is they should build upon parent articles, not duplicate content. Furthermore, if they're unlikely to grow beyond stubs they probably shouldn't exist. If you look at the page view stats for the episode they're at an average of 21/day versus 2,978 for the parent season's page. This also suggests that the episode is not a viable search term and in terms of people actually finding the information, it would better served at the parent album's page. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 09:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That May be true for now, but it’s hard to say long term that the article won’t evolve, which, as I can attest, takes only a determined editor who does the research and the work. AfD is about the possibility that an article can become good or better, not if the material can be also found on other articles.
I know this can become a good article because *every* episode is reviewed by multiple sources. Gleeanon409 (talk) 09:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) This article isn't a stub (and as others have noted, it could easily be expanded), so I'm not sure how if they're unlikely to grow beyond stubs they probably shouldn't exist applies. List of RuPaul's Drag Race episodes doesn't include episode descriptions at all, and RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars (season 3)#Episodes includes much less episode-specific content than this article. Plenty of FA-class articles average fewer than 25 views a day (e.g. here and here and here), so that's not an indicator of the subject's value to the encyclopedia. I bet the page views would go up if we just linked to this article from the bodies of some other articles (e.g. contestants who participated)—right now, most of what links to it is just from the navbox. Armadillopteryx^talk 09:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, that's a poor reason. The topic is over two years old. If it was going to receive more coverage it would have done by now. While I agree that it has received some coverage from notable sources, the information contained is limited and as I've said its not really a viable search term. If people want to see this information (there's very little that isn't already at RuPaul's_Drag_Race_All_Stars_(season_3)#Episodes or List of RuPaul's Drag Race episodes), they're more likely to access it from the article about the season. From a user experience point of view, it makes no sense to make them click through to this article where 80-90% of the content is repeated from the main article. Its sounds a bit like people want it purely for GA purposes (broad coverage is part of GA criteria) - which isn't a dead certain anyway. If we think about it from an encyclopedia point of view and what's easier for fans, it would be containing the information on the main article page where it is more likely to be accessed and viewed (personal feelings aside). Also very few people know the actual names of the episodes. Armadillopteryx I'm sure Grey-necked wood rail Edgar Speyer had more views at the time they passed FA status and didn't have parent albums where the content could be contained so I think the viability of the search term does matter as does the page views when the content could be better contained elsewhere. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 09:46, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason to assume this entry will remain a stub forever. Just takes some volunteer(s) to expand. Sorry, Lil-unique1, but I don't see reason to delete this page. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its more the fact that most people don't know the names of the episodes that that the page views clearly show its not a viable search term. If as fans of the show and members of the project we want others to see more of the content then its plainly obviously that the content should exist at the main article for the season because very few people navigate to or search for the individual episode. The episode titles are not widely known about or displayed or referred to. I feel like everyone who's voted keep so far is a longstanding member of the project so the votes aren't necessarily as objective as they should be. WP:EPISODE outlines this. I would also like to say that as a fan of the show I want the content to reach as many readers as possible and it is my belief that more people would reach the article contents on the main article for the series. It's logical. I will wait for some more neutral editors to comment and of course I will accept the community consensus on this though I will say ardently, IMO that GNG has not been met (coverage is not broad). ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 14:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To me, that’s a reason to trim back what’s in the season articles and have a “Main article link” to the episode. But all the content will grow and improve with time.
And we always direct readers to the best article to find information no matter the title. I’m not seeing any big concern. Gleeanon409 (talk) 15:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A couple things:

most people don't know the names of the episodes that that the page views clearly show its not a viable search term – there are lots of reasons page views could be low, some of which I mentioned above; not sure how you've decided the reason is so obviously the one you state. Or why you don't apply the same assumption to all articles with low page views, including obviously notable subjects like the many FAs that fall into that category.
I want the content to reach as many readers as possible – as I and Gleeanon409 have mentioned, the way to get the most content to readers would be to expand and link this article from the body of more prominent pages, such as the season page and contestant pages. Deleting and/or trimming gets less content to people, not more.

Armadillopteryx^talk 15:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Another Believer; while I'm not fond of these articles myself, I this artcle clearly demonstrates compliance with WP:BASIC. ——Serial 16:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A redirect can be separately created. Sandstein 08:47, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional colors[edit]

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

Fails WP:LISTN by a long shot, outside of the real-world analog Impossible color. Better covered at the corresponding TV Tropes page, Fictional Colour; any items not already covered there can be added. Apparently created as a page split, but it's unclear where it was split from. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy has an entry for color and this is prima facie evidence that the topic is encyclopedic. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTN. Fictional colors may or may not be notable, but a list of them isn't. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:39, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As stated by the nom, this topic fails WP:LISTN. The entry in the book mentioned by Andrew is almost entirely about real colors, and what they symbolize in fantasy and science fiction stories. There is only two sentences that mention three specific examples of fictional colors, which is not even close to being WP:SIGCOV. I've searched for additional sources under a variety of different terms and descriptions that might be synonymous, and have found nothing but some false postives. A brief mention in another article, such as color, stating the fact that fiction occasionally makes use of made-up colors, might be appropriate, but the massive list of badly sourced trivia does not need to be kept, and as the actual lead-in to this article is completely unsourced, there is nothing to preserve or merge. I should also point out that while a few of the entries appear to be blue-links, not a single one of them actually leads to an article on the color in question, making this useless as a navigational tool, as well. Rorshacma (talk) 22:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I transwikied the full article history to https://list.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_fictional_colors Dream Focus 00:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete / merge. I think impossible color could use an 'in fiction' section listing some examples, though there is very little if anything in the current list to rescue. The source Andrew mentioned could be perhaps used for such a section, though as he did not bother to link it, well, it is hard to quickly judge whether it is relevant (if anyone gives me a link to it I can try to create such a section, if the content is helpful enough). There is no evidence provided it would be relevant to the list discussed here, which so far seems to fail LISTN. If anyone creates such a section, the fictional color redirect should be retargetted accordingly. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the section in question, though as I mentioned, the actual information on fictional colors is extremely limited. Rorshacma (talk) 02:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a bit to Impossible_color#In_fiction. I think there is more to be said about it, if you for example search by the names of some fictional colors, there is surprisingly a lot of hits that seem to be related to literary analysis, for example, check the results you can get for "ulfire" and "jale". The current list has a lot of unsourced fancruft, but it is clear we need an article about colors and culture; note there is still no main article for Category:Color in culture. We may also have a problem with terminology, BEFORE for "fictional colors produces little, but I am getting a bit more for imaginary colors. Please see the sources I've added to the impossible color, I think at the very least referenced parts of the list should be merged there (well, except that upon closer review pretty much all the sources in the list are very poor, sigh). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this topic fails WP:LISTN. The title is not a useful redirect, and I don’t think it would be due weight to include examples at the potential target article. Devonian Wombat (talk) 13:52, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per rationale given above. It fails LISTN, and frankly Wikipedia does not need a list for everything. The topic itself is not notable enough. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per rationale given above. However, shift the various fictional words for infrared and ultraviolet to "in fiction" sections on those pages. Also, the words invented by Majliss Larson for Pawns and Symbols could be added to the Biology subsection on the Klingon article, making clear they come from a tie-in novel. Greer Watson (talk) 02:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - delete per the above comments. - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Per my arguments above and WP:SOFTDELETE, I strongly suggest just redirecting this to Impossible_color#In_fiction I created. I believe that there is potential for expansions and with non-primary refs, a number of fictional colors seems to be mentioned in various works analyzing literary works, etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete some fictional colors may be notable (with our record on creating huge numbers of articles on very minor things in works of fiction, the fact we have articles on some is not of itself notable) but they are not notable as a concept at a level that would justify having a list of them, especially a list that includes ones that are not notable on their own.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Piotrus. I expect the topic of fictional colors is notable. pburka (talk) 19:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to the section described by Piotrus. It's always better to summarize the most important aspects in a section of prose than to try to create a questionably notable list of indiscriminate details. This topic doesn't have enough coverage in third party sources to meet the WP:GNG, but there's some verifiable material here that makes for a healthy section, in the context of a more notable and well-defined topic. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:14, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I agree with the above posters. On top of that, many of these colours are not fictional at all. A fictional alien species that can perceive ultraviolet does not make ultraviolet fictional. Reyk _YO! 22:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Piotrus, it is not notable on itself. Nika2020 (talk) 12:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:LISTN. -- Dane ^talk 04:08, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no prima facie evidence that the topic meets our notability guidelines. ——Serial 16:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:12, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Los Medanos, California[edit]

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

Another rail station misidentified as a community. There was a Rancho Los Medanos and "three railroad stations were located on the ranch", one of which was Los Medanos. No other hits to indicate it was a separate community but there was Los Medanos school and hotel in Pittburg, Ca. Glendoremus (talk) 21:01, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Glendoremus (talk) 21:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Glendoremus (talk) 21:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete I'm having a bit of trouble sorting out the topos but indications are that this was originally the crossing of two rail lines, one of which was removed, and that it was replaced by a branch/siding from the other line going off in a different direction. In any case it was and is just a rail point. Mangoe (talk) 15:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:GEOLAND specifics do not apply as it looks like this place has no legal recognition, and nothing more than trivial mentions can be found, failing WP:GNG. --Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 01:12, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I concur that WP:GEOLAND is not met if it is not a legally-recognised place. ——Serial 16:47, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:13, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Tucker (photographer)[edit]

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

non-notable commercial photographer. Fails WP:GNG at an rate. It's difficult for a photographer to become notable. This photographer did many album shoots, which explains the incoming links, but we are not going to have any encyclopedic information about the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:27, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:27, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:27, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. That's looks like long time stub ago. Well as fails WP:GNG. ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 20:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Devokewater (talk) 21:02, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Nika2020 (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Passing mentions, but I didn't notice any outstanding (i.e. award-winning works) — Infogapp1 (talk) 21:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could not find any significant coverage. ~Kvng (talk) 15:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient third party, independent sources to indicate compliance with WP:ANYBIO. ——Serial 16:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:15, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Raafat Mohtadi[edit]

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

As far as I can tell, this player doesn't pass WP:NFOOTBALL, sources also sound routine which fail WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 20:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Govvy (talk) 20:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Govvy (talk) 20:09, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Govvy (talk) 20:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:38, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has scored 24 goals in the Syrian Premier League, which is listed at WP:FPL as being fully pro. On the letter of the law, he therefore meets NFOOTY. With the ongoing Syrian civil war, I think a discussion could be had about the ability to run a fully professional league in Syria at this moment – but that would need to happen at WT:FPL, and until then, he does meet NFOOTY. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 14:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reply @Keskkonnakaitse: Sadly, games are mostly played in empty stadiums, teams can't afford to pay their players. Yes that listing needs a review, but under the current guidelines he will fail. Govvy (talk) 08:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – changed vote based on the discussion at WT:FPL. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 18:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Based on evidence in WP:FPL, Mohtadi fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 17:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fully pro league guidelines are again shown to be absurd. We have gone to inclsionist extremes with footballers, which are not justified, and there is no reason to keep this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources are WP:MILL, no indication that WP:ANYBIO has been met. ——Serial 16:51, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:16, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Giveaway of the Day[edit]

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

Non-notable website, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 20:01, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable --Devokewater (talk) 21:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as non-notable. --Lockley (talk) 00:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All sources on the page are completely unreliable. No reliable coverage found while doing a simple search. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 09:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Non notable. Nika2020 (talk) 18:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: all five sources cited in the article are primary sources either owned or strongly connected to the subject. The creator did not make any effort to include at least some secondary sources but completely relied on the subject's website. Jokolis (talk) 6:47, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Delete The sourcing, such as it is, fails BASIC: no indication of sustained coverage in third-party, independent sources. ——Serial 16:52, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails NCORP. ——Serial 16:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 00:55, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Softwareload[edit]

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

Non-notable website, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 20:01, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- puddleglum^2.0 02:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- puddleglum^2.0 02:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename To Softwareload.de. Found quite a bit of coverage in German under that name, including a brief history in probably the biggest German langauge publication, Die Welt; [2] [3] [4]. Passes WP:3REFS and WP:GNG. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 11:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a search shows a number of articles about the subject in German, though some of them are press releases. This article should be updated with available sources and allow to remain published based on WP standard and guidelines at the time it was created. Jokolis (talk) 7:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Keep: It has received some coverage, though most of them are in German. With sources indicated above, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 12:09, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 04:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:16, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tamindir[edit]

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

Non-notable website, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 20:00, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sign of significance worth an encyclopedia article. --Lockley (talk) 00:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- puddleglum^2.0 02:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- puddleglum^2.0 02:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no reliable sources cited in the article and there are no sources with which its notability can be established. Jokolis (talk) 9:15, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Delete sourcing fails to satisfy BASIC. ——Serial 16:54, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn, following a source-focused WP:HEY from that self-same nominator :) (non-admin closure) ——Serial 16:57, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Family Plan (1997 film)[edit]

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

A mere mention of the film from Variety does not constitute as significant coverage per WP:NFSOURCES. I admit that the article might qualify per WP:NFO (since the film stars notable actor and comedian Leslie Nielsen) but I leave it to consensus to decide. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 19:47, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- puddleglum^2.0 02:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added sources from Chicago Tribune and Variety, but they both mention the film only briefly. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 01:22, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added more sources from The Buffalo News, South Coast Today and Sun-Sentinel, and again they're brief mentions of the film. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 01:48, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the sources mentioned above are enough to pass WP:NFSOURCES, I request that the nomination be withdrawn. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 01:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ruturaj Singh[edit]

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

Non notable cricketer, does not pass NCRIC Spike 'em (talk) 19:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spike 'em (talk) 19:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spike 'em (talk) 19:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt The article(s) of which there are many and of various spellings and names were created and promoted by a sock farm. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Imrutu. Investigations find a cricketing gentleman of this name who is too old to be the subject of this article. Likely to be a hoax based upon the determination with which the sock farm pushed it. Prior incarnations included the word Sisodia whcih is a potential BLP violation anyway as a caste name where the subject has not self identified and references to that are not provided. Fiddle Faddle 19:38, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is a similarly named, notable, player Rituraj Singh which the creator of this article had tried hijacking. The links provided on article do mention Ruturaj, but there is not enough coverage to pass GNG and no evidence that he had played in any games that would lead him to passing NCRIC. Spike 'em (talk) 19:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:HOAX. StickyWicket (talk) 20:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 19:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)d[reply]
Dont delete as per refrence link given in refrence section,u can verify that link and then decide to delete or not,evidence has been provided thankyou — Preceding unsigned comment added by VK1818 (talk • contribs) 11:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC)— VK1818 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Imrutu (talk · contribs). [reply]
Delete a non-notable cricket player. Cricket is as far as I can tell the weakest link in our coverage where we have allowed our over broad guidelines to justify way too many articles on people with no realize coverage. This is one of the factors in us about to reach 1cmillion articles on living people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dont Delete please do it if its still verifiable,and u say its the weakest link check the link twice and comment your opinion brother Dvd303 (talk) 04:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)(talk)Dvd303 (talk) 04:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)DvD303— Dvd303 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Imrutu (talk · contribs). [reply]
Delete- as per Nom. Dtt1^Talk 14:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dont Delete as per nom, refrence links given . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samer rizvi (talk • contribs) 18:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC) — Samer rizvi (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Imrutu (talk · contribs). [reply]
Dont Delete as per nom refrence is enough that that person exists — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samer rizvi (talk • contribs) 18:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC) — Samer rizvi (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Imrutu (talk · contribs). [reply]
Comment there seem to be a number of new accounts who have made no other edits than taking part in this AfD (and are making the same spelling mistakes). Spike 'em (talk) 05:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- As if any more proof is needed, this comment was removed by Dvd303; I'm restoring to the place in the page that it was before this happened. Spike 'em (talk) 23:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- And to be clear, it is all of Dvd303, Samer rizvi and VK1818 that I am referring to here. Spike 'em (talk) 23:10, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Samer rizvi: you can only vote once at AfD and this person, even if they exist, has never played at a notable level that satisfies WP:NCRIC. StickyWicket (talk) 08:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nom,and this Cricketer is non notable and never played at notable level thankyou WP:NCRIC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samer rizvi (talk • contribs) 09:03, 16 July 2020 (UTC) — Samer rizvi (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Imrutu (talk · contribs). [reply]
Delete or speedy deletion required, the user had enough given refrence link as a notable person but ok as per Wikipedia requirements this page requires a speedy deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvd303 (talk • contribs) 09:18, 16 July 2020 (UTC) — Dvd303 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Imrutu (talk · contribs). [reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 04:06, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Christ, this has been a sockfest ain't it. But JPL is wholly correct, our notability requirements were notoriously slack in the cricketing department. Third-party reliable sourcing has not been presented to demonstratee the requirements of BASIC; I was also unable to discover any. This is particulalry essential when dealing with a BLP. ——Serial 17:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. The scorecard references from CricHQ are almost surely fake (a top-order batsman opening the bowling and bowling 23.1 overs in a 50-over match! [5]). Dee 03 19:16, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawing nomination. (non-admin closure) Eternal Shadow Talk 03:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Devil's Chair[edit]

