Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 July 5

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 4 July	6 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 WP:SNOW keep. Per the discussion, the article will also be moved to Grand Loge des Philadelphes. BD2412 T 16:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Philadelphes[edit]

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

Article has no sources or references, it’s not easy to read or understand. Devokewater (talk) 23:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 02:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 02:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and/or Move to 'Grand Loge des Philadelphes'. There are sources available to back up this this article. Would also note corresponding, sourced, articles in fr and it wikis. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 01:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources added. I also agree with the proposed move. Mccapra (talk) 03:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep thanks to the work done by AleatoryPonderings. It is true, however, that Freemasonry is not easy to understand; I feel you on that one. — Toughpigs (talk) 04:15, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks to @AleatoryPonderings for adding the references. When I started this page back in 2006 adding references was not the norm on Wikipedia. Leutha (talk) 09:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG. A case of WP:BEFORE. Edwardx (talk) 11:07, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks AleatoryPonderings + Leutha, Move to 'Grand Loge des Philadelphes'. --Devokewater (talk) 11:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 13:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep It’s pretty much obvious at this point... Eternal Shadow Talk 16:30, 6 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 09:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adperio[edit]

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

No significant coverage in the article and I couldn't find any per WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 23:51, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability. Mccapra (talk) 03:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's PR Devokewater (talk) 10:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability. Promo. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:35, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although there are few Press releases available, But I also found a couple of references which i guess are RS like Inc[[1], and this [2]. Dtt1^Talk 09:46, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Black Joker[edit]

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

Absolutely fails notability guidelines. Literally cannot find any sources for this subject. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 23:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tried a number of searches and could only find FB & Spotify type links, which obviously fail WP:RS. Not a single link was even borderline reliable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:51, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7 as an article about a non-notable musician that doesn't make a credible claim to importance. Hog Farm _Bacon 00:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence of the lede claims the subject's significance. The problem is the the article's creator is making promotional articles of non-notable subjects. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 00:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What he said. If it qualified as A7, I would have just unilaterally deleted it, but they are making enough of a claim to avoid Speedy Delete, which is rather limited. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - Flori4nK ^{t • c} 14:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. (found nothing, nn) - Flori4nK ^{t • c} 14:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just barely doesn't qualify for an WP:A7 or a WP:G11, but still is clearly non-notable. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No evidence of notability. I always find it strange when there are no reliable sources on a musician (or band) who is (/are) active for a long time. This guy has been rapping since 2009 and it seems nobody noticed him. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 16:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all of the above Spiderone 06:23, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above -- Ab207 (talk) 18:10, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has only been around for two years, and none of his music has been ever been successful yet. Koridas 📣 05:31, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harjaspreet singh[edit]

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

Non-notable director and film maker. Most of the films directed are not notable. Clearly fails WP:GNG Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 23:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 23:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources, non notable. --Devokewater (talk) 23:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Nothing could be found. Created by an SPA who created a similar article at AFD, with no available sourcing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 23:59, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete bordering on WP:A7/WP:G11 territory. Best, GPL93 (talk) 00:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:MILL - directors of music videos, cinema-photographers, and the like are not automatically notable. Bearian (talk) 01:54, 10 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 12:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The 8th Plague[edit]

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

Non-notable film, does not have significant coverage from independent sources, seems to only have some blog-style reviews online, per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 23:04, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable film.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, this film has no indication online that it is anything other than a low budget, independent release with no coverage. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:09, 11 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 12:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Olajumoke Oduwole[edit]

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

Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence doesn’t satisfy our general notability criteria. A before search shows no evidence of notability Celestina007 (talk) 22:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Celestina007, got a notification of you recommending that this article be deleted and it was a bit surprising for me, seeing that the person in this article is a notable Tech expert/speaker in Nigeria and has been featured on many credible media in the country and internationally. As a matter of fact, she was even listed as one of the top 30 persons in Africa by Forbes. I left some of these references on this article and I'm surprised by the nomination for it to be deleted. But I would like to know if there is anything I could do to make the article better. Cheers. Felixdgreat. —Preceding undated comment added 04:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Felixdgreat, she may be a tech speaker(whatever that means) be on the list of Forbes whatever but per gng we require in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject to establish notability. Celestina007 (talk) 04:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007, thanks for your prompt response, much appreciated. However, I think there are some credible independent sources cited... Forbes is a global body and hugely recognized for their listings and there's also the world bank verifying her and her business as legit. And of course, a few of the top media houses in the country wrote about her independently(I made sure to avoid interview links) to avoid something like this. I'm keen to get this to work as I think she deserves a page for the work she does in the Nigerian tech space, tell me what I can do to improve the article, maybe I can fix it. About the 'Tech speaker' thing, she is an expert in that field and gets invitations to speak at Tech events, I could add links/reference to events she spoke at if that helps. Cheers.Felixdgreat

Delete a non-notable software developer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:07, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article seem to be about someone notable enough, considering the number of highly placed local and international organisations that have recognised her works. Maybe a few more citations needed but it definitely does not deserve to be deleted. I've seen far less notable people in her field have their pages listed. We should find a way to improve this article, as opposed to deleting it entirely.Felixdgreat (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:19, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — It should be noted that the editor above is the article creator. Celestina007 (talk) 19:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~. Refined NG and Urban Woman Mag combined with the minor coverage Oduwole has received for being on the Forbes 30Under30 list just pass GNG in my opinion. (note: The Forbes list itself doesn't contribute to GNG as being mentioned in a list is generally considered trivial coverage, but her being listed in the list has garnered some coverage that is non-trivial although not entirely significant.) Samsmachado (talk) 18:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - see the ensuing discussion between myself and Celestina for my rationale for changing my !vote. Samsmachado (talk) 03:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Samsmachado, The two sources look okay to you right? “Refined NG” & “Urban Woman Mag “ but they aren’t because they appear to be self published sources (self published sources are generally unreliable because they have no editorial oversight or reputation for fact checking) Furthermore being listed in a Forbes 30 under 30 doesn’t satisfy WP:GNG.Celestina007 (talk) 19:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007. Urban Woman Mag appears to have a standard amount of editorial oversight (see their submissions page here UWM Submissions Policy) so I don't entirely know where you're getting the idea that that source is self-published or unreliable. RefinedNG is sketchier as it doesn't have a page where they list staff or submissions policy but they do have an "editor's picks" section (scroll down to the bottom of the page and it's on the right side) so I (whether justifiedly or not) assumed they have an editor and are not a self-published blog. I agree that RefinedNG is dubious which is why I referenced the coverage about the Forbes list. I acknowledged that the Forbes list doesn't satisfy GNG. The point I was making was that the coverage about the Forbes list (that did not come from Forbes itself) in Pulse and PM News adds up to something (per WP:BASIC bullet point 1) that aids the other two sources in meeting GNG. Hope that clarifies. Samsmachado (talk) 02:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Samsmachado, it may be futile arguing policy with you or anyone else after they have made their !vote it’s only very few people who are humble enough to change a !vote after they discover they may be wrong but I’d explain to you all the same. Recently the PulseNg is not considered to be a reliable Nigerian source & even so the source Pulse literally just names her as one of the people on the Forbes 30 under 30 list it doesn’t discuss her at all & that’s the same thing as this other source you provided above; PM News it literally just mentions her in a list article & that’s all now read what WP:BASIC says if the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. From that we understand, the other sources you provide in order to satisfy WP:BASIC must have a level of depth but the aforementioned sources have no depth none whatsoever as she is merely just named as making the forbes list along other Nigerians, Secondly if the sources are on trivial things eg “making the Forbes list” then it doesn’t satisfy WP:BASIC. If the sources discussing someone lacks in-depth then that’s fine we could combine multiple reliable sources to prove notability per WP:BASIC, but when we have a subject mentioned in sources with no depth none whatsoever (other than her name added to list) then it certainly doesn’t meet WP:BASIC. Celestina007 (talk) 03:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007. Not futile at all and honestly not even an argument because I think we're both being quite polite and respectful. You are very much correct about the other sources mentioned and, by making me look at RefinedNG in a more in-depth light, I have come to the conclusion that I'm not certain enough of its reliability to use it as the second of two sources required for the minimum GNG multiple sources. A pleasure to discuss with you! Thank you for your informed policy-based clarifications. I wish all AfDs could be discussions instead of being based on pride. Samsmachado (talk) 03:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Samsmachado, it’s always a pleasure to have a productive dialogue with a colleague. Celestina007 (talk) 03:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Samsmachado and @celestina007, appreciate the matured conversation that went down on here, picked up a few things. Felixdgreat (talk) 11:43, 8 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) 11:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rudy Reyes (activist)[edit]

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

Local perennial candidate fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. KidAd (talk) 22:57, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is one of the worst articles I have seen. The guy was trounced in the race for a county level position, receiving just 20% of the vote. If he had won that election it would still not be a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:NPOL. Until he gets on the ballot somewhere, he's not notable, and as we all have seen from Kanye West, it is already too late to get on the ballot in the vast majority of states. If this was not a purple haze of a mess, I would advocate for its userfication. Bearian (talk) 01:58, 10 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) 11:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chalene Johnson[edit]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. - Flori4nK ^{t • c} 14:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. - Flori4nK ^{t • c} 14:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:ANYBIO, radically. John from Idegon (talk) 22:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable --Devokewater (talk) 23:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businesswoman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no WP:SIGCOV. Huffington Post used to be reliable, but is now junk. Bearian (talk) 02:00, 10 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 09:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tobi Kukoyi[edit]

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

A very confusing one because subject of article is mentioned in a host of Nigeria reliable sources but although mentioned in reliable sources, a further observation & review of all those reliable sources discussing her are in interviews hence not independent of her hence doesn’t satisfy nor adhere to WP:GNG. Furthermore the remaining reliable sources discussing her all appear to be paid sponsored posts or mere announcements. Celestina007 (talk) 22:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIO WP:PEOPLE Hello Celestina007 Thanks for your observation. The article has been reviewed. However, most of those interviews appeared to have been conducted by individual journalists, most probably being paid as professionals by their media houses, and so, it is extreme to say they are not independent of her. The use of Aphrodisiac is a very controversial subject in Nigeria, and so it is natural for journalists to make news out of anyone who chooses to venture into it. I disagree that those were paid interviews. That would question the authenticity of the media authorities. Thus meaning that all sources pointed to them should be questioned --ContentBI (talk) 05:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ContentBI, any article nominated for deletion is automatically marked as reviewed. When almost all sources discussing her are Q and A interviews then it is most definitely not independent of her. See WP:GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 03:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIO WP:PEOPLE

@Celestina007, saying 'almost all' clearly shows you haven't read through the references. Also, I can't recall interviews being categorized as dependent sources.

@ContentBI, I don’t get where you are driving at, a Q & A interview is simply not independent of her. How difficult is that to process? And yes almost all sources used are interviews & the rest are press releases & promo sponsored posts. Also see undisclosed paid editing & WP:COI. Because off wiki evidence shows proof of undisclosed paid editing.Celestina007 (talk) 04:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007 Wow! You're even suggesting that I have been paid to upload an article. This is grossly ridiculous! I would appreciate you demonstrating your 1st-class training by uploading my proof of payment. You could also compliment your great observations by having fun adding my signatures.

@Celestina007 Are you suggesting that she practically sent questions to the media houses who interviewed her?! Common! that's ridiculous! The citations you're calling Q & A, were only used in stating her personal bio such as names and schools attended. The majority of references are NOT interviews, they are independent info and have been sourced from different media authorities, which satisfies WP:BASIC. Also, I don't think Wikipedia informs journalists and media houses about how to ensure they give independent reports. If interviews are their strategies, I don't see how it's a problem.

@Celestina007 I am yet to fathom who sponsored the posts, and how you determined that the rest are press releases, all from her.

@ContentBI, I honestly can’t be bothered to continue arguing a very tough topic such as 'sourcing' with an editor who has 'UPE' issues, can’t do basic stuff like WP:SIGN their comments & cannot WP:INDENT properly either. It’s really vapid. WP:BASIC only works when the sources are independent of the subject when the sources are riddled with interviews & sponsored posts. WP:BASIC ceases to apply. Really though, only trained eyes can see through the facade going on in the referencing of that article half are sources not independent of her(interviews) & the rest are sponsored posts(still not independent of her) It’s as simple as that! Celestina007 (talk) 04:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007 Well, I can't see the simplicity in your vague claims. I sourced those references online, and I didn't see a link to any proof of influence from the subject to media houses. Wizardry wasn't part of my training.

@Celestina007 I see that a major part of your training was to delete your comments after they clearly show personal sentiments right? Great job. Just make sure you don't forget adding my signatures, cause I've forgotten how it's done.

@ContentBI, please what comment of mine have I deleted thus far? If you would cast Aspersions be polite enough to provide diffs. Celestina007 (talk) 05:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All the sources that I could find seemed to be promotional/non-neutral PRs or interviews. Does not pass WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Java Hurricane 05:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep@JavaHurricane, If you found reference number 2 and still think the article is sourced from PRs, then you need to read WP:BIO and WP:GNG again. @JavaHurricane, Also please, I can understand nominating the article for deletion and stating that it needs external linking. What I don't get is why I'm been accused of being paid to upload an article. @Celestina007, I consider your accusation as Aspersions and request that you provide an evidence that I might have been paid, or else take out your claims on my article because right now, you're trampling on my reputation.

@ContentBI always WP:SIGN your comments. Don’t bother @JavaHurricane, they understand policy. The sourcing of the article is our main focus here but if you want to talk about UPE, let’s start by the email you just sent me asking me to take a “chill pill” & not pursue the deletion of the article. You also may have unknowingly outed yourself with that e-mail, you may have unknowingly divulged that you operate more than one account. Anyway all that is asides the point. Furthermore if the subject of your article, requires a PR firm(you) to create an article for her on Wikipedia that is really indicative of how non notable she really is. Furthermore please always indent & sign for clarity sake. Celestina007 (talk) 06:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007 No, you missed it! I sent you an email of which there is absolutely nothing to hide. I said 'take a chill pill', because I can't fathom your aggression towards the topic in question. I noticed the topic had been written initially by a different editor and you nominated it for deletion, on the grounds that it was not a notable figure. So after providing evidences that the topic is notable, and you come up with claims that they are PR, it's normal to think you have a personal bias towards the topic. I never said you should forego policies. I only said that they don't apply to trivial things like names and schools like I earlier stated here. And please, do not claim what I didn't say. I don't know the topic from Adam. I just found it necessary to upload because of the importance of the Aphrodisiac controversy in Nigeria. Period! If you feel good deleting it, do so without making it look like I have a personal attachment. Cause I don't. I'm only concerned about how personal biases affect sincere efforts. ThanksContentBI (talk) 07:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007 2 Aspersions - you're now suggesting that I operate more than 1 account. Pro, please, now you're making me believe I am right suspecting that you have a personal bias. I don't need 2 accounts to spot a draft of a deleted article, please! That's very BASIC! ContentBI (talk) 07:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ContentBI, I don’t have any bias against nothing. Please stay on topic. The notability & sourcing here is the problem. Bring your best sources here to this AFD & i’d analyze them for you & explain how they do nothing for substantiating notability of the subject of our discussion. Thank you! If you aren’t bringing those sources let me know, because I won’t be replying any of your aspersions or personal attacks anymore. Celestina007 (talk) 07:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007 There is nothing to analyze. If really you have no personal bias and you paid attention to the introduction, you would observe that the topic's notability is hinged on the controversy of Aphrodisiac in Nigeria, hence reference 2. That major fact shows that the rest of the sources were reactions to that controversy, putting the topic in focus. That's how a real analyst would perceive the article. About aspersions or personal attacks, the last I checked, I wasn't the person indicating that someone else was paid for an edit, and that He has more than 1 account. ContentBI (talk) 07:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~* Keep~~ Moderator please note; I will refer you all to the article topic Uche Pedro. 95% of the citations were sourced from 'bellanaija', which is her owned media firm. Before you consider deleting on the grounds of claimed and unprovable 'sponsored PR', kindly justify how that topic was not based on PR. However, more importantly let me reiterate that there is absolutely no proof that Tobi Kukoyi is an article based on PR, considering the importance of the topic on Aphrodisiac in Nigeria and the many media buzz about it. It's simple. let's all use our preferred search engines. This is just an accusation from an editor who's bias cannot be ascertained either. Notwithstanding, I won't stand against policies, I'm only appealing to fairness. Thanks. ContentBI (talk) 07:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ContentBI, Dear PR firm you can’t !vote a keep more than once. Celestina007 (talk) 08:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007, Sorry pro! At least, I got you to comment again. Owning a PR firm or working for a reputable one is something I'll love. Thanks for the prophecy! ContentBI (talk) 08:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Modertor, please also note my second reference in Linda Ikeji. Majority of the citations done were based on owned media. How doesn't that qualify for 'sponsored PR' but as 'independent source' as my accuser has claimed?. I can go on and on... My point is, those are proven examples, while my article isn't. ContentBI (talk) 09:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ContentBI, The lady doth protest too much comes into play here folks, If it requires this much badgering of the AFD to prove someone is notable the inverse is invariably the case. Now back to sourcing, from what you said above, which reads “@Modertor, please also note my second reference in Linda Ikeji” you can’t use lindaikejiblog because it is a blog & per WP:RS blogs are not reliable & also using the Bella Naija source is pointless because it is a celebrity wedding gossip blog. So what other source do you have for us? You should realize that I have analyzed all sources before nominating this article & I came to the same conclusion as JavaHurricane. Celestina007 (talk) 09:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007 Do you realize you're obviously proving your sentiments on this matter? You're talking about the blogs without questioning their relationships with the persons in topic. Who owns bellanaija? Who owns Linda Ikeji? Does it make policy-sense to you that they are considered 'independent sources' in articles about their CEOs?. Are you saying I should wait for whenever Tobi Kukoyi starts a blog I can cite before we know she is notable? Listen, it's my article and as an editor, I am concerned about my contribution being thrown into the wind because someone thinks it's a PR job. Can you just 'take a chill pill' and allow others react? I responded to javahurricane, and I don't see how you're His fingers. If the moderator finally thinks the article isn't suitable, that's fine! I just need a solid explanation in relation with my examples, not some poorly thought out claims. ContentBI (talk) 09:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ContentBI, Once again you go off topic whenever you are asked to provide sources to this AFD that proves her notability. look! when or if you bring to this AFD, the sources that are independent of her & aren’t sponsored posts nor press release(s) nor blog sources. Do let me know because from what you have just said above you clearly do not understand policy. Celestina007 (talk) 10:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007 Ofcourse, you'd call them 'off-topic' because you have no defense on them. If independent articles from journalists, working in reputable newspapers, as cited are not enough to state the notability of the topic, then I have nothing to prove to you. Do with it as you please. I don't care.ContentBI (talk)

So are you providing this reliable sources or what? Celestina007 (talk) 12:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://daylightng.com/tobi-kukoyi-set-to-tow-the-film-path/

@Celestina007 I just spotted this. That's also PR, right? ContentBI (talk) 13:15, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ContentBI, it lacks editorial oversight so it’s unreliable! Thank you! Celestina007 (talk) 13:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007 I'm literally chuckling on my seat. Nice! Well done! ContentBI (talk) 13:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007 I think you really need to learn the ropes about how journalists work, especially in Nigeria. It'd help your sense of judgment. ContentBI (talk) 13:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007 So, my friend, you've made me take out time to research more on the journalists whose articles I cited. I searched them up on LinkedIn, and I am more convinced that with their pedigree, there is almost no chance that those articles were sponsored. You may want to look up these names your self - Chuks Nwanne, Ige Rotimi and Gbenga Bada, just to ensure that you're not mistaken a crowded buzz based on coincidence for a paid PR. I don't see how a journalist with 12 years' experience would focus on projecting a non-notable figure for money. It doesn't add up. ContentBI (talk) 17:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said earlier when you provide to this AFD non self published sources, non sponsored posts sources, non press release material & non-churnalism sources & the lot of those type of sources currently present in that article please do let me know. Celestina007 (talk) 23:15, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007 Well, at this point, it is obvious you have just made up your mind to frustrate my efforts, if you can't do a simple check. The qualification of the references on that article as churnalism is absolutely based on your sentiments, and since you're the god of references, feel free to delete whenever you wish. I was just trying to add my little quota on a category I felt was hardly explored, but at this point, I'm done trying to make the blind see, + I don't give two monkies what happens with the article anymore. Enjoy! ContentBI (talk) 04:01, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @ContentBI: Please read and understand WP:COIEDIT. It doesn't matter if you are paid to write an article or not, if you have a COI you should not edit an article. Plain and simple. Your ranting is not helping your case. I do not know what sources are considered reliable in Nigeria, but please keep your argument succinct. Give links to the articles you think satisfy WP:RS and leave it at that. Do not engage in arguments. Make your case and move on. - Harsh (talk) 04:51, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Harsh 2580 The thing is, I can't understand why everyone is trying to bully me into accepting there is a WP:COIEDIT issue. For crying out loud, THERE ISN'T! I AM NOT PAID!!!!. I really wish I am! It's exasperating, and that's why I am not making headway with @Celestina007. It's simple, If you can recognise the fact that in the article's introduction, it claims the topic is an authority on the controversy around aphrodisiac in Nigeria known as 'kayanmata'. It wouldn't be an issue accessing the following links from the article;

It wouldn't be difficult to understand the controversy in question and why journalists would rally around her.