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

Non notable film with a lack of reliable sources. Eternal Shadow Talk 19:25, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Eternal Shadow Talk 19:25, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meets notability with reviews. I found four reviews, two of which are of magazines of some repute. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 20:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it has been reviewed in multiple reliable sources such as Variety, Exclaim, Bloody Disgusting, Dread Central, DVD Talk and others shown here so it clearly passes WP:GNG and deletion is therefore unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources added by DiamondRemley39. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:54, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mark Roberts (singer). No consensus to keep this article, and a uniform consensus to redirect to the Mark Roberts article (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 20:13, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Y Ffyrc[edit]

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

As with the current AfD discussion for the related band Sherbet Antlers, this page fails WP:NBAND: and as with that nomination, an Alternative to Deletion might be a redirect to Mark Roberts (singer). ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mark Roberts (singer). Page is completely without sources. Non-notable band without any reliable coverage. Redirect to band's most notable member would suffice. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 09:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:53, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mark Roberts (singer) as not independently notable, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mark Roberts (singer); no indication that this group received the sustained coverage to pass WP:BASIC. ——Serial 17:05, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peace Itimi[edit]

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

The ref bombing is a mere facade as this is a promotional piece for a subject that lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Half the sources used in the article are either not entirely about her & the other half which appear in reliable sources are mere interviews hence not independent of her hence doesn’t satisfy WP:GNG. A before search shows no evidence of true notability as she is mentioned majorly in unreliable blog sources. At best this is case of TOOSOON. Celestina007 (talk) 18:58, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:58, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:58, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:58, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:58, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:58, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. There are plenty of hits to videos and writings by her, but hardly anything about her to demonstrate notability. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:23, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable Devokewater (talk) 19:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about her aside from a few sources which talk about her activities. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 09:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Good nom. Nothing suggests she has received the sustained coverage to warrant an article/. ——Serial 17:06, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 11:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mediacraft Associate[edit]

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

Article topic is a PR firm that won the Public Relations Consultancy of the Year (2019) at the Lagos PR Industry Gala & Awards. No other claim to notability. Mccapra (talk) 17:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:the subject of the article meets WP:GNG and WP:NCORP because it has significant independent secondary media coverage. The reason that only one award won by the subject is not significant enough to make it notable does not apply because awards are not part of the primary notability guidelines. But this same award has made the subject more notable because the subject received significant coverage when it was bestowed with the award. Kindly keep, do not delete. John combo (talk) 6:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Keep: the organization is notable for a WP entry based on a quick search conducted and the analysis of some of the sources cited in the article. That the organization has won only an award should not be the determinant of its notability as there are thousands of notable organizations for WP entry without an award per WP guidelines. This award is an added advantage to the notability of the subject because it received significant mentions in independent secondary sources when it was honoured with the award. See these: [[6]] [[7]]. The subject also received significant mentions in independent secondary sources when it was appointed PR Agency of what appears to be a reputable conglomerate financial institution. Checks in some of the sources cited show that the appointment followed a competitive process in which a number of PR firms participated as can be seen here [[8]] [[9]] . The financial institution that appointed the subject of this article is an independent organization and its announcement of the subject as its PR agency in secondary sources should count for the notability of the subject. Jokolis (talk) 11:32, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the organisation meets WP:NCORP based on the sources available. Maco Paco (talk) 6:48, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Comment A PR company has managed to generate PR about the fact that it does PR. That’s all we have here. The sources repeat the same press releases verbatim. This is promotional junk, not in-depth coverage by independent journalists. Mccapra (talk) 04:50, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that the three "keep" "votes only have a few hundred edits between them; while there's no minimum edit-count, of course, it does rather suggest possible inexperience with our deletion process (particularly when they are all presenting variations on WP:ATADD. Hpefully the closer will take this into account... ——Serial 17:10, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I blocked them all as socks. MER-C 08:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I did wonder about them. Mccapra (talk) 09:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - likely paid-for spam. MER-C 08:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 11:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Long Beach Records[edit]

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

Obscure label. Geschichte (talk) 17:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not pass WP:NMG. Not a notable record label. No notable press or accomplishments.Behindthekeys (talk) 04:12, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (although not "per nom", as the nomination statement itself verges on the bizarre). But the avalable sources do not demonstrate that the label ever received sustained, independent coverage in reliable third-party: fails WP:NCORP. ——Serial 17:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:19, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hum Sab Chor Hain (1956 film)[edit]

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

An article about a Bollywood film, sourced only to IMDb (not WP:RS) since creation in 2016. A WP:BEFORE search didn't even turn up the plot (which the article lacks0, let alone anythng in-depth. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 17:14, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems not notable. Just to note; article was created by a sock. --TheImaCow (talk • contribs) 22:01, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I know - I have it and a couple of others bookmarked, and am slowly working my way through their efforts like this one. Narky Blert (talk) 08:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is moving to 'Draft' WP:DRAFTIFY and recommendation to rework the article, and introduce into mainspace, an option? If so, I would recommend that. This seems to be a movie by a very popular actor of his time, Shammi Kapoor. There might be some merit in exploring this in the WP:DRAFT space. Kaisertalk (talk) 00:28, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Notability is not WP:INHERITED. There's no point in draftifying if there are no sources. Narky Blert (talk) 13:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete articles sourced only to IMDb should not be allowed to stand 4 days, let alone 4 years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:44, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all of the above Spiderone 09:42, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not believe that SIGCOV is met: sources have to be both independent of the topic and indicate persistence of coverage, neither of which is the case. ——Serial 17:19, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:21, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nickwan Qaderi[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG and does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO. Two refs are listed. 1) is a google search results page which only seems to show download sites and Youtube music videos. 2) is the artist's bio on their record label. // Timothy :: talk 17:13, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 17:13, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. As the first reference shows, he has few hits on Google, and there's absolutely nothing to demonstrate that he passes WP:SINGER. The edit history quacks of autobiography. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:38, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:17, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:17, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It is too early in his career for a WP article and this is probably an attempted promotion. At least in English, he cannot be found in any significant and reliable media sources. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:09, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete possibly TOOSOON. ——Serial 17:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:22, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Socionym[edit]

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

Per WP:NOT#DICT // Timothy :: talk 17:00, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DICDEF. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete per WP:DICDEF. ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 21:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per policy and to Wikitionary. ——Serial 17:22, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Atalanta. Content seems to be there already, but some may want to merge the sources. Sandstein 10:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hylaeus and Rhoecus[edit]

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

Only primary sources, seemingly not of independent interest, but can probably redirect to Atalanta. Geschichte (talk) 16:47, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Atalanta, unless there's another topic that would be more appropriate ("list of centaurs" appears to concern asteroids). The sources are fine, however. P Aculeius (talk) 08:43, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, found these from a quick gsearch - the two centaurs being shot by Atalanta, the masked bee genus of around 130 species named after the centaur Hylaeus, some sort of merge/redirect to Atalanta may be appropriate? Coolabahapple (talk) 14:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One of the primary sources mentioned above by user Geschichte is listed, together with another one, in William Smith's, A Dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology (originally published in 1848) on the subject, available at perseus.tufts.edu. I kept the reference to the second original source of the article, and replaced the refercence to its first original source by a single one to the Dictionary (through which both original sources listed there can be reached), and also corrected a couple of mistakes (factual and philological) [10]. I think that a reference to a modern or contemporary reliable source has to be added, too. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 09:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:23, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jungle Queen (1956 film)[edit]

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

An article about a Bollywood film, sourced only to (non-WP:RS) IMDb since creation in 2016. A WP:BEFORE search turned up nothing in-depth; not even the plot, which the article lacks. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 16:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete first google hit lead me to a porn side .___. (Google search link from the top of the Afd). So, well, I found practically nothing about the film. --TheImaCow (talk • contribs) 21:58, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Including "1956" in the search string minimises distractions. Narky Blert (talk) 16:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Spiderone 07:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, with no offense to the memory of Fearless Nadia. --Lockley (talk) 17:47, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete IMDb is not a reliable source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above stalwarts. ——Serial 17:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nai Maa (1960 film)[edit]

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

An article about a Bollywood film, sourced only to (non-WP:RS]) IMDb since creation in 2016. A WP:BEFORE search failed to find even the plot (which the article lacks), let alone anything in-depth. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 16:19, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should not have survived 4 days with no reliable source let alone 4 years. However considering we have biographies of living people that have survived over a decade longer than this article only sourced to IMDb the saddest thing is that this is not even an especially problematic article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Spiderone 09:43, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - article now properly referenced. --Soman (talk) 21:40, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing comprises almost exclusively WP:MILL and WP:NOTDIR-style mentions. No indication of sustained coverage in third-party, reliable, independent sources. ——Serial 17:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No consensus to delete, and while there is a strong consensus that it meets LISTN, there are articulated concerns that this list could be bordering on being unwieldy/too-broad and in needed for further organization/splitting/sub-division outside of AfD (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 19:52, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of slave owners[edit]

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

Not a useful topic for a list - this could apply to almost any notable figure in many time periods and places. I think it would be difficult to redefine it in a useful way. Let's just get rid of it. Brianyoumans (talk) 15:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:16, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:16, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic passes WP:LISTN – see the scholar link above for many interesting papers. The "not useful" nomination is WP:NOTUSEFUL. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:23, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The scholarly sources discuss lists of slaveholders at a particular time and place. (I believe most of the references are to a list of British slaveholders who received compensation on the abolition of slavery.) This is an indiscriminate list of all slaveholders, ever.Brianyoumans (talk) 18:40, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - The complementary category structure shows how it can be organized or subdivided. postdlf (talk) 18:47, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as index of articles by significant shared fact per WP:LISTPURP and as complement to Category:Slave owners per WP:CLN. The nom’s only substantive complaint is just a question of development and organization, not deletion. postdlf (talk) 19:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The claim that this could apply to almost any notable figure in many time periods and places strikes me as dubious. And as Postdlf mentions above, this could easily be broken down into sub-articles (and should be, as part of the process of expanding and improving the list. It falls well within the guidelines for lists, as mentioned by Andrew Davidson and Postdlf. Guettarda (talk) 21:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the nominator really believes that most notable people enslaved other (presumably nonnotable) people, then we could perhaps have a list of those few who didn't. pburka (talk) 22:47, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I would not say that "most notable people enslaved other people", but I would say that is principally because of recentism. Slavery existed in China, it existed in ancient Rome, in the Ottoman Empire... etc. And it is documentable for many many people articles in Wikipedia. I would estimate tens of thousands of entries, but that's just a guess. Brianyoumans (talk) 02:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sounds good. Round up the sources, bring 'em on. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:56, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - The list will probably need to be reorganized to accommodate that many documented slave owners. Oh well. pburka (talk) 03:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It needs more references and information, but it's a notable topic, and "let's just get rid of it" is not an acceptable rationale. — Toughpigs (talk) 00:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic passes
Keep per WP:NLIST Lightburst (talk) 23:52, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a horrendous mess of unsourced rubbish. It misses people from many cultures that were very big slave owners. Is Tippu Tip who may have owned over 10,000 slaves even on the list?John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- This blanking is completely unacceptable. You've really made a habit recently out of taking wrecking balls to clearly fixable content, and showing up just to !vote delete for "problems" easily fixed. If an entry is missing that should be on the list, add it. If an entry lacks an inline citation, add it. If you are interested in doing neither, move along and let those who can edit constructively do so. postdlf (talk) 19:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - The burden is on the person who adds the entry to source it. The burden on anyone else is to remove everything that is unsourced unless they can find a source, but they have the responsibility to remove an entry if there is not a source. It is time we stop perpetuating these horrid lists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Try reading all of WP:V: "Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source and the material therefore may not be verifiable. If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." postdlf (talk) 19:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Every entry in an article like this should be sourced within the article. We should not have any blank accusations of slave ownership without any sourcing. This is just plain wrong. Lots and lots of these articles are ascribing all sorts of things without any good sourcing at all. It needs to stop and removing such things is totally justified. If the entries can be sourced than add sources. There is no justification for this inclusion of all sorts of people on the list with absolutely no sourcing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- So fix it by adding sources. The other lists you've indiscriminately blanked recently all had sources for the entries in the linked articles, so those could clearly be migrated over to the lists just as here. As the internally unsourced entries in this list are dead and so not subject to BLP, there is no urgency and so no justification for blanking. If you think an entry is incorrect and therefore that the inclusion is unverifiable, that's a different story, but you just seem not to care either way because you're clearly not taking the time to actually see if it can be verified, not even by looking at the linked article. It's hard not to read that as intentional disruption and it will stop. postdlf (talk) 19:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's what we did with List of entertainers who performed in blackface over the last month, and I think that page is much improved. We're keeping a close eye on unsourced additions, and filling out the items with a bare source with more details. It's not rocket science, it just requires a few people who care to work on it and then keep an eye on it. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment slavery has meant different things in different times and places, a list like this treats as one phenomenon what is actually several different phenomenon which we inprecisely use the same word to describe.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Any hope that such lists can be kept to only sourced entries is a false hope because there are too many editors who will add entries without bothering to provide any sourcing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clear inclusion criteria of a notable topic. I picked ONE unsourced entry at random, and guess what, I found a source straight away. Much more productive to do this than wholesale disruptive blanking. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and -- of course -- improve), per WP:LISTN. -- The Anome (talk) 17:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, have left the following on the article's talkpage that highlights the problem with having such a wikilist - "hi all, I note that presently there are around 230 people listed in this article, of those about 190 lived 17th to 19th cents, and yet, for example, there are 1000s of romans at the category:Roman people by century, the majority of whom were slave owners (let alone all the other ancient peoples), who have not been included. Why the undue weight?". Coolabahapple (talk) 13:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That English Wikipedia has a bias towards topics related to English-speaking countries and recent history isn't undue. If you examine some of those thousands of Romans, you'll notice that most of their pages are permastubs because we know almost nothing about, e.g. Acidinus. We simply have access to more and better sources for 18th century people than 1st century people. pburka (talk) 18:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable topic with several available sources. I would suggest removing the unsourced entries and the mythological characters (Abraham) to clean it up. Dimadick (talk) 16:17, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:LISTN. -- Dane ^talk 04:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Preferably Delete -- This has the feel of ATTACK article. However I suspect that I am in a minority; so I offer an alternative, which is to split. Part of my reason for this is that almost every prominent person in the American South and West Indies will have owned slaves, so that this is too universal a characteristic for the list to be useful. I would suggest that this be split into separate lists for each American colony/state. In those areas, it would be more useful to categorise (or list) non-slave owners. I doubt it is useful to combine these early modern slave owners with those of earlier periods as "slavery" was a somewhat different institution. One might have slave -owner lists for those periods, but, again, it is likely that every prominent Greek or Roman had slaves. I thus doubt that such lists are useful. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:30, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aag (1967 film)[edit]

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

An article about a Bollywood film, sourced only to (non-WP:RS) IMDb since creation in 2015. A WP:BEFORE search turned up the plot (which the article lacks) and passing mentions 1 and 2, but nothing in-depth. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 15:48, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IMDb is not a reliable source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG Spiderone 11:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication from a WP:BEFORE that the subject received sustained coverage in reliable sources. ——Serial 17:33, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 11:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I/O Kit[edit]

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

Non notable development kit ThursdayMorningF (talk) 15:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 July 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could not find any significant, secondary coverage. Best I could find was a tutorial. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 23:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly non-notable software; a WP:BEFORE indicates it has not received the sustained, in-depth coverage in multiple, independent relible source to pass our most WP:BASIC requirements.
Having said that, I am wholly curious as to a new account whose first edit is to file an AfD. Either there's a COI (admittedly of a negative kind), or ... ——Serial 17:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mark Roberts (singer). Tone 11:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sherbet Antlers[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Possible ATD is redirect to most notable member. Boleyn (talk) 14:50, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:19, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:19, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mark Roberts (singer). I've also started a deletion discussion for the related band Y Ffyrc. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:13, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Mark Roberts (singer) as not independently notable imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect no evidence that the sources bear the weight of a standalone article. ——Serial 17:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The article passes WP:GNG after improvements as highlighted by participating editors with adequate reliable sources (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 12:48, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My Weird School[edit]

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

Non-notable book series, in which its article is already very weak (pretty much a list of books and characters with in-universal tone and completely no citations). The only news articles I could find to mention My Weird School (such as an Education Week article and this New York Times artile) just have trivial mentions. There's a Common Sense Media review but I don't think that's adequate (the Plugged In review wouldn't be adequate either). Perhaps merge this article with the article for its author, Dan Gutman. ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 18:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 18:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In addition to the nominator's list of sources, I also added a couple more newspaper articles to the page (The Herald News, The Morristown Daily Record) and the Kirkus Reviews listing for the first book. It's not a lot, but I think that collectively this demonstrates notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Toughpigs: Could you summarise the Herald News and The Morristown Daily Record sources for the benefit of those us who can't access them via newspapers.com? It's not clear from the article whether they contain substantial discussion of the series, or mostly address the author but touch on the series in passing, or somewhere in between. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. The Morristown article is about the author going to schools and talking to kids about how he became a writer. Early on, it says, "Gutman has written more than 90 books during his career, including his very successful My Weird School and The Baseball Card Adventure series, but his books weren't always thought of as a big deal." There's another sentence later on that describes the series, and in the three quotes from kids, the only book mentioned is My Weird School. It's also the only book pictured. So the article as a whole is predicated on the fact that Gutman is a successful author, and My Weird School is the primary thing that made him successful.