But unfortunately, everyone is busy trying to insist that ContentBI was paid to write an article! Gush! I'm tired!!! ContentBI (talk) 07:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Or is it difficult to understand because there is no article on 'kayanmata'? I can help the community with that, if it would aid comprehension ContentBI (talk) 07:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Alright look below at the analysis of the sources you provided to this AFD. Celestina007 (talk) 12:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://thenigerian.news/why-women-have-taken-up-the-kayan-mata-aphrodisiac/			It doesn’t in any way discuss subject of our discussion rather it discusses a natural aphrodisiac	✘ No
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/aug/14/men-said-we-were-immoral-aphrodisiacs-challenging-taboos-nigeria			Again, doesn’t discuss subject of our discussion but rather discusses a natural aphrodisiac hence this source has nothing to do with our subject of discussion hence does nothing to substantiate her notability.	✘ No
https://nnn.com.ng/kayan-mata-divergent-views-trail-trending-sale-of-aphrodisiacs/			Yet again this source discusses a natural aphrodisiac & not our subject.	✘ No
https://www.pulse.ng/lifestyle/food-travel/should-you-be-using-kayan-mata-products/nfmpeh7		Of recent pulseNG is no longer considered a reliable source.	Yet again this source doesn’t discuss subject of our discussion rather it discusses a natural aphrodisiac hence does nothing to substantiate her supposed notability.	✘ No
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/aug/14/men-said-we-were-immoral-aphrodisiacs-challenging-taboos-nigeria			As stated earlier the sources discusses a natural occurring aphrodisiac & not subject of our discussion hence doesn’t adhere to GNG	✘ No
https://www.premiumtimesng.com/entertainment/naija-fashion/391009-interview-why-kayanmata-isnt-fetish-traditional-sex-therapist-tobi-kukoyi.html	This is an interview with subject hence the source is not independent of her	Generally considered a reliable source.	Half the questions are related to a natural aphrodisiac	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Although a daunting task, I needed to create the table so our colleagues could see clearly what I was talking about. In summary the subject of our discussion fails to satisfy WP:BASIC or WP:GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 11:50, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007 Great job! You're very hardworking! But this was absolutely unnecessary. I never claimed the article directly identifies her, I only insinuated that it established 'kayanmata' as a controversial topic, and thus, should justify why the reports done on 'Tobi Kukoyi' wouldn't be a paid PR. It is logical for journalist to snoop around anyone associated with controversial topics. That is all I have been trying to make you understand for the past 2 days! If the community thinks it's not enough, I rest my case. Go ahead and delete it. ContentBI (talk) 12:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - likely paid-for spam. I've revoked ContentBI's (the creator of this page) editing privileges for the spamming. MER-C 17:11, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It doesn't seem like a spam article to me and I'm usually pretty bullish about being against spam. Ultimately, I'm going with delete because the sourcing just isn't there to make the subject notable. Which can be seen in all the discussions about sources and the table created by Celestina007. Which I'm guessing was a pain to do but makes a difference. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:32, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per comprehensive analysis above from Celestina007 – sources are PROMO and no real GNG from RS is apparent. Looks like PAID. Britishfinance (talk) 23:49, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per source analysis. No alternative reliable sources that I can find; failing WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not for promotion. --Jack Frost (talk) 03:17, 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) 23:18, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Jahns (YouTuber)[edit]

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

Semi-procedural nomination. An article about this person was deleted twice before (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy Jahns and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy Jahns (2nd nomination), but I just declined a G4 because the deleted versions of the page were considerably different—notably, virtually all claims were sourced to the subject's YouTube channel itself. This version also includes assertions of notability (impressive-sounding subscriber and view numbers) that were not present in the deleted versions. Having said that, I still have grave doubts that notability is made out, and so I didn't want to just decline the speedy and leave it at that. If the article is kept, it should probably be moved to Jeremy Jahns. Steve Smith (talk) 22:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CREATIVE. Not every YouTube person with over 1,000,000 subscribers needs a page. KidAd (talk) 23:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kept: the article does have notable sources from CNBC and CBR thus giving him notability from respected outlets. He’s also had a show on go90, which was a streaming service that also had shows from people such as Ben Affleck, Matt Damon, LeBron James, and among others. In addition, he’s also an approved critic on Rotten Tomatoes. The page should be kept given he has done work outside of YouTube.Vinny Weasel (talk) 23:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the sources seem to not be reliable and how many subscribers on YouTube he has isn't really relevant to notability. Also, neither is him being a critic on Rotten Tomatoes or having a show on defunct streaming service that shows by celebrities. Since notability isn't by association. There is the CBR article which is mentioned above, but it only briefly mentions him to say he doesn't like the Star Wars movie. So, it's not in-depth enough to qualify for notability. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Procedural deletion that falls under criteria for deletion applied many times before. Nothing different here. ComicsAreJustAllRight (talk) 02:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OUTCOMES. We have deleted articles about YouTubers with over 2 million subscribers. That many viewers is now just run of the mill. Bearian (talk) 02:02, 10 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. per WP:SNOW. A clearly notable topic. No need to waste community's 7 days. If there seeems to be a problem with the title, then kindly go through WP:RM. Regards, —usernamekiran (talk) 14:04, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Item number[edit]

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

Marking this article for deletion. The term is a derogatory one, and as the article calls out at some point seems to be directly leading to objectification of women. Recommendation is that content of relevance be merged into Music of Bollywood and this page be deleted. — posted by User:Kaisertalk, unsigned 5 July 2020

Keep: completely bunk rationale. It's notable term that has a Wikipedia entry, just like many other similarly derogatory things like casting couch. The article also details criticism of the practice in it's own section. Deleting a Wikipedia article won't make sexism go away. Also, the nomination seems to be incorrectly formatted. Regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:19, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Wikipedia is not for correcting great wrongs and is not censored. Clear case WP:CENSOR - BhaskaraPattelar (talk) 20:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. BhaskaraPattelar (talk) 20:21, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. BhaskaraPattelar (talk) 20:21, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Clearly notable. The article correctly discusses the objectification of women in the lede; having an article that discusses objectionable material helps readers to understand the history of the term. — Toughpigs (talk) 21:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep as the nomination states only that the nominator doesn't like the term and does not provide a reason to delete the article. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 21:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It has notability to guarantee an article. The subject might be sexist but that doesn't mean it should be deleted as Wikipedia is not censored. Field Marshal Aryan (talk) 22:10, 5 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 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retitle The title is an Easter egg for readers not familiar with Bollywood as they will be expecting something like Universal Product Code. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As long as this article is at AfD, I would appreciate somebody clarifying something in the article: "However, second-generation South Asian women are more commonly featured in item numbers than men." What do they mean by "second-generation"? Are they talking about children of immigrants or something like that? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - no valid deletion rationale was provided. That said, I don't have a problem with retitling or adding a disambiguator per Andrew. Rlendog (talk) 15:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge - I was the one who started this effort. But, I may have done something wrong procedurally (as one of the commenters above notes). Happy to remediate that, if someone can help me with that process. Thanks in advance.

Now, back to the topic at hand. My request is not to 'censor' any information that exists out there.

Is this an extremely sexist term that is offensive at multiple levels? Yes.

Should it be removed from an encyclopedia because it is a sexist term - No.

Now, is this term a formalized one? No. It has come into colloquial speak, and is seeking formalization based on the widespread usage. My two cents is that a high level wikipedia article will only give it more legitimacy.

Is there a way to drive focus to this practice without labeling as a top level topic / article name? Yes. That can be achieved by merging this topic into an existing page, and clearly introducing a subset of the content from this page onto there.

Kaisertalk (talk) 19:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bollywood: A Guidebook to Popular Hindi Cinema, which is cited in the article, describes the practice and says, "These sequences, referred to as "item" numbers, add to a film's "repeat value"." The book was published in 2004 by Routledge (New York). So it doesn't look to me like this is a new term, or one that's been hyped by unreliable sources. It looks like that's what they're called, or at least what they were called in the past. — Toughpigs (talk) 21:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment @Toughpigs:. I think justifying its presence in mediums that are beyond our control is not an option. So, I really don't have a justification for why the book only references "item" songs as boosting the film's "repeat value". The origin of the term item song comes from the colloquial term "item" used in Mumbai and parts of India, to sexually suggestively refer to a woman. I am not able to think of a closest English word / phrase that is equally suggestive and demeaning to a woman. Now, the presence of such a song in the movies has been colloquially referenced as "item number" i.e. a number which has an "item" in it. Now, this is the path towards legitimacy. The question is do we want to yield that legitimacy or not. One way would be to reference the song back to what it really is - i.e. a type of song / video that is quite popular in Bollywood movies. That said if the overwhelming view is that we should have this as a title article. I guess I am in the minority, and will yield to you folks and your judgement. Kaisertalk (talk) 23:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some additional reading material to understand what "item" in the item number refers to. Link here. Kaisertalk (talk) 23:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kaisertalk, I do understand the point that you're making. The term is demeaning to women, and the presence of these sequences in Bollywood movies promotes the idea that it's okay to treat women as objects ("items") that exist to satisfy the sexual needs of men. The term should be challenged and criticized. I think what people are saying in this discussion is essentially that having its own Wikipedia page offers the opportunity to present the history and the critique of the term. I read the Tempest article that you linked to just above, and I actually just added a quote from that post to the WP article a few hours ago. :) The existence of a Wikipedia article doesn't mean that we like or approve of the subject. — Toughpigs (talk) 23:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Toughpigs, I agree with most of what you are saying. If I were to deconstruct the point at hand there are two topics. Songs in Bollywood movies that depict women as objects (and extremely sexual at that), and the second one being giving legitimacy to the term "item number" to refer to the former. Like it or not, I definitely (and perhaps many folks on this discussion thread) will not be able to change the former. The point is about using an extremely demeaning term to grant legitimacy to the practice. I am trying to make a case that having a titled article will do just that - i.e. grant legitimacy to this demeaning term. Can we convey that Bollywood has songs that are extremely sexually suggestive and demeaning to women without having a titled article. My premise is yes, we can do that by having most of this content folded into an existing article e.g. Music of Bollywood.

@Toughpigs: At the heart of it, what is granting legitimacy - when a trusted voice that you go to when in doubt about an expression, phrase, has that as the title -- that is granting legitimacy. If you are playing scrabble, you look up a word in the dictionary, that is legitimacy. When someone hears the phrase "item number" and goes to find it as a title of a Wikipedia article that is legitimacy. Given the influence that we can, we should be responsible about the way in which we choose our article / page titles.

Kaisertalk (talk) 23:56, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Toughpigs: Another thought. Why not change the article to "Sexualized Portrayal of Women in Bollywood Songs" and introduce in the preamble that these songs are demeaningly referred to as Item numbers.Kaisertalk (talk) 00:06, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how having an article on some subject "legitimises" the subject? If you're talking about the term itself, then it's already legitimised through it's very widespread use; not having a Wikipedia article won't change it. Does the article "casting couch" legitimises the practice or the term? Should it be moved to something like "Sexual exploitation of women in the film industry"? I don't think so. Terms usually only get a Wikipedia article after they've already achieved widespread uses and some amount of legitimacy. The sources used in the article are older than the Wikipedia article itself. Times of India, considered a newspaper of record, used the term in 2010. Wikipedia is influential, but not that influential that deleting an article will cause a word to lose widespread uses. Wikipedia shouldn't be used to right great wrongs anyway. Regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 05:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable, and I don't see anyone disputing that. I don't think a rename would be wise but that would be a discussion for another time. Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:51, 7 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) 23:19, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neo Geo Hakase[edit]

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

Doesn't seem that notable Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The guy doesn't seem notable enough for an article. Some trivial stuff came up in a search on him when I looked, but that's about it. Maybe he could be mentioned in some Neo Geo related article if he isn't already. Although, I'm currently at a lost as to which one would be best. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No claim of notability, no evidence of notability. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 15:15, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing that makes him notable enough to have an article. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 15:33, 6 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) 23:25, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Ford Crass[edit]

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

Here is an editor who thinks that making pacific racist depictions of pacific islanders for a "South Pacific Nite " party is "work", that ~~a three-year old~~ attending a reception is "noteworthy" and that traveling to France and to Claude Monet's Water Lilies is an event worth noting in an encyclopedia. No, this person is not noteworthy because she has not received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. She also fails every single notability criterion for artists. Vexations (talk) 19:31, 5 July 2020 (UTC) Revised nomination: Subject does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST, despite the creator's claims that the subject was "born ... to a notable economic and political family". That would be the family of the author. Vexations (talk) 15:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Ford Crass has made many contributions to the art world in her paintings and the techniques she used. She is a good example of how a woman can become a successful painter and established a career in a male-oriented world in the 1950’s. She most notable in the California Bay Area art world where she has showed her paintings and won awards.

South Pacific Shield masks for a custom party does not sound raciest as they can be found in any Google search. Patricia attended an event in 2003 in honor of Jo Mora, a famous artist. She was not 3 years old at this event. The statue was created when she was 3 years old and represents an example of Mora’s work. Her travels are examples of her interest in French immersionists and provides inspiration for other artists that would like to travel to see them.--Greg Henderson 20:10, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Per the above user's user page, they have listed Patricia Ford as their mother. Please do not make Wikipedia pages on your mom. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nominator seems to have some bizarre tirade against another editor in his nomination which I doubt any other editors will understand or care a single bit about. What is and is not racist depictions has nothing to do with this persons notability. AFD nominations should focus on that, not calling out other unknown editors.★Trekker (talk) 15:07, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I did some digging for sources and I could not even find a single name mention of this artist on Google Books, JSTOR, academia.edu or on Google News.★Trekker (talk) 15:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination revised. Trekker makes a valid point. Vexations (talk) 15:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 15:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The subject of this article does not meet our criteria for notability. Fails GNG and NARTIST. The sourcing is overblown fluff, it includes things like wedding announcements, a commencement announcement, a family search pedigree, listings, and several don't even mention her but are about other artists. No SIGCOV in RS, no museum collections, no critical reviews could be found. Wikipedia is not a personal "website" to promote every artist in the world. Netherzone (talk) 15:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not sure what this person is notable for. This appears to be a family memorial page. I have trimmed much of the objectionable material. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Patricia Ford Crass is a good example of woman that became a successful painter and established a career in a male-oriented world in the 1950’s. She most notable in the California Bay Area art world where she has showed her paintings and won awards. Man with saxophone is a good example of her work. --Greg Henderson 21:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
The article lists one award from the (defunct since 2014) Menlo Art League where she placed second in 2007. As far as we can tell, she has not received any well-known and significant awards. Is an award from the Menlo Art League well-known and significant? Most certainly not. Their annual exhibition was a juried art show in the Community Room of the Menlo Park Library. Vexations (talk) 22:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, GregHenderson2006, we are not interested in what the article subject's son has to say about their mom's notability.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:00, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not notable, sourcing shows local and trivial mentions, creator appears to have a conflict of interest on this and many other articles. Melcous (talk) 01:16, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~: She is no more notable than these other Wikipedia artists: William Adam (artist), William Barr (artist), Paul A. Grimm. Let's be fair and appreciate a woman who spent her life making art and showing that woman too have a life dedicated to something they love and share it with the world. Primary and Secondary sources support this fact.Greg Henderson (talk)

Greghenderson2006, you should strike your second !vote, because it is against policy to vote more than one time. BTW, please sign your posts by using 4 tildes. Netherzone (talk) 15:00, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate vote struck and unsigned template added. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)l[reply]

I did not know you could note vote again. I wanted to make a comment, she is no more notable than these other Wikipedia artists: William Adam (artist), William Barr (artist), Paul A. Grimm. Let's be fair and appreciate a woman who spent her life making art and showing that woman too have a life dedicated to something they love and share it with the world. Primary and Secondary sources support this fact.Greg Henderson (talk)

You are dealing with other editors who have assessed thousands of articles. Your mother is not notable enough for one, and we are not here to make warm and fuzzy family memorial pages. Your opinion is clouded by the fact that you are her son. Stop wasting everyone's time here.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply, but you did not anwer the question about other pages that have far less information. I understand I have a COI, but wanted to have a page about her contributions. If you and other editors do not feel she is worthy of this, then I am OK with deleting the page, but please answer why there are other pages with less info and sources. When you read these other pages, that have no tags, they look as though they have passed the Wikipedia test. I appreciate your time.Greg Henderson (talk)

These deletions discussions have been going on for a long time. Over that time, a set of arguments to avoid have developed. One of the arguments to avoid is "but there are other similar articles on Wikipedia". It stands to reason that if we allow all the lower-quality articles with that argument, then the wiki does not improve. Thus, we focus on the article at hand. You can read about it at WP:OTHERSTUFF.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:50, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

re artists referred to above as being just as notable as Crass, or otherwise, nope, William Adam exhibited at Royal Scottish Academy and Royal Glasgow Institute of the Fine Arts; William Barr works are in permanent collection of Paisley Museum and Art Galleries, Paisley Art Institute, and hanging in various landmarks including Paisley Town Hall, Palace Hotel, San Francisco, San Francisco City Hall, exhibitions include at California Historical Society; Paul A. Grimm also likely wikinotable as an artist - have added words/sources to Grimm article to that affect as another editor (hi ThatMontrealIP:)) appeared to be having doubts. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete, does not meet WP:NARTIST or WP:BASIC, no wikisignificant work produced/reviewed/exhibited, not part of wikinotable gallery/museum collections, article references only snips/mentions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:26, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG and primary author has WP:COI. Mztourist (talk) 13:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional article created on a non-notable person that do not meet our inclusion standards and it happened to be created by an editor with a family connections. Graywalls (talk) 20:51, 11 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) 23:26, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Samba Shiva Thadavarthi[edit]

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

No reliable references to demostrate notablity. Cites only self-published sources. Fails WP:GNG. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 19:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 19:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 19:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 20:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable poet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability not demonstrated Spiderone 06:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:MILL. Every young man thinks he's a poet. There's no evidence this guy is notable in any way. Bearian (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MusicMann 279[edit]

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

The preceding AfD was 15 years ago (it was actually a VfD!) and much has changed. The station never came on air, and our notability guidelines are far stricter than they were in June 2005. This does not meet WP:BCAST. Raymie (t • c) 18:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 18:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 18:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's only source in the article to a website that doesn't pass the muster and all I could find in a search was a bunch of mentions in other wikis and a single mention in a book that didn't seem in-depth enough. Even if it was though, two sources where one is a personal website just isn't enough to pass WP:GNG. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A non-notable vanity project which never came to fruition. Notable for a notional Anorakipedia, no doubt, but not the general Wikipedia. RobinCarmody (talk) 23:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about the station, not even its failed launch. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:17, 7 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 09:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Showbezzy[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO No evidence of notability. scope_creep^Talk 15:09, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 15:14, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 15:14, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think admins should review the article well and it shouldn't be deleted for the subject not been notable...The subject is a notable artist in the Ghanaian Music Industry and has won a prestigious award. <ref>https://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/entertainment/Showboy-wins-International-Artiste-of-the-year-at-the-2018-Eastern-Music-Awards-707348</ref> and it's written about by several credible websites in Ghana.... 154.160.26.126 14:12, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That is written in his own words on his site on Instagram, and is dud ref. scope_creep^Talk 21:34, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Under both names, Showbezzy and Showboy, his music is only present in the typical streaming and self-promotional sites where anyone can upload material, and his media coverage as a musician is entirely in the form of brief press releases and entries at gossip sites. He got some minor news coverage as an attempted murderer, but that does not make him notable as a musician or anything else. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - purely PR and publicity attempt. →Enock4seth ^(talk) 16:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 18:22, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Just refactored and correctly placed the IP comment at the top. Raymie (t • c) 18:40, 5 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 Economic sanctions. Sandstein 06:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weaponization of finance[edit]