The Herald News article is entirely about My Weird Writing Tips, a special book in the My Weird School series that uses the series' characters and setting to teach kids how to write.

By the way, you can get free access to Newspapers.com through the Wikipedia Library Card Platform. You should check it out, it's really cool. :) — Toughpigs (talk) 23:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Toughpigs' sourcing looks to be just enough. Needs a lot of cleanup, but it looks like a GNG pass. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator: May withdraw/speedy keep tomorrow if there's enough support. ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 21:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and selectively merge (i.e. merge the sourced prose, not the lists) to Dan Gutman. The sourcing isn't sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG: of five sources cited in the article, only one actually deals primarily with the series. There's some coverage of individual books in the series, but I don't think we can use coverage of those books to establish notability for the series as a whole (this is not quite what WP:NOTINHERITED says but it's along the same lines). I haven't been able to find any other sources. (With thanks for the helpful summaries to Toughpigs, whose recommendation I may well take up.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:26, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep following Megalibrarygirl's improvements. It's still my view that the reviews of individual books do nothing to establish the notability of the series, but the two references that review multiple volumes, in combination with the Common Sense Media page, are sufficient. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:58, 14 July 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)} 13:27, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:20, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep~~/Merge~~ ~~to Dan Gutman~~. I'm pretty much on the fence on this one. Most of the in-depth sources are focused on the author, and only mention the series as part of the wider discussion on his work, which could easily be included on his page. But, there are a few brief reviews on some of the individual books, and the one on the series as a whole, that might make it worthwhile to keep this separate. So, I am fine with either option, depending on the rest of the consensus. At the very least, it could use some cleanup, and remove some of the stuff like the unsourced, bare-bones character list. Rorshacma (talk) 18:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With the improvements mentioned below, I'm fine with this one being an outright Keep now. Rorshacma (talk) 22:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've found a ton of reviews of the books in the series and more information which I added to the article. It wouldn't make sense to have an article on each part of the series and reviews of individual books do make mention to the series as a whole. I hope that my copyedit might sway Arms & Hearts and Rorshacma to change their !votes. Hop over to the article and see the rewrite I did and the sources I added. As an anecdote, as a librarian, I can attest to the huge popularity of this series among kiddos coming to the library. Before COVID-19, those books were flying off our library shelves and I constantly had to replace the well-read copies. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- For the last bit, please note popularity ≠ notability. I did like the reviews you added. ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 14:16, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're right about the popularity angle, PrincessPandaWiki. I brought it up mostly because I thought it was interesting and sometimes it shows that even if things are off our own radar, that doesn't mean they aren't important to others. I think popularity can show possible notability. But it's totally not a slam dunk! Personally, I would never have heard of the series before if I wasn't a public librarian! My kids never read the series. Glad you liked the sources. If you need full text, let me know :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article contains a good number of lists, but there seems to be sufficient sources to show it's a notable series. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Might not be as big as Horrid Henry but still clearly a long-running and popular children's series, and the article as it now stands has adequate sourcing. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:49, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 11:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ignatzia Otto[edit]

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

The sources do not seem to be about her. The article says she only particiated in one outdoor play. The rest reads like genealogycruft. Geschichte (talk) 13:23, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:19, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:19, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, per WP:A7. Importance or significance of the subject not established. Domeditrix (talk) 12:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 01:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

H'mm. She married a notable director and was mother to a notable actor: they sound like credibe claims of significance to me: A7 clearly does not apply, User:Domeditrix. ——Serial 17:48, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A WP:BEFORE does not indicate she received sustained coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. ——Serial 17:48, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hilton Hotema[edit]

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

No reliable sources mention Hilton Hotema or his fringe ideas about health. No reliable sourced content has been added to the article since it was created. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:05, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:20, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:20, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could not find significant independent coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 17:02, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable --Devokewater (talk) 21:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG, no evidence of notability. Interesting information at [ https://www.amazon.com/Hilton-Hotema/e/B00ITG2MVM ] --Guy Macon (talk) 01:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)--Guy Macon (talk) 01:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability, published within his own closed circle and not notable outside his little walled garden. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:04, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - My pseudoscience-related literature covers a number of authors and some related topics but no mention of Hotema. The currently used sources are suboptimal and few. —Paleo Neonate – 20:40, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I trust Paleo on this one. ——Serial 17:50, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdraw. Author withdraw (non-admin closure) Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 10:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mudja[edit]

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

The article has unreliable/spam sources and zero reliable sources. 59.10.232.165 (talk) 12:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination completed on behalf of IP as per WP:AFDHOW.

Other AFD nomination by the same IP:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baka Prase

Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Just like Baka, Mudja has been featured on Politika and Danas.rs two strongest Serbian news outlets. Mudja has been one of the biggest Serbian YouTube stars, and still is, though Baka surpassed him. -User:PolePoz (talk) Creator of article. 7:04PM, 12 July 2020 (UTC
Keep - Sources are less convincing than in the Baka Prase AfD, but the Politika source definitely helps establish notability. It even refers to PewDiePie as the Mudja of Sweden. All things considered, the article meets GNG. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdraw. Author withdraw (non-admin closure) Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 10:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Baka Prase[edit]

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

The article has unreliable/spam sources and zero reliable sources. 59.10.232.165 (talk) 12:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination completed on behalf of IP as per WP:AFDHOW.

Other AFD nomination by the same IP:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mudja

Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:51, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:51, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:51, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:51, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:51, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:51, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:51, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He is discussed in some depth in Politika. Looking through a translation of the site's "About Us" page shows that it's been publishing for over a century. The Wikipedia article on Politika refers to the publication as Serbia's "newspaper of record" (along with a quotation and reference to a reliable source). Some other sources appear to be more tabloid-style, but reading through the "About Us" pages and the stories about Baka Prase's popularity and reception in Serbia shows that he is clearly a significant person. I wouldn't say that all 123 sources meet the criteria at WP:RS, but there's more than enough to meet GNG. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely Keep - Baka Prase is literally the central figure in Serbia at the moment! He is considered to be one of the Top 5 biggest idols of young people in Serbia, along with Tesla, Novak Djokovic and few others. Baka Prase is a page which should definitely stay on wikipedia, he literally took over the news in Serbia, being one of the most talked people in Serbia. I'm pretty positive that Baka Prase is at the moment more popular then numerous Serbian singers, actors etc, also there is so many references for Baka, though i agree probably some references do not meet the criteria, but there's so many references, news outlets about him. Also he has been on the Politika and Danas.rs, one of the strongest Serbian news sites.-User:PolePoz (talk) 6:49PM, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Keep per above. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 17:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 10:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson impersonator[edit]

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

Previous AfD closed as a redirect to Impersonator; the content and sourcing now doesn't seem substantially different to its appearance then (diff, if that's helpful). Article was then recreated, but I'm not convinced it offers much in the way of evidence that the concept of a MJ impersonator is notable, in the same way that Elvis impersonator is; it's mostly just a list of "X impersonated Michael Jackson on occasion Y". Also a couple of the links are tenuous, thus reducing the amount to which their sources contribute to notability even if we ignore that it's mostly just a list:

In the film Maanthrikam, a character "dances in a 'weak imitation' of Jackson", which hardly counts as an impersonator.
Move Like Michael Jackson was a TV show finding people who could dance in his style, not impersonate him.

There are two sources present that might indicate notability:

[11], which is a New York Times article about someone called Lorena Turner photographing Jackson impersonators;
[12], which is a Daily Telegraph article about tributes being paid to him upon his death by impersonators.

Both the example of Lorena Turner (but sourced to the deprecated Daily Mail instead of the NYT) and the Telegraph article were present when the AfD was closed as "redirect" last time.

To be clear, I'm not denying that some instances of Jackson being impersonated are notable; I'm just not sure that what's here (or what can be found elsewhere) adds up to the WP:SIGCOV for an article on the concept. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 12:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 12:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 12:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 12:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 12:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I vote to keep the article. Michael Jackson is certainly one of the most impersonated celebrities. That said, yes, a lot of work is going to be required to transform and improve the article so it reaches the level of the one on Elvis Presley's impersonators. However, not all articles need to be long (just substantial enough). Israell (talk) 16:20, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are lots of reliable sources here. I also considered a merge with Michael Jackson, but that article is already way too long.Behindthekeys (talk) 19:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Behindthekeys, They're reliable sources, but I'm not sure they give significant coverage of Michael Jackson impersonators as a topic (rather than of the fact that X played Michael Jackson once). As it stands, the references are for an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of times someone's impersonated MJ. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 21:19, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Behindthekeys: Cultural impact of Michael Jackson would be a better merge target that could incorporate this easily. postdlf (talk) 15:13, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep i think, this (the phenomenon itself) is notable. For example also because the article receives 25,000 views per month. I know this has nothing to do with official policies, but why delete something if a lot of people are interested? --TheImaCow (talk • contribs) 21:49, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Because Jackson is one of the most impersonated artists of all time and since his death sources have said he’s the second most in the US, and the most impersonated around the world. The lead to this article looks as though it can be expanded and slightly improved, but the reasons to keep the article outweighs the reasons to not keep it, and that’s because there are no reasons for a deletion. Keep and improve. TruthGuardians (talk) 14:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 08:35, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see the usual empty arguments for keeping this page, such as "it's interesting to lots of people" and "there are a lot of examples of the subject". It doesn't matter how widespread a phenomenon is if it doesn't add up to a decent amount of specific coverage. This article is just an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of stuff with little encyclopaedic value and not much potential for expansion. Popcornfud (talk) 11:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect, I think this might be worth a couple sentences or short paragraph in Cultural impact of Michael Jackson, but I'm not seeing a basis for a standalone article (and if that changes then it can be WP:SPLIT back out). It can definitely be condensed based on what's there, particularly since many of the examples do not actually appear to be about impersonation, which (as the nom notes above) requires more than just "danced in the style of." postdlf (talk) 15:11, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This seems eminently sensible. Possibly worth deleting and recreating as a redirect if either of these options taken; after the redirect outcome of the previous AfD was carried out, it seems to have just been undone to recreate the article. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 15:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC), second sentence added 16:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. The article is sufficiently well-sourced as a phenomenon. It can be improved by learning from the Elvis impersonator article. Too large to be merged into cultural impact of Michael Jackson so stand-alone makes sense. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The 2014 New York Times article is reasonably strong evidence for MJ impersonation as a concept being notable. The other cited sources are generally about individual impersonators. Those sources at least indicate that there's SIGCOV support for a list article (which is more or less how the article is currently structured). I would also not oppose a merge into Cultural impact of Michael Jackson, but it would be my second choice. Colin M (talk) 18:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. It obviously needs work, but WP:ARTN says that the current state of an article doesn't affect the subject's notability. There are enough sources currently cited in the article that can be used to expand. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep − There are some exceptions, like Elvis Presley or Michael Jackson (and others celebrities like Madonna, Cher or Monroe) within this topic. We can see their examples as a topic in literature, arts and others references from popular culture. Even we have some photos in Commons about this topic on MJ. Maybe, Elvis impersonators could be helpful as a reference, or y'all can check out as well Madonna impersonators [es]. My second option would be merge into Cultural impact of Michael Jackson. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 19:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lorena Turner, a teacher at Cal Poly Pomona, wrote a book called The Michael Jacksons dedicated to the topic of Jackson impersonators. That book was reviewed in the New York Times, by Slate and by KCET. All of these reviews devoted significant coverage to the topic of Jackson impersonators. The topic is notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:31, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge into Cultural impact of Michael Jackson. I agree with Apoxyomenus' assessment. Garlicolive (talk) 17:03, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is no reason why Elvis impersonators should have a page but Jackson should not. Both are widely impersonated all over the world castorbailey (talk) 19:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rename to Impersonators of Michael Jackson. Stifle (talk) 08:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 11:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ballu Equation[edit]

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

Recent article that is sourced only by preprints. The equation is ~~well known~~ but not under this name D.Lazard (talk) 11:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. D.Lazard (talk) 11:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content, almost unreable by its (lack of) formatting ——Serial 17:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

StolanAce (talk) 15:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I made this article and will not feel bad if this article is deleted by backing up with reliable sources.

D.Lazard mentioned two things

1) Recent article that is sourced only by preprints.

My solution: Within 3 months I can make my research available in journal if that is standard. And I believe this should not be major concern even without being published in journal as long as you find it new. Also, I have added other journal and book citation

2)The equation is well known but not under this name.

My request: Please backup your statement with reliable source that exactly matches the Ballu equation and not the similar equations.

Why

Leonhard Euler has only substituted variable value of x as pi in well know Taylor series(1685-1731) or Madhava series(1340-1425){equation is e^(ix) = cos (x) + isin (x)} and presented to the world. We all know that variable value already includes the value of pi but it looks different and specific. Considering that difference as standard to not to fall in plagiarism list, I haven't found any equation that is same as Ballu equation.

My request is to support me if Ballu equation is not found elsewhere.

StolanAce (talk) 15:38, 12 July 2020 (UTC) — StolanAce (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment @StolanAce: Wikipedia's policies forbid "original research", and that term is construed as meaning research that has not appeared in a refereed source. After it has appeared in a refereed journal, it may appear in Wikipedia articles that cite one or more such journals. If the article calls it the "Ballu equation", some refereed source should be cited that calls it that. See WP:OR. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: No same equation found to put Ballu equation into plagiarism list. And if it is not under plagiarism list than why to remove it. StolanAce (talk) 16:40, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please I request D.Lazard or anyone to support his statement "The equation is well known but not under this name" with reliable source that matches the same equation.