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

There is no cohesive theory or account of weaponization of finance (WoF) as such. All mentions of it are rather rhetorical flourishes used in discussion of economic sanctions, which the current WoF article details at length (even after having most of its specific context transferred to Economic sanctions). It should be noted that this page is tied to Ian Bremmer and the Eurasia Group, which have been involved in extensive paid editing dating back years (see here). The current sources used are inadequate:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
(Dead link) Bremmer, Ian and Kupchan, Cliff. PDF of report, January 2015.	Appears to have been a primary source where the concept is outlined, specifically as one of the yearly "top 10 risks" the Eurasia Group publishes to advertise its risk analysis services	Non-published; produced by for-profit firm run by Bremmer		✘ No
Holodny, Elena. [3], "Business Insider", January 5, 2015.			Spends several paragraphs outlining theory as argued by Bremmer.	✔ Yes
Bertrand, Natasha and Kelley, Michael B. [4], "Business Insider." April 1, 2015.			~ This piece draws from a WaPo article. Makes note of weaponization of finance in title, briefly mentions it in body as something devised by Bremmer, but mainly repeats what the WaPo article says. Does not engage with WoF as idea on its merits; basically just says "Bremmer says it's this"	~ Partial
Bremmer, Ian. Obama pushes power of weaponised finance to its limits, "Financial Times," March 3, 2015.	Written by Bremmer			✘ No
(Dead link) "U.S. use of unilateral "weaponization of finance" makes top ten geopolitical risks of 2015". www.unitedliberty.org. Retrieved 2017-09-16.	?	Internet Archive from around time WoF was devised by Bremmer seems to show some sort of blogroll/article aggregator from a now-defunct libertarian think tank.	? Title suggests it is just parroting Eurasia Group press release cited in the first row of this table.	✘ No
Miroslav., Nincic (1988). United States foreign policy : choices and tradeoffs. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press. ISBN 0871874490. OCLC 17264286.	Written decades before WoF was ever devised, actually	Published book	Used as original research, makes no mention of WoF as such	✘ No
Administrator. "The Adverse Consequences of Economic Sanctions". www.globalpolicy.org. Retrieved 2017-10-26.		This is a copy of The Bossuyt Report on Economic Sanctions made to the UN in 2000	At no point mentions the idea of WoF, or even the word "Weaponization." Used in the article as original research.	✘ No
Kim, Hyung Min (2013-03-01). "Determining the Success of Economic Sanctions". Australian Journal of Political Science. 48 (1): 85–100. doi:10.1080/10361146.2012.731488. ISSN 1036-1146.		Published scholarly article	Original research, makes no mention of WoF as such	✘ No
Dambisa, Moyo (2010-03-02). Dead aid : why aid is not working and how there is a better way for Africa (First American paperback ed.). New York. ISBN 9780374532123. OCLC 429024670.`{{cite book}}`: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)		Published book	Original research, Moyo makes no mention of WoF	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Things get tricky because the phrase "weaponization of finance" itself is not novel, and has been used before. But I believe such mentions of WoF ultimately are just about what falls under the traditional scope of economic sanctions (or criticisms of US monetary hegemony, inter alia) rather than "weaponization of finance" as a theoretical concept per se, and thus do not meet a threshold for an independent article:

Fouskas & Gökay (2018), "Placing the USA–Turkey Standoff in Context: The USA and the Weaponization of Global Finance", Journal of Global Faultlines. I was unable to access this article through Wikipedia Library, so I am unsure of its exact contents, but the first page suggests it is about the US tariffs imposed on Turkish aluminum and steel–a form of sanctions.
Farrell & Newman (Dec. 2019), "America weaponized the global financial system. Now other countries are fighting back.", Washington Post. The article relies in part on arguments made by the European Council of Foreign Relations, which describes the "weaponization" as a form of "secondary sanctions."
Maharrey (2018), "SWIFT and the Weaponization of the U.S. Dollar", Foundation for Economic Education.
The only citation of Bremmer and WoF I found in academic work is in passing in the first page of Lin (2016), "Financial Weapons of War", Minnesota L. Rev.

In short: this article fails WP:GNG because weaponization of finance is, at best, another way to refer to economic sanctions. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 20:19, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 20:25, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Economic sanctions because, essentially, if it is "at best, another way to refer to economic sanctions", then that makes it a likely search term. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to economic sanctions per RandomCanadian. The article asserts that such tactics are (1) novel (2) derive from some evolution of muskets in 1776, bombers in 1945, bank accounts in 2015, which ~~is fatuous~~ shows a poor grasp of history (3) practiced only by the U.S. (4) limited to action between nations (in one section) or aimed at cybercriminals (in another section), and on and on. This thing is a mess of semi-connected words and phrases. Its foundations are bad. There's a persistent fragrance of Ian Bremmer, whoever he may be. --Lockley (talk) 04:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 17:51, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - As suggested above. WP:ATD-R. --Jack Frost (talk) 01:48, 6 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy Girls Undercover[edit]

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

Film with some notable cast members, but not the coverage or significance to meet WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 21:06, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 21:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 21:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 17:36, 5 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 this article, and a consensus that it has met notability. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 18:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Selection (Art Department album)[edit]

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

Collection of reviews but no proof of notability or serious info about the album. Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 17:37, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(1) This is a strong keep and the nomination is based on false reasons. The reviews are an indicator of notability, and I have no clue what you mean by "serious info." (2) OK. Banner, are you still upset about the Gordon Ramsay image? Are you seriously tracking whatever articles I create or edit because I triggered you about the picture? If so, that's unprofessional. and doing disruptive behavior to force a message or point on me is only making my life and the lives of other editors a living hell. Kind of odd how you're nominating this only hours after our talk page discussion. HumanxAnthro (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice when you talk about the content in stead of me. Attacking the nominator is not making your case stronger. The Banner talk 19:26, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I talked about the content in the first two sentences of my paragraph. (2) The rationale is blatantly false if you look at the article you nominateed (a "collection of reviews," professional ones that is, is coverage; that should debunk the nomination right there), and you're doing this only hours after our image debacle. If your behavior relates to the decision of this nomination, then it's a problem; that's not me making a WP:Personal attack, that's me calling out your WP:UNCIVIL debating tactics. HumanxAnthro (talk) 19:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the deal. I'll stop bothering you about the image if you withdraw this disruptive, bad-faith attack of a nomination. HumanxAnthro (talk) 19:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. The Banner talk 19:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Banner, with all due respect, if you dismiss my arguments as "whining" in your edit summaries and give a false rational for deleting an article I created only a short time after our image discussion, that's pretty much a sign you're coming after me. Just please be open about it at the very least. HumanxAnthro (talk) 19:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please stick to the content instead of making a series of personal attacks? This is about an AfD-procedure, not about an unrelated picture. WP:AGF. The Banner talk 19:54, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If what I'm saying is coming across at that, I strongly apologize. But the evidence is making me have a hard time believing it is unrelated. I'm not angry; I'm not gonna report you or anything, and it's OK if I annoyed you a little by accident. I just want some openness; that's all. HumanxAnthro (talk) 20:02, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a "collection of reviews" is exactly the type of sourcing that satisfies WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC for albums. If a band gets interviewed by Billboard because of the release of this album[5], then you have a pretty string indication that this is a notable record. A review on Allmusic[6] and 6 other reviews in notable publications are also included in the article, and not included yet are things like Mixmag discussing remixes for the album[7]. I have no idea if the reason for this nomination is as claimed by the article creator, but it sure looks like a very poor nomination, not matching the actual article at all. Fram (talk) 09:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The reasoning is that there are two prior speedy-nominations and that the article hardly says anything about the album itself. To be exact: two sentences. No evidence that it hit the charts, no evidence that is certified gold anywhere, no evidence of awards, no evidence that it got significant airtime on tv or radio. Nothing. But yes, there is a mention on Billboard that the album is ready for pre-order now. The Banner talk 09:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - None of the things you mention are required for notability (in general or of albums). Many genres get little or no airplay and won't chart, but have a relatively large and widespread following anyway, and get plenty of attention in the specialized press (not "specialized" as in some fanzine, these are reliable publications with relatively large circulations or readership). Have you actually looked at the Billboard link? It is not "a mention that it is ready for preorder now", that is the introduction of an interview starting with "Billboard caught up with White in Barcelona to discuss the duo's creative process on their sophomore album, and what inspired the conceptual departure from their beloved debut. Billboard: Where did you write and record Natural Selection? " Please don't dismiss sources which don't fit your narrative in such an unfair way. Fram (talk) 10:26, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - You call it unfair, I call it advertising. The Banner talk 11:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - So a review of a movie or an interview with the director, which states "film X, out in cinemas next week", is "advertising" and doesn't count towards notability? Right... Fram (talk) 12:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        OK, so Banner's in this for real. I don't know if you know this, but... every source is "advertising" any notable topic, from the big Lady Gaga and Ariana Grandes to the Death Grips acts. Every publication ever publishes their pieces (interviews, positive reviews, "analytical esasys," etc.) cause they're paid to do so to promote not just other musicians but also artists, activists, filmmakers, some spoiled rich kid born into an elite family vlogging on social media, or get into a trendy or controversial topic, you name it... They still cover the topic because a lot or a fair amount of their target audiences are interested in them, cause their revenue and profit under capitalism depends on high reader count.... that's kind of how topics get their notability, all those publications profiting off exposing thosee topics and acts. HumanxAnthro (talk) 17:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:38, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:38, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:NALBUM, has multiple reviews, article reflects this. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Κeep. We have about a dozen reviews in media that almost all have their own Wikipedia article, i.e. they're notable. This satisfies WP:NALBUM. -The Gnome (talk) 07:50, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That is possible, but this orphan says hardly anything about the album itself. The Banner talk 11:57, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kamar Uddin Arman[edit]

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

Non-notable actor & model, who fails WP:GNG. He just participate a comedy show, So it's eligible for WP:BLP1E. Since he has not won any major national or internationally significant actor awards Fail WP:GNG. All of news source are only Zee Bangla show related news even here he is second runner-up so, its not means he is something or notable person. maybe is it WP:TOOSOON? . I believe that this article WP:COIEDIT related. This article should be delete. ErrorShadow420 (talk) 21:15, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ErrorShadow420 (talk) 21:15, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 17:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ErrorShadow420: Without going through every single one (unless you want to) could you briefly summarise why the 24 sources in the article are not sufficient for a pass of GNG? Those of us who can’t read Bengali are a bit stuck with this kind of article and sourcing. Thanks Mccapra (talk) 19:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-06 ✍️ create

Delete, doesn't pass WP:GNG (might be WP:TOSOON apply). Although there are 24 refs, ref no 1 & 11 are primary (interview) and all of others are just a passing mention. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 14:31, 6 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. There was no reason to relist this when it had a clear consensus for delete with zero opposition; I am closing this now per WP:RELIST. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Watson (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

This article's creator appears to probably be an undisclosed paid editor. Therefore, I normally might have presumed that the subject was non-notable, and argued to delete per WP:N and/or WP:NOTPROMOTION. However, in this case, the article does state that the subject has won the German Order of Merit.

WP:ANYBIO says that, if someone has "received a well-known and significant award or honor", they're probably (but not definitely) notable. Is the German Order of Merit a "well-known and significant award or honor"? I live in Canada, and I don't think I'd ever heard of it before reading this article.