Keep: There are many similar equations but not same

157.49.172.158 (talk) 16:54, 12 July 2020 (UTC) — 157.49.172.158 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete No credible claim of notability, no reliable sources, precious little clarity in the writing. XOR'easter (talk) 17:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have stroken "well known" in my rationale for deletion. I should have written "either wrong or well known". Because of the number of specialists of combinatorics who work since centuries on this kind of identities, it is impossible that such a simple formula can be both true and unknown. If by surprise I am wrong, we must wait that the referee of an established journal of combinatorics validates the formula and accept the paper for publication. D.Lazard (talk) 18:02, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. As Donald Knuth wrote, Binomial coefficients satisfy literally thousands of identities, and for centuries their amazing properties have been continually explored. In fact, there are so many relations present that when someone finds a new identity, not many people get excited about it any more, except the discoverer. (The Art of Computer Programming, §1.2.6.) The burden of proof is on the individual who claims to have something new to say, and the place to do that is during formal peer review at mathematical journals, not here. WP:NOR. XOR'easter (talk) 18:25, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There may be many individuals stating to delete this but it would be nice to see a next comment with clear source to weight the talks.StolanAce (talk) 20:27, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- You've already said "keep" once. Repeating "keep" in boldface is considered poor etiquette. XOR'easter (talk) 20:35, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My user name looks like I steal but I don't steal. A girl stole my Ace heart and broke it. Mr. D.Lazard and Mr. XOR'easter, can I please ask you to take back the deletion sentence and favor me until you come across the same equation and then escalate the deletion process where I will only delete the inappropriate contents after seeing the source.StolanAce (talk) 22:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't have to provide a source that says it already existed under another name. You — or anyone else wishing the article to be kept — have to provide sources that indicate it is a topic discussed, under the name "Ballu equation", in peer-reviewed mathematics journals, by people other than the inventor. This is nothing personal; it is the standard we as a community apply to all topics, because that is the kind of reference Wikipedia is trying to provide. See the No Original Research policy, the General Notability Guideline, and the guideline on using secondary sources. I will also note that multiple accounts suddenly starting to edit on this topic and no other will likely raise concerns about sock-puppetry. XOR'easter (talk) 22:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR. It doesn't matter whether this is a truly original discovery (unlikely) or already known under some other name; either way, we can't keep an article like this. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks to be a restatement of the finite-difference version of the fact that the nth derivative of $x^{n}$ is $n!$ . Apropos math.stackexchange discussions: [13][14]. XOR'easter (talk) 01:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, well known and foundational (n'th difference of x^n is n factorial), too simple to be named after single person. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 04:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- And that is not the Ballu equation. You took it wrongly. Ballu equation is about stating the equation to remain unity. Also, reference provided by XOR'easter the power is n-k which implies the power keeps reducing by each term of summation series. It is different by many steps than what you have mentioned in the reference.

I can still use my previous example to state the standards to identify equation to be different. Madhava series(1340-1425){equation is e^(ix) = cos (x) + isin (x)} where Euler substituted just a pi in variable x and nothing more which makes it different.StolanAce (talk) 05:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's well known in either form. That the n'th difference and n'th derivative of (x^n / n!) is 1 is foundational in combinatorics, calculus, algebra. Dividing both sides of an equation on polynomials by a constant is not considered a serious difference and certainly not something that gives the divided equation a new name.

Also, you say it is your result and you want to use Wikipedia to share with the world, but that is the function of a blog, not an encyclopedia. See WP:BLOG and WP:NOTBLOG and WP:SOAP. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 16:02, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable Source IndrXiv is powered and link with Center for Open Science which links tracks all the major priprints like arXiv, OSF Preprints, bioRxiv and more. The date is reliable. Also, it is available on researchgate.
Non Plagiarism' I request all to back their statements on this topic with a reliable source to put under plagiarism. As, I see all the comments are made on this topic are assumptions of Plagiarism of the invention.StolanAce (talk) 05:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Except you, nobody talk of plagiarism. It is common in mathematics that several people prove independently the same result. This does not imply any plagiarism. About reliable sources, Wikipedia has a specific concept of reliable source (see WP:Reliable sources). Publications in preprint sites are not considered as reliable source for Wikipedia. Also, being new and reliably sourced is not sufficient for being included in Wikipedia. Notability is also required (see WP:Notability). Clearly "Ballu equation" is not a notable term as it does not appear in any published paper or book. D.Lazard (talk) 10:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with D. Lazard's rationale and other comments above---this is too easy to prove to be previously unknown if it had useful applications; I also note the applications given in the article seem a bit whimsical (at least as they are currently formulated). jraimbau (talk) 09:02, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. ——Serial 17:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

"this is too easy to prove to be previously unknown" Again using the same example, Euler equation is hundred times simpler than this equation, and just one step deep or ahead from Taylor equation(1685-1731) or Madhava equation(1340-1425). So, wherever you mentioned applies to Euler equation but it wont happen not it should happen to my equation.

I think that is backwards. Tables (triangles) of differences for polynomial sequences are things that can be, and sometimes are, taught to children with no difficulty. Your result is that the triangle, applied to an n'th degree polynomial, ends in a particular easy to state way, and kids can convince themselves that is so. This is part of the basic yoga of how to take sums of k'th powers, discrete "differentiation" and "integration" and so on.

The relation between complex exponentials and geometry is much, much more subtle than this. The reason the version of this from India is not part of the Western terminology is that nobody in the West knew about it until hundreds of years after Euler and De Moivre. The formula specialized to x=pi is famous for aesthetic reasons, not because making that substitution once having the general formula was considered as a big innovation. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 16:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IMPORTANT NOTE TO WIKIPEDIA: Keep this article as this article is providing the information about an unique and simple equation to the world. This is not available elsewhere and this article is providing something new and different to the world

I found this equation recently, The day anyone found that this was discovered before May 2018, They can change the name of the equation as they want on everywhere including Wikipedia but let this information be on Wikipedia by some or the other name.
Many people who will say some or the other things on this equation as its new which are easily defendable, but I can't keep replying to everyone. No one is with a solid statement which I cant defend.
I have published it on May 2018 on google scholar and I found no one as of now with same equation.
This equation is new and different with some interesting facts where so many people are interested and shocked with this equation.StolanAce (talk) 13:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- You don't seem to be listening to what everyone else here has been saying. You've taken something that is known (see this book from 1961 or this book from 1858), and you've presented it in a way that makes it hard to understand what you're talking about. Your enthusiasm for mathematics is commendable, but you would do well to find a more suitable outlet for it. XOR'easter (talk) 20:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this article is a dumpster fire that is nothing but original research. Devonian Wombat (talk) 13:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per nom. It is either OR or not notable, in either case it does not belong on WP.--Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 18:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR; insufficient, sustained coverage in third-party, independent eliable sources. ——Serial 17:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ——Serial 13:21, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Li-Meng Yan[edit]

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

This article is the product of a one off news story which has been ignored by mainstream credible journalism, and only cited by non-reputable right wing and conspiracy based news sources. Her testimony as a so called whistleblower has very serious, gaping credibility problems including an outright denial from the University she was working for (which is not based in Wuhan or mainland China) that she ever undertaken such research on "human to human transmission", and dubious claims about being a so called defector. The latter is why verifiable, mainstream media sources have ignored it. There is no proof she has any ties to the Chinese government or has any kind of insider information. As a result, I am nominating this page for deletion on the dual grounds of notability and reputability Antonian Sapphire (talk) 10:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

i feel like overwhelming public interest should allow it to stay up; however wikipedia should point out she carries no evidence. also, the above poster says that "verifiable, mainstream media sources have ignored it", which is not true. fox news has covered it, and while the network leans right, it is a serious media organization that doesn't purposefully publish fake news. Matayo41 (talk) 10:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matayo41 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep may I remind you that Wikipedia has deemed Fox News (website) a reliable source (WP:FOXNEWS) and so the subject meets WP:GNG. Of course the target of her exposé would deny her claims, that's to be expected. It's not up to Wikipedia to decide whether her claim is factual or not -- we only ought to verify what can be verified outright, including her background and the fact that her story was picked up not only by Fox News but multiple other news sources. --MewMeowth (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong University is not in Mainland China, is a reputable, independent university and is not under political control (yet). Given that the same University had a very active role in determining the course and scale of the original pandemic far beyond the mainland's wishes indicates this is not the type of institution that would pursue a cover-up. The creation of this story is also linked to Steve Bannon, who is known for being a perpetrator of fake and misleading news.-Antonian Sapphire (talk) 21:05, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If one reads the Mail on Sunday account of her story, she offers no direct evidence to her claims whatsoever. It's all hearsay and speculation. She's not a whistleblower, she doesn't know anything Antonian Sapphire (talk) 21:12, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. Let her talk, she can have her page and all her claims can be called out to what it is just claims till she is able to showcase herself. Till then deleting won’t do anything except to silence a potential whistlblower (if the information she shares turns out to be true). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.166.237 (talk) 01:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this article should be deleted as mentioned by users above, this article and the person mentioned produces no evidence, no major news organization then Fox News have reported on this issue, as such, as this page relates to current and conflicting information, it should be deleted. Jdmdk (talk) 02:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 07:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She doesn't have a google-scholar profile which makes calculating the h-index more difficult, but it appears to me to be above 20, so she is not an insignificant researcher. Furthermore, her escape from China has been covered by the international press, not just Fox News, I see Indian, British, American, Hong Kong, Portuguese, and others all covering this.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She didn't "escape" from China she was working in Hong Kong... Antonian Sapphire (talk) 10:14, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The precise status following Hong Kong national security law is debatable, but since 1997 it is One country, two systems at the least and part of the country of China.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 10:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When we discuss the immigration issues, considered the jurisdictions (i.e. Hong Kong) rather than the sovereignty (i.e. China). --hoising (talk) 13:16, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep same answer as MewMeowth. --Herobrine303 (talk) 08:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to multiple sources reporting on her, so passes WP:GNG. I really don't know if would also pass WP:NPROF though, but that's not required in this case. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep fulfilled WP:GNG due to many news reports. --hoising Medexia-i (talk) 16:43, 13 July 2020 (UTC)(talk) 08:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You can delete it at any time. But wait a little longer. There is a possibility that it may bring us what we want to know.Medexia-i (talk) 16:43, 13 July 2020 (UTC)Medexia-i[reply]

Keep Dr Li-Meng Yan is a virologist and researcher at the University of Hong Kong, Centre of Influenza Research, who specializes in "investigations of infectious diseases or inflammation via different animal models. Her research has recently focused on the study of universal influenza vaccine, cross-reactive antibodies and cellular immunology." ^[1] This is not a conspiracy theorist. Yan is a professional and her specialization would make her a credible source on COVID-19. Not only this but, since she was a researcher in a Chinese university, it would put her in a position to know whether there was pressure to not talk about or publish research about human-to-human transmission. She would also know if the Chinese government was trying to stifle investigation by Hong Kong researchers of COVID-19 in mainland China, which she also claims happened. She has even more credibility since she has actually fled Hong Kong to make these statements. It does not make sense for her to have done that to perpetrate a hoax. From this record that she has as a professional, there is no reason to question her credibility as a whistleblower. It makes perfect sense that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the University of Hong Kong would attempt to discredit her since she is acting as a whistleblower against both parties. Therefore, the University of Hong Kong comments should not be taken as a debunking of her statements. Not only is her credibility quite solid, but her story also is not simply a "one-off news story." It is common knowledge that people in Hong Kong and Mainland China have disappeared for speaking out against or simply disagreeing with the CCP. There are even examples of Doctors in the mainland disappearing for trying to publish information about COVID-19. Dr Yan's claims are also consistent with previously supposed leaked documents. Several classified documents were supposedly leaked to news organization Epoch Times that back up Yan's claims.^[2] One such document issued to regional health commissions and top-level biosafety labs in China, dated January 3rd from China's National Health Commission set out guidelines to "strengthen the management of biological samples and research activities with regard to 'the prevention and control of a major sudden outbreak of infectious diseases.'" The document stated, that agencies under the supervision of the provincial-level health commissions were “prohibited from providing biological samples, pathogens, and culture samples to any other institutes or individuals.” It also stated that these biological samples included blood samples, respiratory fluids, urine and faeces from patients. There were several other leaked documents from different districts that issued the same guidelines that COVID-19 had a high risk of transmitting person to person, should be treated with the highest caution by labs and researchers and was not to be disclosed. This is consistent with Yan's claim that Mainland China had stifled efforts of Hong Kong researchers to investigate the virus. It also shows that they were aware of evidence that COVID-19 could be transmitted person to person, yet the CCP did not disclose this. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo also claims that the US government believes China covered up the extent of the coronavirus outbreak so they could stockpile on medical supplies.^[3] All of this is a small part of mounting evidence that the Chinese government had a huge campaign of covering COVID-19 and the extent of its outbreak. Dr Li-Meng Yan's statement is part of this growing evidence. Until her statements are completely disproven, this must be kept on Wikipedia as a part of a record of this evidence and should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathanzachary56 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Single Purpose Account contributing to this debate as its only edit and pushing political points. The Epoch Times is also not a trustworthy source at all and Wikipedia's guidelines have ruled against it- Antonian Sapphire (talk) 20:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response: This is not a single purpose account. This is just the first time I have ever seen the need to make an account and I plan to use this account again if I see another time I feel my word would be useful. I am a new editor and I hope to use this account again. Also, none of what I said is a political point. I am trying to clearly state that Dr Yan is a credible person to talk about COVID-19. I have also been trying to show that her claims are even more credible because of how her claims are compatible and consistent with previously known facts about the CCP and their conduct with Hong Kong and the rest of China. If anything I stated was a political point, then this whole article is a political point since Dr Yan is talking about the supposed coverup of research and the fact that COVID-19 was human to human transmissible. Also, I now see that Epoch Times was deprecated in 2019 and I apologize. However, according to Wikipedia's list of sources, Epoch Times can still be referenced, just not to prove facts. I was not referencing them to perpetuate a conspiracy theory or show a fact. I was citing them to show documents leaked to them that talk about how the government had attempted to cover up the fact that COVID-19 could be human-to-human transmissible and the fact that researchers were prevented from investigating without explicit permission from the government. However, if Epoch Times is not trusted to share leaked documents either, that does not matter because the Associated Press (approved as reliable by Wikipedia) has stated essentially the same thing.^[4] According to the Associated Press, "On Jan. 3, the National Health Commission issued a confidential notice ordering labs with the virus to either destroy their samples or send them to designated institutes for safekeeping...The order barred Shi’s lab from publishing the genetic sequence or warning of the potential danger. Chinese law states that research institutes cannot conduct experiments on potentially dangerous new viruses without approval from top health authorities." This confidential notice is not only issued on the same date as the leaked document provided by The Epoch Times but, has almost the exact same point. The only difference is that the Epoch Times specifies what samples are prohibited from being spread to other institutes and labs, while the Associated Press does not. The point is the same. It shows that the government in China had stifled efforts of outside researchers to be able to investigate the virus. Also according to the Associated Press (AP), on January 5th, virologist Zhang Yongzhen sequenced the virus and warned the Shanghai Public Clinical Health Centre that the virus was similar to SARS and likely infectious. The Centre took Zhang's claims seriously and issued the warning, "It should be contagious through respiratory passages...We recommend taking preventative measures in public areas.” However, as both Dr Yan and the AP state, the WHO was told by the Chinese government that there was no evidence of human-to-human transmission. By January 8th, a woman with COVID-19 like symptoms attempting to enter Thailand had surfaced. However, due to the secrecy of the Chinese Government, the gene sequence found by Zhang could not be accessed for confirmation. Not until January 11th did Zhang release the sequence without the permission of the Chinese CDC. This angered the CDC and according to the AP caused his lab to be temporarily shut down. This clearly shows that Dr Yan's concerns about repercussions are genuine and that as a Doctor in China, she truly was prevented from publishing vital information without the permission of the government. By January 13th, the WHO had confirmed a case in Thailand. On January 14th, through a confidential teleconference admitted that a pandemic was about to begin and would be "most severe challenge since SARS in 2003".^[5] However, on the same day, Chinese officials told the WHO there was no evidence of human-to-human transmission leading the WHO to tweet, "Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan, #China🇨🇳."^[6] Chinese officials kept the truth hidden for another six critical days until finally admitting on January 20th, 2020 that COVID-19 transmitted between people. NONE of these points are political points. All that has been mentioned are incredibly relevant to Dr Yan's statements. Dr Yan has acted as a whistleblower against the Chinese government/CCP and stated that they stifled the ability for Hong Kong researchers such as herself to investigate COVID-19. She stated that the government knew about the human-to-human transmissibility but, prevented researchers from publishing any information at all, even if it was critical unless first approved by the CDC. She finally stated that she feared that there would be repercussions if she spoke up about her findings and was told not to talk about it. All of the points written here are pieces of evidence that support her claims. Pieces of evidence that do not rely on the deprecated source "The Epoch Times" but instead, The Associated Press, a verified reliable source and direct quotes from the WHO. I have offered these to show that her claims are not a "one-off news story" and have a real basis. To conclude, her claims do not appear to be unfounded and are in fact compatible with currently known facts about the CCP and the Chinese Government. Instead, her claims are simply part of mounting evidence that the CCP mishandled COVID-19 and withheld important information. This is incredibly important and must not be deleted so all can access her claims. Right now all evidence points to her being a genuine whistleblower since her claims seem to simply confirm what was already known or speculated on. Until it can be proven that her claims are completely wrong, this article must not be deleted. I will not delete my points backed up from the Epoch times in the original post, so all can see my original statement, this response and then compare the two. Leaving both statements will be useful in deciding whether the article must be deleted or not. Nathanzachary56 (talk) 04:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

Undecided I would have to state that if Wikipedia should decide to keep this article, unless it can be shown otherwise, it should be made clear in the article that there exists no bonafide evidence to date to corroborate Doctor Li-Meng Yan's allegations regarding China and the WHO in their not being transparent about the corona virus outbreak from the very beginning. On the other hand, if Wikipedia's policy is to publish information that can be readily verified or substantiated beyond a reasonable doubt, then I would have to say that the article should be deleted until such time evidence can be presented to confirm the doctor's allegations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:FA00:76A0:DC05:375E:5BA3:F6AF (talk) 22:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe it's in the public's interest to keep this article up until there's enough evidence to disprove her claims. As other people in this article have mentioned, the initial report that started the article is from a source that Wikipedia deems a reliable source (WP:FOXNEWS) and Li-Meng Yan was a virologist and researcher at the University of Hong Kong before she fled Hong Kong and knowing the situation with the Hong Kong national security law I'm not surprised that she fled since what she has done may be seen as undermining the power of the PRC which is subversion under Article 22 of the NSL or "provoking hatred among Hong Kong residents towards the Central People's Government" (Article 29). (Disclaimer: I'm not a legal professional and this is not legal advice. This is just my understanding of the law.) TechNerd2020 (talk) 23:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Li-Meng Yan's case has received a lot of media coverage, and according to WP:WEIGHT that should be sufficient reason for inclusion. Admittedly, much of the coverage was in Murdoch media, but many of them are WP:RS. Her story seems to be that she heard from a professional colleague that the novel pneumonia was transmitted from human to human on 31 December 2019, WHO said there was no evidence of human to human transmission on 9 January, but Yan reported her knowledge of human to human transmission to her superiors on 16 January, but they told her not to talk about it. The Chinese government started the lockdown on 23 January, so human to human transmission must have been common knowledge at that time. I'm not sure what the verifiable facts are and what the truth is, but I'd like to see the claims on both sides laid out on Wikipedia for the benefit of people who are trying to figure it out. It would be a much better story if and when more reliable sources than the Murdoch media and anti-PRC media, preferably written by reporters who understand the discovery of the covid-19 virus. --Nbauman (talk) 01:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Li-Meng Yan's case has received a lot of media coverage, and according to WP:WEIGHT that should be sufficient reason for inclusion. Admittedly, much of the coverage was in Murdoch media, but many of them are WP:RS. Her story seems to be that she heard from a professional colleague that the novel pneumonia was transmitted from human to human on 31 December 2019, WHO said there was no evidence of human to human transmission on 9 January, but Yan reported her knowledge of human to human transmission to her superiors on 16 January, but they told her not to talk about it. The Chinese government started the lockdown on 23 January, so human to human transmission must have been common knowledge at that time. I'm not sure what the verifiable facts are and what the truth is, but I'd like to see the claims on both sides laid out on Wikipedia for the benefit of people who are trying to figure it out. It would be a much better story if and when more reliable sources than the Murdoch media and anti-PRC media, preferably written by reporters who understand the discovery of the covid-19 virus. --Nbauman (talk) 01:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:6489:E400:F869:3067:C7DE:3DA (talk) [reply]

Keep For now at least. I didn't know where else to turn to find out more about her when I saw the headlines, and I expect many others will do the same. Whether or not she has been groomed by the Trump administration (or its associates) and the veracity of her claim has no bearing on the public interest in her at this point; WP:GNG has already been met. But given the extent to which this has been politicised and the amount of tinfoilhattery around her story, and SARS-CoV-2 in general, the article will surely need to be monitored for dodgy edits. Unuphrio Muralto (talk) 14:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject meets WP:GNG. This case is evolving and should be represented on Wikipedia. This gives the public a place to review the information in a public forum that has moderated controls. Also, found this reference to Pathogenesis and transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in golden hamsters publication where Dr. Leo Poon & Li-Meng Yan are listed as authors ArticleTheFirst (talk) 16:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Li-Meng Yan's news is incredibly important to the whole human future. Those who are trying to delete this entry are obviously from the propaganda machine of the Chinese Communist Party. This person has been vetted by FBI and other relevant US government officials, otherwise, FOX news wouldn't cover this in the first place. Everything that has happened over the past half a year, aligns with Dr. Yan's claim. Yan is the hero of the humankind. (Disclaimer: I don't represent anyone else than myself. I am just a concerned individual.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.246.2.72 (talk) 18:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 01:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Like the message, or don't like the message, the subject matter and this alleged whistleblower is certainly notable. And very timely. Putting this up for deletion one day after its creation, is a little too quick-draw on such a serious subject. Give this time to play out. Most whistle blowers are immediately discredited by any person or entity with something to lose. Keep this one, and let it ride its course. — Maile (talk) 15:08, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep without any doubt! Why bloody China regime is so afraid of Dr. Yan? She's a brave witness to reveal evidence of that dictatorship China and many evil Chinese' schemes to destroy U.S., the West, and the whole world by lies and the China-produced/Chinese-spawned Wuhan coronavirus in the labs. We should keep critical information and reliable sources of this crime of the century. Considering her experience and the documents she brought out to the free world, she will definitely testify much more details on China's terrorist genocide with biological warfare and long-time cover-up. It's just a beginning! Since years ago, Chinese communist party puppets on Wikipedia, along with their boss and that communist-controlled WHO, want to hide all kinds of truth! The Chinese, Russian, Spanish, Catalan, Vietnamese and more versions of Wikipedia already confirmed the importance of her role. Wikipedians can add more information for readers all around the world! --Wildcursive (talk) 17:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with whichever page is curating China's handling of COVID-19. I see no reason why this person should have a standalone article rather than a section in another article. JoelleJay (talk) 17:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided IDK but the Main Argument about Why not to delete it seems to only reason "China and Evil Chinese want to Destroy the West". Citing Conspiracies like WHO is puppet without Proof and claiming the Chinese Comrades want it deleted. Moreover overwriting Wikipedia articles that cite "Alledged" with "Certain" in some cases without Concrete Proof and an NPOV. Michael Zager (talk) 10:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very few people seem to be saying that in practice. Most are saying how the article meets WP:GNG based on the level of coverage. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:31, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Goatmoon[edit]

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

Non-notable band. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 10:50, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Finnish one-man National Socialist Black Metal project. I don't think it is notable to be included in Wikipedia. The article has an "improve sources" tag since 2015, and a notability tag since 2019. I have noticed that Goatmoon has a following in underground circles, but it is not covered in notable media. I have found a Brooklyn Vegan and an AltPress article, both are reliable sources, but these articles are not about the project itself, just news about a guy being kicked out of Maryland Deathfest because he wears a vest with a Goatmoon patch on it. The "band" (project) is covered very trivially in these articles. The rest of the results are the standard unreliable sources like databases, streaming service entries, retail sites and blogs. I have found some album reviews/interviews but they are featured on blog-like sites. Goatmoon has no profile on Metal Storm and on Sputnik Music, the whole coverage is this: "Goatmoon is a one-man black metal band." That's it. These two could've been reliable but none of these sites covered this band. I have also searched for the albums but I could not find anything reliable, just databases, retail sites, streaming service links, song lyrics sites, video sites and blogs. I have found a review for one of Goatmoon's albums on Sputnik Music (which is considered to be a RS if staff written content is used), unfortunately the review was written by a user. Goatmoon has articles on several other Wikis as well, but the sourcing is very poor in all of them, as they are sourced to unreliable sites like Discogs and Metal Archives. Some of the sources are also dead. There might be reliable sources in Finnish but I don't speak the language. So with all that being said, this project may be notable in the underground, but not notable for Wikipedia. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 10:48, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 10:48, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 10:48, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 15:49, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BAND. --TheImaCow (talk • contribs) 21:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BASIC. ——Serial 18:00, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Fenix down (talk) 22:09, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2019–20 Hashtag United F.C. season[edit]

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

My PROD declined because I was too stupid to notice someone else's PROD had been removed by the article's creator... Concern was:The relevant notability guideline WP:NSEASONS allows for season articles for "top professional clubs", whereas this club's season was played at county league level. No evidence of enough independent reliably sourced coverage of the club's season to come anywhere near general notability. Struway2 (talk) 09:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Struway2 (talk) 09:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, non-notable. Giant Snowman 09:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, we don't create season articles for minor league teams. Fails WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 10:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no justification for a season article on a team playing at such a low level (five levels below the professional leagues) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:41, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NSEASONS. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lack of resources to be able to have the article pass WP:GNG. Also the fact that the team doesn't play in a professional league doesn't help this cause. AussieHawk (talk) 12:36, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Govvy (talk) 14:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 5 7 15:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. Note that the 2018–2019 has been deleted twice before (one, two for the same reasons). Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Hopefully it won't be recreated again soon after deletion. Spiderone 16:41, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 11:40, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hats Off Productions[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Calling for an AfD Discussion. Hatchens (talk) 06:08, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 06:08, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 06:08, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose: This TV production company has 20 major shows under its belt and is a household name in India. It needs to be expanded with more details, though. --EngineerFromVega ^★ 06:22, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 01:54, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable enough. LuciferEdits (talk) 15:06, 5 July 2020 (UTC) SOCK STRIKE. Britishfinance (talk) 23:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep !votes are much more persuasive if they point to notability guidelines and independent coverage in reliable sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (t · c) buidhe 09:51, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There isn't one single reference available for this company that meets the criteria for notability as per WP:NCORP. It matters not a jot if they've produced a million of the most popular TV shows ever created - notability is not inherited. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and High King Spiderone 22:54, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NCORP and BASIC. ——Serial 18:04, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 11:40, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tune Day[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and possibly WP:MUSICBIO. Seems to be Spotify's global lead of African music and culture, but can't find anything more on his. . Fails WP:SIGCOV. Previously deleted in 2016. scope_creep^Talk 16:01, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:04, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 01:42, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:57, 4 July 2020 (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 was previously discussed at AfD and the result was delete. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions: 2016-11 ✗ delete

Logs: 2016-12 ✗ deleted

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (t · c) buidhe 09:43, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sourcing at first flance appears superficially persuasive, but is collectively little more than a collection of WP:MILL, passing mentions, blogs and primary sources. No sustained, persistent coverage is found in third-party, independent reliable sources. ——Serial 18:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with some perplexity. Unlike most WP:REFBOMB'ed articles, there does appear to be a hint that this person has a significant career in the music production industry which has been overwhelmed by the non-SIGCOV of their music performance career. I can't find anything more than passing mentions of the former, despite some impressive titles. The sources leave the impression that is one of those probably real-English "notable" people that are not wiki-English "notable" but impressions are not enough to alter this !vote. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:57, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Turner[edit]

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

Non notable actor who falls short of WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. I don’t think a 2018 article from tabloid TMZ about him defending voicing a black character on an animated Netflix series isn’t enough to warrant an article. Pahiy (talk) 22:14, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 22:14, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 22:14, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 22:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep added some references. The in-depth coverage in the Penticton Western News is particularly notable. Nfitz (talk) 04:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:00, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (t · c) buidhe 09:41, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Userfy per NOTBURO and WP:PRESERVE; I'll move it into their userspace now,, which will allow the nom/creator to decide what they want to do with it at their leisure without fear of merges or deletions, especially if they think more work can be done on it. (non-admin closure) ——Serial 18:12, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hospital warehouse[edit]

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

As creator, I find that this page may not meet notability guidelines after taking a second look and it may be suited for a merge or redirect to the main topic at Warehouse or maybe even at Hospital. Tinton5 (talk) 07:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom - notable for a subsection, but not for an entire article. Ed6767 talk! 15:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under G7, the original author requests deletion. --Lockley (talk) 15:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No point deleting it if the content might be useful in another article. Which should it be merged to?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (t · c) buidhe 09:36, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy for now so that the nom/author can decide what to do with the the info here. Java Hurricane 09:47, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ——Serial 18:16, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chicka Chicka 1, 2, 3[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to be notable for Wikipedia. I can't find any info in sources online, and I cannot find evidence for the claim that it is "New York Time best-selling". Also, per evidence here, I can see it was created by an LTA that has been present here, mainly on simplewiki, since 2011 (this isn't reason to delete, but is worth noting). The book is a 40 page children's book - I don't think it belongs here. IWI (chat) 09:35, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, I just wanted to point out that the same person also nominated the article for deletion at Simple English Wikipedia (see current AfD/RfD at SEWP). I oringinally nominated it at SEWP, in mid-2019, but this resulted in a non-consensus-keep (see here). Claims such as 'NY Times bestseller' need to be substantiated with a reference. As I pointed out in my original AfD on Sipmle in 2019: There are authors such as Selma Lagerlöf or Astrid Lindgren who wrote stories that undoubtedly are notable. Most children will have ocme in contact with stories such as The Wonderful Adventures of Nils, published in the early 20th century, or Pippi Longstocking, published 1945 to 1948. In short: if the claims cannot be substantiated, I am in favor of deletion. There are zillions of books out there; having an article on any book is unrealistic. Also: whoever closes this, please drop a short note on the SEWP discusion page. Eptalon (talk) 10:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:26, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:27, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:NBOOK with flying colours. Reviews in Publishers Weekly [15], Booklist [16], School Library Journal [17] and Kirkus Reviews [18], just for starters. The reviews are not all positive, mind you. Kirkus calls it a "misbegotten attempt to cash in on one of the great alphabet books of the modern age" Haukur (talk) 11:31, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Appears to meet WP:BOOKCRIT, per the sources presented above. I cannot access the Proquest sources, so AGF that the book reviews provide in-depth coverage. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I can access them, and they're full reviews. Northamerica1000, you can get free access to ProQuest through the Wikipedia Library Card Platform. — Toughpigs (talk) 17:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 11:41, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

José Echenique[edit]

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

I could find a notable mayor of this name, and a basketball player called Gregory Echenique. I could not confirm the information in this article (which would make him notable, if he'd played for a national team). This is an unref blp due to only refs being deadlinks. Boleyn (talk) 09:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've found an updated version of one of the dead links which is enough to confirm he competed at the 1990 World Championships as claimed, so this is no longer unsourced. However competing in international basketball isn't one of the criteria listed at WP:NBASKETBALL. Hut 8.5 12:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, delete. WP:SPORTSPERSON and the relevant bit of WP:SPORTCRIT and are intended to be summaries of the more detailed criteria at WP:NSPORT. He doesn't qualify under the basketball-specific part. Looking at the archives of that page I can see a few suggestions to add something which would include international basketball players but it hasn't happened, so I can only assume this is deliberate. Hut 8.5 06:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:SPORTCRIT having played at the highest international level.--User:Namiba 16:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article lacks anything that is truly an independent source, all the coverage is sources from the organization he was part of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The vast majority of major tournament players are on Wikipedia. References are good --Fittipaldi92 (talk) 15:18, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (t · c) buidhe 09:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He does pass WP:SPORTCRIT by having played in the 1990 FIBA World Championship which is the highest level of international basketball alongside the Olympics. He is also a player who played almost all his career in a non-english speaking country pre-Internet so sources regarding him are likely not found with a simple Google search. Alvaldi (talk) 10:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:SPORTSPERSON “A sportsperson is presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition” SportsOlympic (talk) 21:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Basketball has it's own SNG at WP:NBASKETBALL. There is an ongoing discusiion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#WP:SPORTSCRIT_clarification_on_international_competitions regarding whether SPORTCRIT applies when a more specific sport criteria exists but doesn't mention a specific international competition (FIBA World Championship in this case).—Bagumba (talk) 10:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets SPORTCRIT. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 12:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unfortunately meets WP:SPORTCRIT]], although that says more about the guideline than the subject's notability! ——Serial 18:19, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 12:57, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Furqan Foundation[edit]