~~For now, I'm not sure about this article, so I'll vote to draftify.~~ Please delete. —Unforgettableid (talk) 23:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Unforgettableid (talk) 23:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:22, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Order of Merit has been awarded to over 200,000 people. Thus it alone is not sufficient to show notability. None of the other sources look like they help pass WP:GNG. BenKuykendall (talk) 04:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BenKuykendall and per WP:NOTLINKEDIN. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 07:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman. The award he received is way too widely given to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:08, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 17:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable --Devokewater (talk) 23:34, 5 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 (WP:NPASR). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kajal Pisal[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability - all the refs appear to be based on a single press release. No evidence that any TV roles have been significant. Searches reveal only the usual crop of social media and reprints of the same press release. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I looked through the sources, and you're definitely right that most come from some syndicated feed that sounds like it's basically just repeating a press release. At least one other source in the article is from 2017, and covers something different, her joining of the cast for another show. Also, I found this article from the Times of India within the last 24 hours about her as well. So there are at least three independent events covered in multiple news outlets about her, which seems to qualify as notable, if barely. (Also pinging creator of article, @Lily Flingg:, to see if they have anything to add. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 22:45, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- After reading about the actress in times of India. I came to Wikipedia to get information about her. But I saw the page was redirected to another page which mentioned that she was part of it cast, Bade Acche Lagte Hai. I was free as it was sunday so I took my time to update the article. Found many links on google. I'll respect decision taken by you guys but still I'm trying to update it. As of now I have attach two sources of two different occasions.Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lily Flingg (talk • contribs) 17:13, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 17:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 14:30, 6 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stroker[edit]

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

no evidence of notability Tdslk (talk) 22:41, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Tdslk (talk) 22:41, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 00:25, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 00:25, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find any significant coverage, not even in a retro-notorious way. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 07:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 17:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is a hoax, right? It couldn't possibly be real. I see that people are talking about it on forums and it's listed in some minor databases, but there's honestly no way that this game would exist in 1983 without becoming a huge scandal that set back the computer games industry for years. There is apparently a playable version on Internet Archive and emulator sites, but there's no contemporary evidence that I know of. Nobody has original box art, and "Magic Carpet Software" brings up zero hits on Newspapers.com. It's possible that we have been hosting a hoax since 2006. — Toughpigs (talk) 17:53, 5 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 12:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Gouten[edit]

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

No indication of notability since this article contains no reliable sources. Sources only trivially mention the subject of the article. Article is written poorly. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 16:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 16:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 16:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 16:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promotion. Trillfendi (talk) 21:09, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your comment reagrding the source quality. Which critiera do you base on to mention source are not reliable ? Most sources are coming from the main media specialize in the watchmaking field. Your answer will be highly appreciate in order to better source it if necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yves Damien (talk • contribs)

@Yves Damien: Exactly my point, because there are only industry sources, there is no indication of notablity because industry sources are primary sources. Therefore, because this article contains none to few secondary sources (which are reliable and that don't just give a trivial mention) its notablity is not demonstrated. See WP:GNG.

If you are interested to see just why the sources in this article are so bad, I would like to invite you to my sandbox (here). P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 21:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Setting aside possible notability, this is a piece of crap. Much of his claims are based on who his parents were and starting a small company. I don't buy it. Bearian (talk) 02:08, 10 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. Note that the nominator and two delete votes were the same editor using sockpuppetry. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 23:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ritviz[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)

~~Not notable enough to be on Wikipedia. LuciferEdits (talk) 15:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)~~ struck confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:51, 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 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a perpetual bias towards western content on wikipedia. This isn't the first time. The artist isn't the most important artist but has a considerable presence in Indian electronic dance music genre with large audience. Indian hip-hop and metal acts also face the same bias. I know no one will care because wikipedia remains largely a anglo-american biased portal but just wanted it to be noted that you people deem random useless american artists important and keep one line pages of them but can't do the same for non-american artists. Popoblahblah (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popoblahblah (talk • contribs) 13:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above rant could be compelling, except the person who nominated the Ritviz article for deletion is also from India. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

:: @User:Popoblahblah I'm an Indian, mostly editing articles related to India. I've argued many a times to prevent notable Indian articles getting deleted from Wikipedia. Also, this article fails the General notability guidelines to be on Wikipedia, there's no bias based on ethnicity. LuciferEdits (talk) 06:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC) struck sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:51, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Article is mostly promotional. Not enough reliable sources to establish notability. Coderzombie (talk) 17:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ Keep : The Article was written in a promotional way with majority of refs from youtube video only, I edited it as per wp:npov and add wp:rs like GQ India, The Telegraph (Kolkata), The Hindu and more, Now the article seems non Promotional with sufficient wp:sigcov.Dtt1 (talk) 20:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

after reading WP:CSK suggested by @Doomsdayer520: I made it Keep from Speedy Keep. Dtt1^Talk 08:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coderzombie (talk) 11:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coderzombie (talk) 11:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coderzombie (talk) 11:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The nominator and "Delete" voter above seem not to have searched for sources very carefully. The "Speedy Keep" voter misused that term (see WP:CSK) but made a compelling argument on how the musician has received coverage in some reliable media sources in India. The article is still too dependent on links to Youtube and similar stuff, but there is at least enough for a basic stub article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom, the artist is not notable enough as of now. The article can be created at a later stage. Sidchakrab (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:37, 8 July 2020 (UTC) [reply]
Delete Per nom. Noobmaster29 (talk) 09:32, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser note: Sidchakrab and Noobmaster29 have been blocked as sockpuppets of the nominator. Mz7 (talk) 23:10, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep "The Hindu" is doing its best "fluff for pay" impression in the sources, but despite that, there seems to be enough kinda-okay coverage from several quarters. (Note that nominator socked twice here to get this deletion through - see blocked editors just above; great approach, dude) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:53, 9 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 12:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MNC Music[edit]

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

It exists but I couldn't find anything to show it meets WP:GNG. I'm very aware though that I may be missing sources due to language - what do other people think? Boleyn (talk) 07:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No content, no sources. If somebody wants to actually make a article, they can make one. North8000 (talk) 02:55, 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 speedy keep. WP:SNOW close. –Darkwind (talk) 10:23, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vikas Dubey[edit]

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

Not notable LuciferEdits (talk) 14:53, 5 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 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment LuciferEdits that's an awful lot of news coverage for someone who you say is not notable. Are you sure you meant that? Do you have some other rationale? - Sitush (talk) 15:21, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Soft keep I can understand hesitation to attribute any notoriety to an alleged criminal, but the article subject is covered in-depth in many independent reliable sources. Zindor (talk) 17:02, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep He is allegedly involved in the killing of 8 cops, with the story widely reported in India. He has a well documented criminal history spanning multiple decades, exposing the criminal-political nexus of Uttar Pradesh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.92.160.63 (talk) 15:18, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep He is a history-sheeter, recently involved in the killing of 8 cops and still at large. He can be considered as a terrorist, with a lot of coverage in both digital and print media. Neurofreak (talk) 17:06, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears in multiple news articles in major Indian newspapers. JS (talk) 20:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep He is a major crime figure and pretty much every tv channel and news paper is writing about him. i don't see how anyone can consider him not notable. he is notorious in addition to notable and probably among the top of the most wanted list in UP now... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.83.147.206 (talk) 15:56, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:19, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly notable. Stuff like—In 2001, he killed a BJP leader, Santosh Shukla, who was then a Minister of State, in the Shivli police station.^[1] A number of policemen witnessed the shooting but Dubey was later acquitted.^[1]

—need fixing in accordance with WP:BLPCRIME however (serious BLPVIOs are grounds for deletion).

References

^ ^a ^b Ray, Meenakshi, ed. (3 July 2020). "Vikas Dubey: Man behind Kanpur firing wanted for 60 cases of murder, robbery". Hindustan Times. Retrieved 4 July 2020.

Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:13, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The man & his story, if true, exposes a very strong racket of collusion between criminals, police & politicians in the Indian state of UP. A man involved in multiple murders including that of a minister of state & still elected having won a poll in local elections contesting from a jail, the entire country's is watching how the saga unfolds, it definitely is notable. Đõc §aмέέЯ 09:06, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Jayanta Sen. Some minor cleanup can make it comply with quality standards. SerChevalerie (talk) 18:31, 7 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 12:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Toto[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 08:02, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:04, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:04, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable film. HAWTH OFF HEAD TALK 1:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Delete My BEFORE does not find any significant coverage about this subject in reliable, independent sources to meet GNG nor anything to meet NFILM. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:20, 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 LifeWay Christian Resources#World Changers. Sandstein 12:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

World Changers[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 08:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. BhaskaraPattelar (talk) 08:24, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability. Mccapra (talk) 17:24, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to LifeWay Christian Resources#World Changers per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion since World Changers was managed by LifeWay according to:
- Pipes, Carol (2020-05-01). "LifeWay to discontinue World Changers projects amid COVID-19". Kentucky Today. Archived from the original on 2020-06-28. Retrieved 2020-06-28.
  The article notes, "In 2011, LifeWay partnered with NAMB to bring World Changers to the LifeWay student ministry family and assume day-to-day operations of the ministry. Summer 2012 was the first summer World Changers was operated by LifeWay."
Cunard (talk) 10:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Cunard. Mccapra (talk) 17:29, 11 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 this article (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 14:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IILM Institute for Higher Education[edit]

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

Institute has changed its name and moved its campus. Check IILM University. No need for a separate page and also there is nothing to merge. Hatchens (talk) 08:25, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 08:25, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:28, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:28, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hatchens please can you explain this nomination, is it based on WP:GNG? according to the article the institute has not "changed its name and moved its campus": one campus has split off as a separate university, but the institute still has the same name and two other campuses. TSventon (talk) 09:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What used to be the Guragon college of IILM Institute for Higher Education became IILM University. The original institute still operates, and even has a secondary college. I am not familiar with the institute in any way, but as a ranked, semi-autonomous higher education institute, existing for almost 30 years, it is most likely notable. --Muhandes (talk) 08:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:36, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nomination appears to be based on a false premise. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:12, 7 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. Fenix down (talk) 14:41, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Márk Heinrich[edit]

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

Non-notable footballer. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarian footballer. It baffles my mind how this "article" managed to stay here since 2012. The article only contains one source, which is not even independent from him. The Hungarian Wiki article also managed to stay there since 2012 but it's also up to deletion there as well. The thing is, Hungarian Wikipedia is full of articles on sportspeople like this one (articles that contain only one basic sentence, an infobox and one source which is either a database or a non-independent site) and that is a big problem there. I don't know about that situation here but I know for a fact that this footballer is not notable. I also did a Google search and I did not found anything besides databases and sources which are not independent. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly notable, meets WP:NFOOTBALL with (according to Soccerway) at least 100 appearances in the Nemzeti Bajnokság I, the top professional Hungarian league. Giant Snowman 15:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clear pass of SNG, no evidence of BEFORE from nom. Smartyllama (talk) 17:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes NFOOTBALL Spiderone 21:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTY added Ref.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:05, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - His article has been just deleted from Hungarian Wikipedia. I know that does not prove anything, just saying. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 16:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes NFOOTY. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 15:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see 3 matches in NB-I, not 100 appearances like one previous comment said. But that's still 3x90min of ground-time in a fully professional league, and 1s is enough for NFOOTY. Age 30 isn't necessarily the end of a football career, so we should give a few more years for GNG. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:19, 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. Sandstein 13:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Cameron (comedian)[edit]