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

WP:N Ladsgroup^overleg 11:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant where this is already covered. Mccapra (talk) 14:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (t · c) buidhe 09:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Mccapra.VR _talk 18:51, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant a possible search term.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 12:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ajnad Foundation[edit]

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

WP:N Ladsgroup^overleg 11:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Mccapra (talk) 14:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (t · c) buidhe 09:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per above. This seems not notable enough for an standalone article. --TheImaCow (talk • contribs) 21:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:14, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

B3SCI Records[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable record label   Kadzi   (talk) 14:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 14:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 14:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 14:51, 3 July 2020 (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 was previously discussed at AfD and the result was soft delete. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions: 2020-05 ✗ soft delete

Logs: 2020-06 ✍️ create, 2020-05 ✗ deleted

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (t · c) buidhe 09:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This fails GNG. Java Hurricane 09:50, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable --Devokewater (talk) 10:46, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 11:41, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Americans for Fairness in Lending[edit]

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

It exists, and it's a worthy organisation. It works with, or has worked with, potentially notable organisations/books, but notability is not inherited. It doesn't have the significiance to meet WP:ORG or the in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 16:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment They are mentioned in at least 7 NYT articles and have plenty of Google hits, but it seems that most are just passing references. There may be more notability hidden within, though. It also seems that they were most well-known around the housing crisis, 2006-09, and haven't been very noticeable since. KB11001 (talk) 15:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (t · c) buidhe 09:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Furthermore the organization dissolved itself in 2010 without a clear successor organization or any obvious target for a redirect. --Lockley (talk) 06:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sourcing is WP:MILL and directory-style listings. Fails NCORP. ——Serial 18:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 11:41, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exile (2019 film)[edit]

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

Lack of notability, questionable sources and only one real review from the independent blog Flix in Greece. The main author of this article appears to be the director himself. Glucken123 (talk) 09:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Glucken123 (talk) 09:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The film reviews listed in the article are basically plot presentations and/or some similar remarks in press-release type of articles [19]. As fas as the "second" award the film got at the London Greek Film Festival I don't think it's evidence of notability. User JohannesAugustin = Mazomenos usuallly refers to this Festival while promoting himself in several WPs, but it doesn't seem to be a widely recognised or influential event. Furthermore, the fact that recently almost every second year Mazomenos gets a first prize from there is an indication that this is perhaps mostly a festival held between "friends". ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 16:47, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS. @Primefac: (on erasing a name) The user has publicly declared @ Commons his true identity [20], so please undo the hidding and restore my phrasing. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 14:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Primefac (talk) 15:14, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I sould have thought of providing the diff while commenting. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 15:31, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Chalk's pretty thorough assessment: fails NFILM. ——Serial 18:21, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the sources provided and available do not constitute the in-depth, independent, reliable coverage necessary to meet WP:GNG, and that the topic is not otherwise notable. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tochnog professional[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

No evidence of any notability for this software. Looking for reliable, secondary sources giving significant attention to this gave no results. It is mentioned in books on soil technology, but without further attention given to it.

Note that Tochnog, the free version available on sourceforge, looks to be more notable, and is discussed at length in multiple professional books. This article however is specifically about TochNog Professional, a different version where the code is not publicly available. So please, in deciding on notability, make sure that you use sources about Tochnog Professional only, and not sources about Tochnog in general (like this book. Fram (talk) 08:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the list of references and examples in the article. All of these use 'Tochnog Professional' , which is the topic of this article. So the previous remark ('no evidence of any notability' seems to be made without looking at the real evidence of notability, which is easy provided in the article itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoddemanDennis (talk • contribs) 08:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So just to be clear about the remark above 'use sources about Tochnog Professional only' , that can easily be done by checking the examples and references listed in the article (done by many companies and universities around the world, including peer reviewed articles). These are not about the different free version which Fram talks about, these are in fact about Tochnog Professional, and that is in fact the topic off this article. Thank you for looking carefully. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoddemanDennis (talk • contribs) 09:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Random check, ignoring refs where you are one of the authors: this uses Tochnog 5.2; with a link to a website which is for sale. No indication that this is Tochnog Professional. This one dioesn't mention Tochnog. This one mentions Tochnog twice, not Tochnog Professional. This one, same author, mentions Tochnog once, not Tochnog Professional. (Even so, they are passing mentions, not sources about Tochnog). Fram (talk) 09:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for your perusal ——Serial 18:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

this refers to an old website, the new website is given in the article, I think that a website changes does not obstruct 'notable' , this can easily be verified with the internet wayback machine by example: https://web.archive.org/web/20180214183011/http://www.feat.nl/

I will provide in the next few days here explicit information where 'tochnog professional' is really used and results are discussed, so not just mentions, and not just some random checks, I try to limit sources for convenience to directly verifiable links

1. https://soilmodels.com/tochnog/ (not just mentioning, but actually discusses program capacilities)

2. http://web.natur.cuni.cz/uhigug/masin/umat/node6.html (discusses how to use user supplied routines in tochnog professional, prague university)

3. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/gete.201900020 (discusses tochnog professional use in groundwater, dresden university, rwe company)

4. https://www.issmge.org/uploads/publications/1/21/STAL9781607500315-2334.pdf (tochnog professional use in vibrocompaction discussed, dresden university, please notice that some people use 'tochnog' as abbeviation for 'tochnog professional' , but this paper also mentions 'tochnog professional')

5. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/300521508_Analysis_of_displacement_patterns_during_an_excavation_using_different_constitutive_models (discusses in detail real use of displacement patters using tochnog professional, dresden university)

6. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs40515-020-00108-9 (real usage discussion of tochnog professional for stone columns, dresden university)

7. http://gepro-dresden.biz/tl_files/inhalte/Publikationen/2013-09_Wegener_Herle_Akkumulation%20bleibender%20Verformungen.pdf (deformation analysis using tochnog professional, discussion and results, gepro company and dresden university)

8. http://publications.lib.chalmers.se/records/fulltext/223822/local_223822.pdf (creep analysis, numerical results with tochnog professional, chalmers university et. al)

9. http://www4.hcmut.edu.vn/~cnan/CT%20tren%20dat%20yeu/GEO_OF%20SOFT%20SOILS%20PAPER%202008.pdf (geotechnics of soft soils, bundle of papers, one with tochnog professional, notice that they refer to our old website www.feat.nl, so user talk can here see that tochnogprofessional was previously located on the now old website www.feat.nl)

10 https://books.google.nl/books?id=Q8TECQAAQBAJ&pg=PA429&lpg=PA429&dq=%22tochnog+%22+finite+element&source=bl&ots=ZJMSHLXXvW&sig=ACfU3U1ACiPuo49NGQOsuwh8cHzW_TKuQQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjct6Kuh7HqAhVmMewKHXjCDrk4ChDoATAEegQICRAB#v=onepage&q=%22tochnog%20%22%20finite%20element&f=false (pipe-soil interaction analysis with tochnog professional, actual usage and results discussion, company d'appolonia italy)

11. https://www.geolink-geotechnik.de/fachthemen/software/ (this link demonstrates that the company geolink actually uses tochnog professional since they link to www.feat.nl (our old web page), as explanation for user Fram who talks about pdf's using the word 'tochnog' and not 'tochnog professional')

12. https://books.google.nl/books?id=a6VptRd9ZHYC&pg=PA396&lpg=PA396&dq=tochnog+professional&source=bl&ots=eoFEWOYeG5&sig=ACfU3U2xK-q8c6avyXZ_Gb_yTB4NQ8dNRw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjakOWMi7HqAhVJ6qQKHUN3CmA4ChDoATAIegQICRAB#v=onepage&q=tochnog%20professional&f=false (actual usage and results with tochnog professional, notice that they refer to our old webpage)

13. http://www.svair.com/downloads/docs/pdf/research/SM_CaG09_earlyview.pdf (stochastic soil analysis with tochnog professional, prague university, actual usage and results discussion)

14. https://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid:950e7ccd-1b18-4530-866d-5dd662fe0fa4/datastream/OBJ/download (railway dynamics, thesis at Delft University of technology, numerical actual usage and results with tochnog professional)

15 http://resolver.tudelft.nl/uuid:57111d23-63b4-4110-bbc6-52f5f7929911 (pile installation, thesis at Delft University of Technology, usage and results with Tochnog Professional)

16. https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/view/wis%C2%ADsen%C2%ADschaft%C2%ADli%C2%ADche-r-mit%C2%ADar%C2%ADbei%C2%ADter-in-m-w-d-eg-13-tv-wissenschaftliche-r-mitarbeiter-in-hochschule-hochschulabschluss-bachelor-uni-at-universit%C3%A4t-kassel-1902469986/?originalSubdomain=de (job offering, Kassel University Germany, Tochnog Proffessional knowledge wanted)

17. https://odr.chalmers.se/bitstream/20.500.12380/220779/1/220779.pdf , chalmers university sweden , numerical analysis of embankments )

— Preceding unsigned comment added by RoddemanDennis (talk • contribs) 16:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--->>> more to follow soon

— Preceding unsigned comment added by RoddemanDennis (talk • contribs) 11:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit hard to take this list serious if the first one on it, this, is a page written by you (creator of the article, owner of Tochnog Professional). The second source seems to have little value in determining notability, it is part of some online material for a course (I think?) Third source indicates that Tochnog Professional was used, yes, it is not a source about Tochnog. Fourth source again indicates that they used Tochnog Professional... What is needed are sources about Tochnog Professional, not sources indicating that they used Tochnog Professional. Fram (talk) 12:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To comment: Yes: - first one on list: they took from our information (not much I can do about that, but if you want that removed just tell me , i remove that one) - second: no not part of a course, as I explained they show how to use user supplied routines in combination with the program - third: It indeed discusses usage and results with the tochnog professional program, to show that your suspect 'it is not used' since you said that you could not find that, is not correct - fourth: it is about Tochnof Professional, it discusses what the program can do, and how results are in a calculation (to see that something is notable becomes clear when it is actually used, and discussed) I propose that someone with real software experience, or experience with numerical methos, enters this discussion. Thank you.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by RoddemanDennis (talk • contribs) 12:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I claim that the software isn't used? I don't think I ever said this (or even that I suspected this), I said that sources showing that it is used are not helping to determine whether it is notable software or not. Fram (talk) 15:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See your text 'Note that Tochnog ...and not sources about Tochnog in general'. You only talk about evidence you found for 'tochnog'. You did not talk about any evidence you found for 'tochnog professional'. You at least make the suggestion to readers of this discussion that it can not be found (did you look carefully?), and at least did not help readers of this discussion to make a fair opinion. If you want to help the readers of this discussion to make a fair opinion you should not only give information about another program , but you should put effort also in finding evidence of the usage of the program of the article, and show that to readers of the discussion. You only talk about one mention of the 'tochnog professional' program that you found, that gives no further discussion. You did not put effort in finding other references which do indeed discuss application and results with the program; again, that does not help others in this discussion to make a fair opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoddemanDennis (talk • contribs) 03:47, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So as I see it: - if you searched for 'tochnog professional' carefully you should have included references about that in the first place, to be fair - if you did not search carefully , and I provide references, you can say 'i did not look carefully, so I missed references' - other readers of this article can easily verify themselves how difficult it is by doing a google search "tochnog professional" themselves — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoddemanDennis (talk • contribs) 04:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, while there aren't a lot of freely available sources that actually talk about Tochnog Professional, I think it is better to err on the side of keeping this article. It is obviously a niche tool, and I am not an expert in numerical methods, but I think Wikipedia should have articles on niche subjects with decent sources, and this article has some decent sources. --Ysangkok (talk) 23:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article is far too technical plus it seems to be advertising, either tidy it up or delete. --Devokewater (talk) 09:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete edited by a single purpose account this is just advertisng/ PR --Devokewater (talk) 09:20, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto ——Serial 18:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The information removed by user Devokewater is not advertising. That information shows clearly what the software program is meant for (just like the purpose of any other software program is also explained). And the references show interested readers where further information can be found. So the removed information was of valuable importance to interested readers of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoddemanDennis (talk • contribs) 09:47, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For better understandg, see by example the wikipedia for a similar program: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIANA_FEA There are similar lists of capabilities , and corresponding references. That helps a reader understand what a program does, and where to find more information. I do not understand why for this article that should not be allowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoddemanDennis (talk • contribs) 10:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia is not a technical manual, plus there is a conflict of interest with RoddemanDennis edits has you appear to own the business, which is against Wikipedia's rule. --Devokewater (talk) 18:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1. Wikipedia talks about software programs, and what they can calculate. See by example the diana_fea page and other FE programs. The list was program capabilities, and NOT how to do the calculations. Nothing in the list is a manual. If specifying capabilities of programs cannot be done, articles about software programs would loose most value. 2. I declared the COI in this article. User Jac16888 moved that declaration of the COI to the talk page. I guess he is an editor, and knows where it should be placed. Ask him if you want it back in the article itself. For me, its ok to put it everywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoddemanDennis (talk • contribs) 18:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if the competitors of Tochnog professional, such as DIANA FEA have a wikipage then it's a bit unfair if this one is deleted. At the moment it appears to be advertising plus a technical manual, not a wikipage. This article needs to be tidied up by independent editors. Devokewater (talk) 19:43, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article promotes a software product, and describes its use - it has no independent assessment of it. It has been written by an owner of the company that developed and sells it. The references are primary research papers which (I assume - I am unable to check) acknowledge use of the software, rather than discussing it. The existence of articles such as DIANA FEA does not warrant the existence of other equally poor articles - see WP:OTHER. If this unfairness is a problem, DIANA FEA should also go to AfD. Maproom (talk) 21:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question for User:RoddemanDennis: From your 53 references, please could you select and present us with just three or four urls that link to independent, external sources that you believe will show us how your program meets our essential notability criteria, explained at Wikipedia:Notability (software)? It sounds to me like you have produced some amazingly useful software which is utilised in many essential areas around the globe, and nothing we discuss here can ever undermine that. But there are millions of technical programmes and bits of sophisticated equipment in use around the world, but none of these will meet our notability criteria if there isn't anything to be found within in-depth reviews or publications. All else will be seen as WP:PROMOTION, I'm afraid, and there is no place for that here. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~.). Many thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick, did you see the more short easy clickable list above here (the list 1-17)? You could use numbers 7 (paper dresden university), 14 (thesis delft university), 15 (thesis delft university) and 17 (paper chalmers university). The numerical equations and numerical results are with the program of the article (tochnog professional). Thank you. RoddemanDennis (talk) 00:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, RoddemanDennis. I'm really sorry, but if those four sources are the best you feel you can point me to, then I'm afraid your article completely fails to meet our notability criteria in my view. All each one does is demonstrate that your software is used for a variety of high-level data processing or analysis (which I won't pretend I understand), and none of them describes, reviews or compares your product in any significant way that Wikipedia requires. We would call all these 'mere mentions', and that would still be so even if some of the world's most momentous decisions happen to be based upon them. So I have to conclude that the only option for this article at this time is delete. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looking at the discussion above, it seems like while there are sources, the coverage is not significant, which means it fails WP:GNG. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 00:10, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per current policy; the sources provided look good, but on ins[ectin give neither heat nor light. They comprise WP:MILL, SPS, primary or passing mentions. Fails NCORP and BASIC; also pretty much flying in the face of WP:NOTMANUAL. ——Serial 18:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete , in the absence of evidence that the award in question is significant enough for a nomination for it to confer notability. There is support for a redirect, but no consensus on a target for it. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Passage to Cathay[edit]

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

I couldn't find any sources beyond the single "capsule review". A result for White Dwarf 76 seemed promising, but it was an advert. Nothing further in the 26 Google hits. Company has no article, so no obvious redirect target. Fram (talk) 09:34, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 09:34, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to the Space Gamer review, this game was nominated for a Charles S. Roberts Award in 1985. Guinness323 (talk) 16:20, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is an extremely obscure honour. This nomination is listed at one website, that's it... A site which is, judging from the "about", actually a wiki, not even a reliable source in the first place. Fram (talk) 17:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Charles S. Roberts Awards are perhaps the most prestigious annual games awards on this side of the Atlantic. Of the hundreds of games created each year, only five are nominated in each category. While I don't use Board Game Geek for reviews, since they do not give the reviewers' names, it is an excellent source of factual and accurate information about games.Guinness323 (talk) 19:43, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this is pretty obscure. I'd prefer to merge it if there were a reasonable merge target. Hobit (talk) 16:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Dave Nalle per above comments since there are WP:RS to retain, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 17:51, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, you first have to ignore that the lone reliable source,Space Gamer, claims that the article was created by Eric Olson and doesn't mention Dave Nalle... Too bad that the only part of your vote which isn't identical to all your other votes all the time seems to be wrong, but there you go! Fram (talk) 18:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - That was an error of omission on my part. Board Game Geek and Spotlight on Games both credit Dave Nalle, founder of Ragnarok Enterprises, but Eric Olsen co-wrote this and several similarly-themed games with Nalle in 1983-1985, including Middle Passage and Pacific Passage. Article has been corrected, thanks for pointing this out. Guinness323 (talk) 18:45, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - BGG (or the rather retro layouted Spotlight) is not a reliable source, Space Gamer presumably is, so you should go with that source and credit it only to Olson (as does your other source[21], but that's probably no more reliable either). Fram (talk) 18:54, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Good points. They both definitely collaborated on Middle Passage (both their names are on the title page). However, Nalle's several autobiographical sketches often include Middle Passage but never Passage to Cathay. Olsen seems to be the clearer choice. Thanks for your help with this. Guinness323 (talk) 19:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 11:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Ashishkafle (talk) 12:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Aside from the single review, all of the other sources seem unreliable, and no additional RS can be found. We're not a game database. Even the game publisher is NN. Hog Farm (talk) 14:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Which sources seem unreliable? Luding, although in German, is an accurate source of information in a country somewhat obsessed with board games. Board Game Geek is likewise an accurate source of information about games. The article uses these sites to establish facts about the game, which are not in dispute. Notability, currently obtained from a lengthy independent review from a RS and a nomination for a major award, is what is being questioned. Guinness323 (talk) 19:43, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Boardgamegeek is a wiki and already has been shown to be incorrect on this game. The "nomination for a major award" is so important that it has received no attention in reliable sources whatsoever and is only found in that unreliable wiki. Which still leaves us with only the one review. Fram (talk) 07:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:05, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Charles S Roberts nomination is enough to demonstrate notability. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:20, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Andrew Davidson: The Roberts award seems to be very minor and it's only a nomination. I'm not sure how that provides a free pass through notability when GANG is not met. Hog Farm _Bacon 14:10, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirecrt. One obscure award, one minor review (by definition, capsule suggests a very passing one). This is better than nothing but not enough to merit passing NBOOK/GNG. I wonder if there is a wikia this kind of content could be preserved, though. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:14, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable in my opinion. - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of engineering colleges in Nepal[edit]

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

It is trivial, serves no purpose, unsourced. Very little coverage, most likely promotional Dikaiosyni (talk) 17:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 July 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question How is this "promotional"? It's a list of colleges that exist, not a brochure saying how great any of them are. XOR'easter (talk) 19:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to ~~List of engineering schools~~List of universities and colleges in Nepal#Engineering colleges. I'm not sure if Nepal needs its own list. Ajf773 (talk) 02:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep database too valuable to purge. nirmal (talk) 06:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of universities and colleges in Nepal#Engineering colleges. NavjotSR (talk) 04:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ajf773: I think you should update your rationale. NavjotSR (talk) 04:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right list. Also suggest to reformate to table instead of a bulleted list. nirmal (talk) 08:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Consider it done. Ajf773 (talk) 08:00, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there are plenty of qualifying articles to merit a standalone list; see Category:Engineering universities and colleges in Nepal. Merging to List of universities and colleges in Nepal#Engineering colleges would be the next best alternative. postdlf (talk) 19:59, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:20, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-- Don't see any valid reason given for deletion. There are enough articles that belong to this list to justify its existence. This list needs a well-defined criterion of inclusion and cleanup; but AFD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to List of universities and colleges in Nepal This is a case of WP:NOT and also an obvious content fork. WP is not a directory [22]. My very best wishes (talk) 02:44, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My very best wishes, not all lists are WP:!, or we would not have Stand-alone lists at all, of which we currently have 3600+ featured. Since this is not a list of shades of colors of apple sauce, I think the burden is on you to properly argue, not just assert, that this is an indiscriminate list (WP:SALAT). Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why this is not a legitimate list, but an example of "directory"? This is because: (a) we already have the List of universities and colleges in Nepal, (b) this list include a lot of non-notable Colleges we do not have any pages about (the Colleges with pages are included already to the List of universities and colleges in Nepal), (c) the list does not provide any information about these colleges (how about phone numbers?), (d) the list is completely unsourced. Basically, this page looks like a copy-paste from a phone book. WP:TNT. My very best wishes (talk) 14:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No consensus to delete, and after a re-list, a consensus that it meets LISTN (notable X with notable Y); however, each entry must uphold WP:BLP (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 20:02, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of people with quadriplegia[edit]

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

Completely unsourced random list of people with a disability. Some WP:BLP involved. This looks more like a category listing than anything else. Only one sentence at the top to define the list, and what it refers to is a general paralysis, not this specific one. The list was begun in 2010 and added to by several editors ... but no one has sourced anything. — Maile (talk) 13:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Maile (talk) 13:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT. If it can be sourced, then source it. Have you checked the linked articles for corresponding information, and for sources? If you can confirm that anything is inaccurate, then remove it. See also WP:NOEFFORT. Note also that lists and categories are complementary, see WP:CLN. postdlf (talk) 17:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the corresponding category is at Category:People with tetraplegia, which matches the parent article tetraplegia (to which quadriplegia redirects as a synonym); this list should also conform to that. postdlf (talk) 18:13, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It took me about 15 mins to look through all of the entries A-C and migrate over sources verifying their inclusion in this list. Clearly this can be done for the rest. I also added a proper definition from the parent article. In case it wasn't clear, keep, completely meritless nomination. postdlf (talk) 18:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NLIST Lightburst (talk) 18:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the fact you can find sources does not demonstrate that the subject is notable. I see no justification of articles treating these people as a group in a way that justifies the list article. I did remove all the unsourced entries because we clearly cannot have such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you also delete misspelled words instead of correcting them? The sources were easy to migrate from the linked articles so your blanking has been undone. The justification for the list is the same for categorizing them in Category:People with tetraplegia; we are indexing articles by a significant fact common to the subjects. Or viewed from the other direction, listing notable examples of a notable topic. postdlf (talk) 21:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Potential BLP issues are not a reason to delete a notable list.★Trekker (talk) 09:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:02, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Everything is sourced, and the page has a clear inclusion criteria. No BLP issues here. Quite laughable that a huge chunk was blanked instead of making some attempt to source it. Christopher Reeve? Nah, never heard of him. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable people with a notabe, well-sourced condition that has in most cases (re)defined what they do passes LISTN. Not per Trekker, however, as BLP is very much a reason to delete anything, as long as it's not miused. ——Serial 18:30, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Colonna (typeface)[edit]

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

It exists and is listed among other typefaces. But in terms of significance or in-depth coverage, I couldn't find it. Boleyn (talk) 13:37, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:01, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom (I only found WP:MILL, pasing mentions in a WP:BEFORE; can't redirect per LISTN? ——Serial 18:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grigori Gvardeyev[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. The only sources I could find are database entries. // Timothy :: talk 08:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 08:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 08:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the player hasn't even made a first team appearance. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:00, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNOTABLE - hasn't made an appearance as noted by User:REDMAN 2019 and doesn't meet notability guidelines as there are no significant coverage articles WP:SIGCOV. Lacks credible references. Mrbuskin (talk) 12:26, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:31, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remontada[edit]

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

WP:NOT#DICT // Timothy :: talk 08:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 08:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 08:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:39, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Spiderone 08:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it has corresponding article's in two other interwiki's languages, in French (where it bas been translated) and in Arabic. --Martopa (talk) 10:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OTHERLANGS Spiderone 16:39, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERLANGS is part of an WP:ESSAY. WP:NOT#DICT as part of WP:NOT is a WP:POLICY. // Timothy :: talk 03:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Still, in my humble opinion, not a valid reason for keeping the article but I'm happy to agree to disagree. Spiderone 12:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 11:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or maybe move to Wiktionary instead. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:32, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary and there is nothing encyclopedic in the coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:28, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Upset (competition) (or possibly Comeback (sports), but seems less in common use), possible merge of brief mention of this. This is a foreign language dictionary definition, and there is no need for a separate English language entry for the foreign entry.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 05:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) Smartyllama (talk) 15:59, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Estadio Argelio Sabillón[edit]

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

It is a stadium and it exists. At best this should be a merge/redirect to C.D. Real Juventud. Doesn't have an article on Spanish Wikipedia and only an unreferenced one-liner on French Wikipedia. Stadium not significant in terms of its history, size or longevity. Boleyn (talk) 09:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:38, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:38, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:38, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:38, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly passes WP:GNG, just needs a little research in periodicos catrachos. I've improved it a bit - need to do more research, the articles I've found aren't great, but it's clearly significantly covered as a top flight stadium. SportingFlyer T·C 18:18, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:20, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes GNG. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG. There's no need to delete it. ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 21:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination due to helpful comments above and improved refs being found. Boleyn (talk) 08:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:30, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nep Stuff[edit]

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

Non-notable; an attempt to use Wikipedia for promotion. Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:09, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:09, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:09, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:09, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: self promotion. Non notable. nirmal (talk) 10:36, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable website. Fails GNG. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 08:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. I don't see any claim of importance. Pichpich (talk) 19:41, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Genius (2018 Hindi film). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:30, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dil Meri Na Sune[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONG. The article is generally poorly sourced with two mentions in www.radioandmusic.com (which source very little of the article content and contain more info on the artists than the song), one apparently dead link and the Youtube video for the song. Some material could be merged into Genius (2018 Hindi film) or Atif Aslam // Timothy :: talk 07:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 07:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 07:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no potential in merging since it fails WP:NSONG. Siddsg (talk) 18:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Genius (2018 Hindi film): Per nominator. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Genius (2018 Hindi film): Per nominator - nothing to support this meeting WP:NSONG, it's just there essentially as a promotional article. Ravensfire (talk) 17:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Genius (2018 Hindi film) // Timothy :: talk 18:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion: The article should be added to stub category. Empire AS ^Talk! 02:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:10, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deena Katz[edit]

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

Can't identify her nor see why she is notable. Fails WP:BIO. Calling for an AfD discussion. Hatchens (talk) 05:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 05:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. KidAd (🗣️🗣🗣) 05:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable --Devokewater (talk) 07:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to being a notable academic. Not all professors are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:52, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:22, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:22, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:11, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vinod Adani[edit]

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

He might be a brother of a notable businessman but notability is not heredity and cannot be passed on. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. But, qualifies WP:BIORELATED, as an invalid criterion. Calling for an AfD discussion. Hatchens (talk) 04:13, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 04:13, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 04:13, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable --Devokewater (talk) 07:35, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly not notable. 124.123.182.61 (talk) 23:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Supriya Chakrabarti[edit]

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

In a source search and given the sources of the article, I didn't find enough to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC. Being a principal investigator isn't sufficient to satisfy WP:NACADEMIC, particularly for a non-major project. Sam-2727 (talk) 03:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Sam-2727 (talk) 03:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 05:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. -Hatchens (talk) 16:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please let me know in what parts I can improve the article. The article supports WP:NACADEMIC in criteria 6. As in criteria 6, S. Chakrabarti is appointed as the director of a major academic institution. Also in criteria 4, his academic work has made a significant impact in the area of undergraduate studies with association with notable institutes. Also as of criteria 2, he has got the prestigious G.W.G award. Yes its true that it does not meet the criterias well. But that does not mean that he is not notable. Please provide me what edit I should or can do to improve the article. -AnkurWiki, 2:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

AnkurWiki, I'm actually personally unsure if being the director of the "Lowell Center for Space Science and Technology" meets NPROF 6. Also, although the "GWG" (located here) award might be an impressive award, I don't know if it rises to the standard of "highly prestigious on a national or international level." Regardless, this is certainly on edge case, in my opinion. Sam-2727 (talk) 04:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry but I think that citation 6 meets properly as the director is the top post (or at least one of the ) of a reputed academic institution. Citation 2 partially meets. His work is notable on the Picture C projects (see here ) and on finding habitable planets. Yes its true that the article can be improved in some parts and sections. But nothing is found to prove him not notable, in my opinion. - AnkurWiki, 09:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 21:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was initially on the fence because of the "known for" blue links in the infobox, but now I see they just link to sections of his biography rather than standalone pages. The blue link for LoCSST also just leads to the UMass wiki page, not even a subsection dedicated to it there. This doesn't demonstrate notability. JoelleJay (talk) 17:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Due to lack of sufficient independant significant coverage to date. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:18, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Alack of persistent coverage in third-party, independent reliable sources is too commonly a problem for our academician-articles. ——Serial 18:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:14, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nils-Martin Crawfurd[edit]

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

Non-notable voice actor from Norway. Lacks sources and a Google search does not help the case. Kaszper (talk) 02:41, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 05:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 05:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable. --Devokewater (talk) 07:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I thought the voice actor of Ash Ketchum would be notable, but nothing has been written about him in Norwegian media. Geschichte (talk) 13:44, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Non notable. Nika2020 (talk) 18:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing even close to approaching the level of sourcing needed to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of The Chronicles of Narnia characters. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 03:48, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. and Mrs. Beaver[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. The article was deprodded without a rationale, despite specifically being asked for. Sigh. Here we go. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:44, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:44, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:44, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of The Chronicles of Narnia characters. I could only find minor coverage in a few sources. For instance, this book and this journal article have some critical analysis on Mrs. Beaver. This book mentions both characters, but it is only in the context of plot summary. I could not find enough to prove significant coverage. I propose a redirect as the character names may be viable search terms. Aoba47 (talk) 03:18, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of The Chronicles of Narnia characters, per Aoba47. The first source mentioned above actually is pretty good, though it only really focuses on Mrs Beaver, rather than the couple. But the rest are just very brief mentions or plot summaries. There is not enough WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources to support an independent article. Rorshacma (talk) 06:12, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Per above. --Devokewater (talk) 07:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's plenty of detailed coverage as these are significant characters in a major work which has been the subject of much literary analysis. Per WP:NEXIST, "The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable." Our policies WP:ATD; WP:NOTPAPER;WP:IMPERFECT and WP:PRESERVE apply and so there is no case for deletion. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- You still need to show (link) to sources with that coverage. And considering your record on linking to bad sources, please either quote passages from them or describe how they discuss the topic, to show is they are not plot summaries or mentions in passing in half a sentence or so. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of The Chronicles of Narnia characters. There is no evidence that this couple passes GNG. A rambling WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES claim does not change the fact that these characters are not notable. Devonian Wombat (talk) 13:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of The Chronicles of Narnia characters - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not meant to have articles on every names or in this case psuedo-named character in a work of fiction. We need substantive coverage of their contribution and importance in the work from 3rd party indepdent sources, which is lacking in this case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of The Chronicles of Narnia characters. I doubt there is significant coverage of just the beavers, but if there is, I will change my vote. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete / Redirect due to lack of coverage in reliable third party sources, as per the WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:23, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to A Witch Shall be Born. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 03:39, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Taramis[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. The article was deprodded without a rationale, despite specifically being asked for. Sigh. Here we go. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:44, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:44, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:44, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to A Witch Shall be Born, the story she originated from. Searching for sources largely just bring up plot summaries - either for this novella or for Conan the Destroyer, a film in which one of the villains shares a name, but virtually nothing else, with the novella's character. I found one paper that has a couple of paragraphs discussing the movie incarnation of the character, here, but there is not a whole lot there, and it is the only source I can find that really goes beyond simple plot summary or name dropping. The current article is nothing but a nearly indecipherable plot summary of a comic adaptation of the novella and a shortened version of the plot summary that already exists at the Conan the Destroyer article, and there are no sources being used that discuss the character herself. So, merging would not be appropriate in this case. But, Redirecting to the article on the novella, which itself discusses and links to the article on the film, would make sense for navigational purposes. Rorshacma (talk) 06:02, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to A Witch Shall be Born. There does not appear to be enough coverage on the character to meet the significant requirements of WP:GNG, but there is a viable redirect target and this is a viable search term so it would be more helpful to guide any readers looking for this character to the novella page. Aoba47 (talk) 18:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Magic item (Dungeons & Dragons) , with the history being preserved for anyone who wants to merge any useful content. There are several assertions here that the topic is notable enough for a standalone article, but precious few that provide the sources to back up this claim. Even among the better-reasoned !votes, I'm only seeing one substantive reliable source being presented. References to magic bags in other media aren't especially relevant; if someone wanted to write an article about that topic, they are welcome to do so, but that material is out of scope here, and so those arguments carry no weight. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:24, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bag of holding[edit]