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

This article is predominantly about Cameron's son: he wouldn't be notable enough to warrant his own page without this famous connection, so fails WP:NOTINHERITED. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 13:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:48, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:48, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Nfitz (talk) 03:58, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Nfitz (talk) 03:58, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete this article. It's very interesting and there are many Michael MacIntyre fans that are interested in knowing his family background. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.226.232.193 (talk) 13:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A Books search reveals plenty of coverage related to his being the father of his son, but little to none about him himself. He does get SIGCOV in Barry Cryer's book, Butterfly Brain, but I can't see it anywhere else. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 14:19, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Flori4nK ^{t • c} 14:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, so people are not exempted from having to clear our notability and sourceability standards just because they have famous children — but nothing here constitutes a strong claim that he would pass our notability standards in his own right, and even the sources are fundamentally about his son rather than him. What little content we require (or can reliably source) about Cameron can be contained entirely in Michael McIntyre's article without needing a standalone biography of him as an independent topic. Bearcat (talk) 17:11, 11 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) Jack Frost (talk) 03:20, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Khawar Qureshi[edit]

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

Delete: various problems including failing to meet WP:GNG and written like a résumé.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 13:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 13:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 13:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 13:33, 5 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 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly passes GNG. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 14:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple mentions in WP:RS over an extended period (since at least 2017). Prominent lawyer trying cases in international courts. Clearly meets WP:GNG. Lard Almighty (talk) 15:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes WP:GNG. I have done some work on the article (especially WP:OVERLINK); much more remains to be done. Edwardx (talk) 15:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per this addition I just made. Seems to be sought after in a number of notable criminal cases. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my points on the BLP noticeboard. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:20, 6 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. There appears to be a policy-based consensus that the article meets the relevant notability criteria (WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG) with significant coverage in reliable sources. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 03:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aisha Chaudhary[edit]

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

The subject is known for only the book (which redirects to this article) that she wrote, which in turn is what the film is based one. Clear case of WP:BLP1E. The motivational speaking activity does not hold because she hasn't won any notable award on that front. Also, she had a rare disease but not a subject for medical research. Sources also stink of typical PR mostly run by Bloomsbury or people close to he subject. 1.186.179.232 (talk) 12:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination on behalf of IP. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:12, 5 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) 13:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nominator claims this is a clear case of blp1e. Which "event" is meant? Her illness, the publication of her book, the production of the movie based on her book, or her death? pburka (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pburka, pinged IP. User_talk:1.186.179.232 --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Aisha's life is an inspirational story. One cannot expect the same standards of notability considering her illness.As for who and why this was created.This article was created as part of a wikipedia community event. Offcourse it could use more editing but it certainly does not warrant deletion. Chinmayisk (talk) 14:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Should be kept. LuciferEdits (talk) 15:02, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep as it clearly meets WP:AUTHOR. "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film...". She wrote the book. She is depicted in the film based on her book. Easy keep. The (IP) nominator may not be familiar with the notability standard and creative professions, so I won't chew 'em out, but they may want to spend a bit more time watching other AfDs before nominating other articles. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:25, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meets WP:NAUTHOR as explained above and as confirmed in multiple reliable sources already in the article such as Indian Express, India Today and others so deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Writing a book and being the subject of a film is clearly not the same event. I think this New India Express article published four years after Chaudhary's death demonstrates notability: "Who was Aisha Chaudhary, the inspiration behind Priyanka Chopra's 'The Sky is Pink'?" (Sept 10, 2019) — Toughpigs (talk) 20:34, 5 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 this BLP (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 10:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sujeeth[edit]

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

The subject has made two films but notability is not inherited. A quick Google search did not yield any results showcasing his notability nor has he won many notable awards to satisfy WP:ARTIST. Proposing AfD as PROD was declined. Request an editor to consider this and complete the process. 1.186.179.232 (talk) 12:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AFD nomination on behalf of IP. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:46, 5 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) 12:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I found that there are wp:rs available for him, but the article can be written in a more better way. although I have added few refs too.Shubhi89 (talk) 13:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is a bit too soon but a director does inherit some notability from his films in the same way that an assistant director would be devalued for not being the main director. Both films were high profile releases which generated coverage of him, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable as per WP:DIRECTOR, created two notable works, one of which is second-most expensive Indian film -- Ab207 (talk) 18:44, 9 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 09:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Samodzielny Pododdział Antyterrorystyczny Policji[edit]

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

What makes this Polish police unit (or unit type, I think) notable? I see only mentions in passing. Seems to fail WP:NORG/WP:GNG. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What makes them notable? Perhaps this, and this. Keep. SpinningSpark 14:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The first source, from am online-only equivalanent of a trade journal, mentions the subject in a single paragraph. The second source is in-depth and reliable but also self-published by the subject (it is from a local branch of Polish police). I am afraid this still fails to show that the topic meets GNG/NORG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - The first source is discussing the history of police anti-terrorist units is it not? Just because it hasn't used the full title much (which is relatively recent) doesn't stop it being about the subject. The second source is from a regional police department, not the anti-terrorist unit itself (ie, not written by the subject), but I accept it is not independent. SpinningSpark 11:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also offer this article, which admittedly doesn't have much, but it has some useable information discussing the plan to absorb these units into a new structure. SpinningSpark 12:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep Obviously a notable topic with enough sources for those who can use google, especially this one. Aslo pl-wp article exists, with other sources. I added "Expand Polish" template and interwikilink. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourced article on police tactical units. Clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:31, 7 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 13:02, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EuroLeague Women clubs performance comparison[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Definitely WP:OR, possibly WP:FANCRUFT. Can we get this article deleted as soon as possible? REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 14:03, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOT: Entire page of unexplained stats tables.—Bagumba (talk) 08:55, 10 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) 23:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Legendary Giant Beast Wolfman vs. Baragon[edit]

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

Contested PROD - doesn't meet WP:NFILM. Passenger pigeon (talk) 12:32, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Passenger pigeon (talk) 12:32, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:19, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 16:21, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, so far unreleased fan film, with nothing cited to reliable sources. Even if this fan film eventually gains notability after it is released, it is far WP:TOOSOON to be creating an article on it now. Rorshacma (talk) 15:54, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreleased, no claim of notability, no evidence of notability. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 15:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Little to no material to merit its existence, despite significant enough time given to properly build a foundation for the article. Armegon (talk) 11:26, 8 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) Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 22:01, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of cue sports[edit]

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

Unnecessary and clear WP:OR REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep - how is this OR? It's quite well sourced. It's also clearly quite an important comparison to make between very similar games. I don't get this AfD nomination at all.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cue sports-related deletion discussions. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are perhaps a few unsourced statements which may raise objections, like "Serious players of both types of cue sports generally prefer fast cloth", but overall, this article does seem to be rather well-sourced for what it is. Actually, to be honest, when it comes to these kinds of niche articles, I really just don't mind that kind of thing. If this kind of article is completely sterilized of all statements like that, or even deleted (which, my goodness, I think is an extreme step to take), the project would become impoverished for it. BirdValiant (talk) 13:37, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per discussion. Well sourced and notable page. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above. Even the few unsourced statements can be sourced (they're not controversial, anyway, I would think, so they satisfy WP:V's expectation that material be verifiable not necessarily verified yet, absent a likelihood of editorial dispute or reader skepticism). A couple of years ago, I could have just fixed those myself, when I had almost every cue-sports-related book in print (and many no longer in print) in my library of 5,000+ books. But I had to downsize when moving into a small apartment instead of a big converted warehouse space. If anything has crept in that appears to be PoV or OR (especially personal analysis/evaluation/synthesis), just remove that part. While we do not have a lot of comparison articles like this, Comparison of cue sports is of particular value, because the games/disciplines are all closely related but have widely divergent rules, terminology, etc. Many if not most of our readers will be very familiar with one variant or another but not the rest of them, and will be apt to make incorrect assumptions about similar-looking games. So, we have to cover these differences somewhere. To distinguish them in full detail at multiple articles would be extremely repetitive, and likely to lead to content-forking (e.g. an article on pool not listing the same differences from snooker as were listed from pool at a snooker article, and so on). I think Fuhghettaboutit wrote most of it, specifically because of the need to put the bulk of this compare/contrast information in a central place. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:47, 6 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. Fenix down (talk) 11:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comparisons between the North American Soccer League and Major League Soccer[edit]

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

Seems to be WP:SYNTH Spiderone 12:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:25, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:25, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:25, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as pure OR. Giant Snowman 12:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like the other AfD of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparisons between the Women's United Soccer Association, Women's Professional Soccer, and National Women's Soccer League. I also see major issue regarding WP:OR. Govvy (talk) 12:59, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 14:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete same reason as the other AfD, WP:OR. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not just for WP:SYNTH issues, but because the format makes the article nigh unreadable. Even if this topic does meet notability, it should probably be nuked. Jay eyem (talk) 19:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @GiantSnowman:, @Spiderone:, @Govvy: There are several sites online that makes a "compare and contrast" argument between the North American Soccer League (1968-84) and its successor in the United States/Canada, Major League Soccer: BY THE NUMBERS… NORTH AMERICAN SOCCER LEAGUE VS MAJOR LEAGUE SOCCER, Collaboration versus Confrontation: Comparing the Successes and Failures of Major League Soccer and the American Soccer League, Assessing Major League Soccer's Efficiency - Fisher Digital ... (scroll down to page 6), Has MLS Really Learned the Lessons of the NASL? , The Great Debate: Promotion and Relegation in American Soccer, Tim Hanley's Recollections of an NASL Soccer Career - How does the NASL compare to MLS?, Taking the Training Wheels Off MLS: Why the Single Entity Antitrust Exemption Should No Longer Apply (scroll down to page 548), Has MLS learned from the past? - Los Angeles Times, Soccer around the World: A Cultural Guide to the World's Favorite Sport, We Are Not All The Same | MLS vs NASL Part I, Like a Phoenix Rising - Los Angeles Times, Too bad MLS can't auction off Beckham BornonJune8 (talk) 2:15, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  - @GiantSnowman:, @Spiderone:, @Govvy:, @Jay eyem:, @KingSkyLord: This is the most clear "compare and contrast" argument between the NASL and MLS that I found thus far: Follow the money to see if U.S. pro soccer leagues remain viable
    Some of the similarities between MLS and the 1968-1984 version of the North American Soccer League (think Pelé and the Cosmos) are hard to ignore. The NASL grew quickly through expansion, even as its established teams struggled; several MLS sides have fallen behind, as the league adds new teams virtually every season. Enthusiasm for a few of the NASL’s teams was counterbalanced by apathy among others. Likewise, several MLS sides draw enormous crowds while others, irrespective of the product on the field, struggle to draw fans. The similarities are even more striking on the women’s side, which saw two leagues close shop in less than a decade. Both the Women’s United Soccer Association (WUSA, 2001-03) and Women’s Professional Soccer (WPS, 2009-11) began with optimistic visions of being the best women’s league in the world. Both leagues had trouble attracting sponsors, fans and committed ownership. Both had to close down when the money ran out. Even though the NWSL has lasted into a sixth year and is thriving in several cities, the league last offseason lost two franchises that were unwilling to continue losing money. The biggest difference on the MLS side is the money at stake. NASL teams flitted around the map, folding at the drop of a hat, because their owners had invested so little that folding or moving a team made perfect financial sense. The Minnesota Kicks’ second, less-involved owner famously folded the team over the phone. Today’s MLS owners have franchises worth hundreds of millions of dollars and most have soccer-specific stadiums to host the teams — investments too large to let fail. The NWSL, though, is more concerning. Costs are more controlled than the WUSA or WPS, which is a positive. The league also has five teams that share ownership with MLS teams, plus the United States and Canadian soccer federations paying salaries for their national-team players. Those are helpful backstops to prevent a sudden end to the league.
    BornonJune8 (talk) 3:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