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

Article was restored by User:Rosguill, but continues to fail WP:GNG, similar to the now-deleted Magic satchel article. It is largely referenced to primary D&D related sources (see WP:PRIMARY) and contains an example farm of similar items in works of popular culture. The symbolism section still doesn't indicate WP:SIGCOV. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 17:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm neutral here, the article was restored as part of an RfD outcome without prejudice to further renomination for AfD or merging. May get around to actually reviewing the sources and making a real !vote. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - At the very least, the entire "In other games and media" section needs to go. Not only is it completely comprised of trivia, cited either to no sources or to pieces of fiction, it also contains a number of items that are not Bags of Holding, but to items that someone thought were similar enough to include here, which is complete WP:OR. As a whole, though, this also fails the WP:GNG. The article on the broader topic of "Magic Satchel" was already deleted due to the failure finding any amount of significant coverage in reliable sources, and this specific example of the concept is the same. There are plenty of results on searches, but these are either primary sources, unreliable sources, or very trivial mentions that do not discuss their notability in depth at all. Even the "symbolism" section is nothing but trivial mentions. One of the examples is someone just using the term when talking about a completely different topic, and the usable coverage in this article is literally "someone used the term in a sentence once!". That is not remotely WP:SIGCOV, and pretty much all other results in searches are the same. Rorshacma (talk) 18:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update I would probably also be fine with a Merge of some sort to an article like Hammerspace. As mentioned in my comment below, as well as Hobit's, while there really is not much in the way of WP:SIGCOV on the magic item itself, there are a lot of minor uses of it showing that the term is used fairly commonly, so it would probably be worth it to document it in the appropriate broad topic. Rorshacma (talk) 17:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I respectfully disagree with the assertion that the sources in the Symbolism do not constitute significant coverage. An entire chapter of the Routledge text is based on the D&D Bag of Holding: "The Invisible Bag of Holding: Whiteness and Media Fandom," by Benjamin Woo. The nomination and supporting votes seem to be based on the content of the article, which could be improved, rather than a considered assessment of the sources--both those cited in the article and those not cited but for which WP:NEXIST. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 20:39, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the delete votes claim that all of the sources outside of the Sybolism section are primary. This is inaccurate and, dare I say, illustrative of a general lack of attention to detail commonly found among serial deletionists. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 21:36, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no secondary sources that address the subject WP:DIRECTLY and WP:INDETAIL, as described in our general notability guideline. Notwithstanding the singular secondary source about white privilege (where white media fandom is very much whole other subject), this article is wholly cited to primary sources. Wikipedia doesn't create endless spinoffs of primary content, and is supposed to keep primary content in WP:DUE weight as part of an encyclopedic article. On top of that, much of that primary content is coming from WP:GAMEGUIDEs, which aren't independent of the subject, and which also leads to game-guide style descriptions that are WP:NOT suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Magic item (Dungeons & Dragons) (as it was before it was restored) per above comments since there are WP:RS to retain, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 20:59, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NEXIST, as explained by AugusteBlanqui, and our policies WP:ATD, WP:NOTPAPER, WP:PRESERVE, &c. Note that there's still more to put into this as it does not yet mention that Mary Poppins had one – see Myth, Symbol, and Meaning in Mary Poppins, for example. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since Mary Poppins pre-dates Dungeons and Dragons by a good deal, she most certainly did not have one. This article is specifically about a particular D&D magical item, not the concept of "larger on the inside" objects in general. Mary Poppin's bag is actually mentioned at Hammerspace, the broader topic that talks about the concept. Which actually makes me think that, if anything, this D&D item could possibly be mentioned and redirected there. While the many brief mentions of this D&D item in sources is not enough to support an independent article, they are probably enough to warrant a being discussed at that article. Rorshacma (talk) 14:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IAR keep sources are light, and merge isn't crazy. But this idea has certainly entered the mainstream [23], [24], [25], and [26] among many many others. Yes, I know about WP:GHITS but this has about 1,000,000 such hits as well as more than 4000 news hits. It's a common enough phrase/idea that we should probably document it. That said, I'm not thrilled with the current article--too scattered. I'd rather hear more about the history of the idea. Hobit (talk) 17:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"hometheaterreview.com" says "Don't bring your Bag of Holding or twenty-sided dice to the D&D Building in Manhattan. I mean, you can, but expect a few strange looks. In this case, "D&D" stands for Decoration & Design". So that's not about D&D and not about the bag of holding.
New Statesman' piece called "The time that I saw my balls on a giant television" is about checking for testicular cancer. "I think you should also take a few moments now and then to examine yourself for lumps, just because there’s nothing wrong with checking what treasure is in your Bag of Holding, and I don’t think you should feel at all bad or embarrassed about having to go to see a doctor if you have any concerns". Bag of holding is cutesy term for scrotum. Not really about the bag of holding, right?
Gizmodo's "We're Almost Certainly Getting Some New AirPods—What Will They Be?" is a piece about rumored new Apple AirPods. "As someone who uses his pockets like a bag of holding, the AirPods diminutive size compared to some wired earbuds or folding Bluetooth headphones can’t be beat, especially if you like to travel light" is the only mention of the term.
The Macworld piece is a review of a leather messenger bag. The only mention is "I’m willing to say that if life were a D&D campaign, this is as close to a Bag of Holding as you’re going to get."

These four sources are passing mentions and do not help with notability. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:54, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree that the links I provided are all passing mentions. But they all assume the reader understands the reference to what a "Bag of Holding" is. The point of those links is to show that the term is in common enough use outside of the context of D&D that we should have an article if possible. The sources in the article are maybe above the bar, but the ubiquity of the term is such that I think we should have an article (thus the IAR part). Hobit (talk) 04:19, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to Magic item (Dungeons & Dragons) or better, to a list of DnD magical items. Outside of primary sources (novels, games), there topic is mentioned only in passing here and there (see section on "Symbolism"). Until we can find at least an in-depth paragraph about this, preferably in at least two sources to satisfy GNG requirement of in-depth coverage, I don't see how this can warrant a stand-alone article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrew Davidson. Captain Galaxy (talk) 09:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is refered to directly in secondary sources and the Symbolism section seems worthwhile to me. Due to the widespread nature, shown both by Hobit and the appearances in other media in the article, I think this article provides a piece of knowledge to users of Wikipedia would want, so it's better for Wikipedia to have it than to delete it. Speaking of widespread nature, the term is also used in scientific literature, in addition to the mentioned example: this dissertation uses knowledge about the bag of holding to distinguish a sub-population from the general public. Responsibly and Accurately: Dwelling in Imagined Worlds also uses it as an example, though I cannot access it to see the extent. Can anyone else? Lastly, Of Dice and Men explains and praises the Bag of Tricks, sub-topic of this article. If all that together should still not be seen enough to keep the article, a proper merge to Hammerspace seems the best course to me. Daranios (talk) 10:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~Merge - well I see that you guys are intent on keeping this thing. I've cut the worst of the WP:OR and off-topic material from the article, but it remains weakly-sourced and poorly-focused. Me, I'd merge it to Magic item (Dungeons & Dragons) which would make a lot more sense as it is both stated to be one of those, and would make a useful short section there. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is not enough WP:SIGCOV about the fictional item beyond the game. Description, variations and "interaction with other magical items" are all WP:INUNIVERSE and do not help establish stand-alone notability. It might be iconic for D&D, but so are coins for Mario and golden rings for Sonic. And a single scholar using a fictional item as a metaphor doesn't somehow mean that item is notable. I already took out that part. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Soetermans, I am confused about your approach: You critize that the article does not contain enough beyond the game. But you have also removed a part where a scholar extended the concept beyond the game. Secondly, you say "a single scholar using a fictional item as a metaphor doesn't somehow mean that item is notable". If I say we found three, will you call for five? Daranios (talk) 13:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removing a RS to make for a more compelling deletion argument is bad form. I restored it. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 14:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daranios, sorry if my reasoning wasn't clear. What I meant with "beyond" the game, is how potential reliable sources treat the object outside of its in-game use. So creation ("the bag of holding was created by...", "it was inspired by..."), development ("initial playthroughs with the bag of holding were...", "it was decided to expand the inventory room because..."), reception ("Jane McDoe of Random Media Outlet considers it to be..."), legacy ("Hideo Kojima said he was always fascinated with the bag of holding...", "Remedy Games' setting of Control was based upon..."), that kind of information. That connects it to the game, but still meets stand-alone notability. Mentioning the metaphorical usage of the scholar is not notable, because it's not about the actual fictional item, but about its function (hence it is a metaphor). And it's a poor one at that, they still have to explain what it actually does ("white privilege is much bigger than it appears from the outside"). soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hi AugusteBlanqui, I don't see why the usage of a fictional object as a metaphor by a scholar about white privilege would somehow make the subject notable. I still don't think it's should be there, but we can wait out this discussion. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see what the closer says. If the result is delete then the source is immaterial, if the result is otherwise the closer can indicate the extent to which an entire book chapter premised on the D&D Bag of Holding contributed to GNG. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 14:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. I would follow AugusteBlanqui's side of the argument here, but let's see what's decided in the end. Daranios (talk) 16:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There are reliable sources for this article that is longer than most crufty DnD articles and all the content is not random in-universe stuff.★Trekker (talk) 22:57, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi *Treker, what sources would those be? Right now, it's primarily referenced by WP:PRIMARY sources, like the Dungeon Master's Guide and the actual role-playing game. I've already stated that a metaphorical use of the item in a scholarly piece doesn't help with notability. The section "In other games and media" is trivial at best: that the boat in Zork "fuctions as a bag of holding" doesn't say anything about the actual fictional item. The Pratchett one is WP:OR / WP:SYNTH. And the 8-bit Theater is referenced by a post on some on a random internet forum. Also in this discussion, I don't see any significant, independent and reliable coverage by several sources. I'm having a hard time finding reliable sources, if there are, I'd like to see them. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:54, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Soetermans, a question about the the appearance in Discworld: Is the quote incorrect? Otherwise, how can it be original research that this is an appearance of a bag of holding (with typical Pratchett addition), when the source directly says it's "a classic Bag of Holding"? Daranios (talk) 11:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daranios, I'm not questioning that it's mentioned in Discworld, but I'm saying that a mention in another piece of fiction doesn't help establish notability for a fictional item. It's WP:OR / WP:SYNTH because we're not pointing to a reliable source that says that Pratchett references the bag of holding, but it's cited directly. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Soetermans, to quote the corresponding guideline, OR "includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." As it is stated directly in the source, no analysis or synthesis is needed, no conclusion needs to be drawn. Therefore, in this case, it is not original research. Daranios (talk) 13:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obviously insufficient sourcing to pass WP:GNG Chetsford (talk) 05:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Magic item (Dungeons & Dragons) per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD Lightburst (talk) 16:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge as suggested by several editors, per WP:ATD. The only independent source here is off topic. This article was already a redirect before it was restored, and then went right back to AFD. These discussions shouldn't go around in circles, and there has been a consensus that this shouldn't be a stand-alone article. We should all support the spirit of WP:ATD, and we can mention things in the context of a more substantial article with better sources. It's better to have one well-sourced list than several non-notable (or questionably notable) stubs. Jontesta (talk) 20:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back as suggested above. Bearian (talk) 20:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Magic item (Dungeons & Dragons), item is not notable on its own, as it clearly fails WP:GNG, but it deserves a mention at that page, which it does not currently have. I would prefer deletion over keeping the article. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BD2412 T 00:39, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems to me notable enough, especially if Hermione's beaded bag, which sounds close enough, was added. Are there no other examples that could be added? Gah4 (talk) 04:36, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this article is on a specific D&D item, not the general concept of magic bags found in all of fiction. A similar object appearing in Harry Potter, that does not even bear the same name, does not confer notability to the D&D item. The idea of magical containers that hold more than they appear have existed long before D&D, and listing a bunch of similar, but completely unrelated, examples does not belong in the article. Rorshacma (talk) 05:41, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to the target already suggested. Per lack of notability about this particular bag in D&D as a subject. Maybe some magical bags are notable, which is extremely questionable anyway, but this article is about a particular one that isn't notable. You can't fake it by trying to cite a movie that was created years before D&D was even around or by referencing an article about Apple AirPods. Those things are completely irrelevant. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:44, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect back to Magic item (Dungeons & Dragons). Object isn't notable and doesn't have WP:SIGCOV in sources. Even if you can verify it exists there is nothing to say that isn't just the obvious game mechanics of it being a magic bag. Adding other magic bags from other games is making the article worse, not better. The D&D magic item article is the right way to handle it. Archrogue (talk) 18:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge I've not analyzed the sources in detail but there is obviously enough there to have built a real and encyclopedic article. North8000 (talk) 15:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi North8000, could you elaborate where there is "obviously enough there"? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 19:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant is the it is a real article, with sourced covering of a range of areas....it's not just a repetition of the game instructions. So I was saying that there's enough sourcing there to do that which is a part of the intent of GNG. Again all in the context of "I've not analyzed the sources in detail". One other factor is that the games itself is very notable. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment / re-merge / re-redirect if it helps produce a consensus. In my earlier, comment I supported deletion because still this article is resting on one third party source, which is ostensibly about white privilege and only refers to this bag to make a wordplay on Peggy McIntosh's invisible knapsack theory of white privilege. I stand by my earlier comment, and my support for deletion. But I'm adding this comment as I've dug into the edit history, and found that the recent consensus was to cover this in a shorter mention in a larger notable article. Wikipedia shouldn't be a WP:BATTLEGROUND, and we should avoid unraveling consensus, as much as possible. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:35, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, for this suggestion it would be interesting to know what could be a parent topic, with what could it be put together, what could be sources for related concepts? ZXCVBNM mentioned the Magic satchel, but that has been has been rejected, deleted and discarded rather than combined with something to make use of it, so we don't know if something helpful was there. Daranios (talk) 18:14, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How about a section in Magic item (Dungeons & Dragons) or else a new D&D sub-article like Dungeons & Dragons) game objects North8000 (talk) 18:50, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I see a lot of people suggesting the current "Magic Item" list. The redirect previously pointed there,, and it's already mentioned there. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as far as I have seen, the only mention there is the See also-link pointing here, which obviously will no longer be useful when it would be redirected. Or did I overlook something? So to do a proper merge, a new type of section would need to be created in Magic item (Dungeons & Dragons). I can see some merit in that, but as the sources, such as they are, also point towards the use of the term outside the game (as a metaphor or otherwise), I overall stick to my "Keep" opinion. Daranios (talk) 10:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Considerable levels of notability, an iconic item in all kinds of gaming contexts. Stifle (talk) 08:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://virtual.keystonesymposia.org/ks/speakers/view/1097

[2] ttps://epochtimes.today/leaked-documents-chinas-lab-biosafety-concerns-point-to-beijings-cover-up-of-ccp-virus/

[3] ttps://www.cbc.ca/news/china-coronavirus-covid-19-u-s-intelligence-documents-1.5554150

[4] ttps://apnews.com/3c061794970661042b18d5aeaaed9fae

[5] ttps://apnews.com/68a9e1b91de4ffc166acd6012d82c2f9

[6] ttps://twitter.com/who/status/1217043229427761152?lang=en

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]