This is wikipedia the online encyclopaedia, it doesn't say it's a comparison website now does it! Have you even read WP:SYNTH or WP:OR?? Govvy (talk) 09:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Govvy: The last time that I checked, there are numerous articles concerning various comparisons, not just of sports, but of science, politics, medicine, the military, etc. So don't come in and tell me that Wikipedia isn't at all, in part a comparison website, because that isn't exactly true! BornonJune8 (talk) 10:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but in my opinion, some of them probably shouldn't exist either. But the existence of them isn't evidence that this should be kept. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BornonJune8: please do not ping me, you are not going to change my mind. If you want a long career on Wikipedia I also suggest you read what everyone else is saying and accept the clear consensus. Giant Snowman 10:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not ping me, I am already watching the page. I am not convinced that this needs its own page; I think much of the relevant comparisons could be merged into History of soccer in the United States or something. But that isn't even the real issue here in my opinion; the article is basically unreadable, primarily due to the way it is structured. Why on Earth is all of the prose in these boxes? And why is there a side by side comparison? A brief reading of the actual prose in the box just describes what happened in each league in its respective year of existence rather than making an actual comparison. That hardly merits a "comparison". Really the only part of the article that is readable for me is the box comparing the cities in each league, and that certainly wouldn't merit its own article. I think that what useful comparison there is should be merged into another article and the rest of it, if needed, should be nuked and started again. Jay eyem (talk) 14:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete so much synth and OR. And what, not contrasts? :) Nfitz (talk) 04:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 17:26, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even if this is somehow an article we should have (of which I'm not at all convinced), there is nothing salvageable in this mess. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:23, 7 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) 11:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wynn-Anne Rossi[edit]

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

I couldn't find significant coverage on the subject in reliable media. Fails WP:GNG as well as WP:COMPOSER. Less Unless (talk) 12:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 12:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 12:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 12:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I saw several Google hits in which she was conducting symposiums and workshops at several universities. However, I couldn't find a single piece on her or any legitimate review of her music. Unless someone can find more on her, I would say delete. Rogermx (talk) 13:39, 5 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 nominator and delete voter were sockpuppets which leaves no delete proposals. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 00:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arshi Khan[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)

Not a notable person and fails WP:NACTOR. Redirect: She only is known for her appearance on Bigg Boss 11. She did small roles doesn’t mean she is a well know celebrity and haven’t been seen ever since. TVactors (talk) 12:11, 5 July 2020 (UTC) — TVactors (talk struck blocked sock, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:14, 13 July 2020 (UTC)*contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. BLOCKED SOCK. Britishfinance (talk) 13:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Suspect a bad faith nomination as this BLP actress has gotten involved in politics. Fail of WP:BEFORE per here. Britishfinance (talk) 13:02, 5 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Comment She is not known for anything but Bigg Boss. Her politics career was only for a month it doesn’t mean she is a notable so it should be deleted or redirect. Search in news section in google is does not help. If you see the news they are putting is either her controversial behaviour or statements. There is no big show she has done that people will remember her. TVactors (talk) 15:04, 5 July 2020 (UTC) — TVactors (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. She has plenty of RS regarding her entry into Indian politics (which was when the vandalism started on this article): India Today, India Today, Times of India, The Indian Express. There are lots more pieces. She also has other general WP:SIGCOV pieces on her career, such as: Hindustan Times, Indian Express. However, there is simply a huge volume of RS on her in the general Indian media on her day-to-day actions, such as: Times of India, Times of India, which in itself would be a pass of WP:BASIC. Britishfinance (talk) 18:11, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It doesn’t matter if she went into politics she is not known for anything. All those news was when she was a part of Bigg Boss and plus doing small roles in shows doesn’t make her a celebrity or star. Look at Mahira Sharma and Priyank Sharma they are not notable either. So stop trying keep this article when she is not notable. Why you think if she takes up politics she is a celebrity no it does not work like that. Anyways people have already said delete ‘Arshi Khan fan’. She is not a star just be prepared as it is going to end and will be deleted by any cost. Still these of her donating or wishing a reality tv star death doesn’t make her a celebrity please stop trying to justify when I have already told you that she is not known for nothing but her participation in Bigg Boss. Are you a fan of Arshi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TVactors (talk • contribs) 18:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC) — TVactors (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Per Nom. LuciferEdits (talk) 15:04, 5 July 2020 (UTC) SOCK STRIKE[reply]
Keep she was nominated for deletion by a single purpose account Devokewater (talk) 20:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment why keep she is not even a notable person and she is not a celebrity the user above is give un relatable sources like donating to charity condolencing a reality tv star death and resigning from politics which she only did for 1 month. It doesn’t mean she is a celebrity so I think it needs to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TVactors (talk • contribs) 20:21, 5 July 2020 (UTC) — TVactors (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. BLOCKED SOCK.[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Awdal. Sandstein 13:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Awdalland[edit]

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

The bulk of the article (demographics section) is identical to that of the "Awdal" page. Moreover, contains poor citations throughout. For example, 1) Citation 1 makes no reference to "Awdalland" and it being a "former region". 2) No citation for the claim that "Awdalland (also spelled Adelland) takes its name from the Adel Sultanate". 3) Citation 4 is unreliable as it links to a Somali news tabloid website. 4)Citation 5 links to a Japanese website irrelevant to the article. 5) Though some sources touch on Awdalland, a Google Books search returns very limited results for "Awdalland" [8], thus may not qualify for notability in the sense of gaining "sufficiently significant attention by the world". Therefore, this article should be deleted due to lack of relevance and unreliable citations. Jacob300 (talk) 11:11, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Jacob300 (talk) 11:11, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Jacob300 (talk) 11:11, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Citation 5, for some reason, points to an archive.org snapshot that took place after the website had changed its content (apparently taken over as an advertisement and/or holding space). An earlier version of the cited source appears here. That said, it's a blog post that probably runs afoul of WP:SPS. But as long as I'm here I'd suggest redirect to Awdal, as opposed to "merge and redirect": I wouldn't suggest merging problematic content elsewhere, and anyway both the separatist movement and the opposition to it are already mentioned there. I did notice that the article's creator was blocked via WP:CU but no mention of the other account(s) with whom they're affiliated. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I just found my comment from 2011 at Talk:Awdalland#Duplicate content where I suggested this was a POV fork of Awdal. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Awdal per above. --Kzl55 (talk) 10:13, 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 keep. No consensus to delete this BLP and a consensus that it satisfies NPROF; a clean up is needed, but that is not for AfD. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 10:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shaaban Khalil[edit]

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

Can someone nominate this article into AFD as the editor has connection with the article and probably non-notable person. 184.22.70.110 (talk) 10:18, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination on behalf of IP. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article definitely needs a lot of work to tidy it up, but the subject appears to be notable under WP:PROF, as is director of an institute, and has very high h-index according to Google Scholar. --Kj cheetham (talk) 12:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to be notable academic to me, and should satisfy a few of the criteria in WP:NACADEMIC. The article certainly has some issues e.g. with inline citation, but these can be fixed. Hzh (talk) 14:07, 7 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. Fenix down (talk) 10:38, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comparisons between the Women's United Soccer Association, Women's Professional Soccer, and National Women's Soccer League[edit]

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

I don't see how this article is really that helpful, I see a clear breach of WP:OR, the excessively long title, I can't see anyone typing that in to google! Encyclopaedias are suppose to be about an item, biography, entities, not "comparisons". This feels at odds with what the project stands for. Govvy (talk) 10:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Govvy: If an online encyclopedia like this shouldn't be about "comparisons" (which in on itself, is merely a subjective observation to make), then why exactly is there an entire category devoted to comparisons in the realm of sports. The fact of the matter is, that in the United States, there have thus far been three professional women's soccer leagues, that are recognized at the top of the United States league system: The WUSA, WSP, and currently, NWSL. So it isn't like I just randomly threw these separate leagues together for a comparison if they otherwise have little else in common. BornonJune8 (talk) 10:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OMG, apart from the Chess article, every other article should go, no sourcing in some, others are just plain OR and a couple of those articles are not really comparisons, it's just a collection of unsourced statistics. Govvy (talk) 11:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Govvy (talk) 11:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Govvy (talk) 11:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete anything starting "Comparison of" is inevitably going to be original research. None of the sources so far as I can see are actually comparing the two. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:11, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete clear WP:OR. The user who created this page has done the same plenty of other times and although the articles keep getting AFD'ed they continue to make such pages (topic ban?). REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow this one List of Major Indoor Soccer League (1978–1992) broadcasters survived an unattended AFD. Perhaps someone should renominate. Nfitz (talk) 04:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as pure OR. @REDMAN 2019: I would support a topic ban, you need to start a discussion supported by evidence at WP:ANI. Giant Snowman 12:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR Spiderone 12:22, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 14:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not just for WP:SYNTH issues, but because the format makes the article nigh unreadable. Even if this topic does meet notability, it should probably be nuked. Jay eyem (talk) 19:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Govvy: Again, you come across sounding subjective. Are you saying that there shouldn't be a comparison of sports category at all? I have nothing to do with those other "comparisons in sports" articles, so you have to be more specific regarding which articles (besides the ones that I may have had a hand in creating), have to go. And I don't understand why you say that you can't compare statistics. Let's say in baseball, I'm comparing and contrasting home many collective home runs one team hit during an entire season against another team? Sports are by design, about comparisons. In the Olympics for example, statistical comparisons like how fast an athlete runs or swims or skis is done all the time. BornonJune8 (talk) 2:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Joseph2302: Online "comparisons" between the three American women's professional soccer leagues: Routledge Handbook of Sports Marketing (scroll down to page 358 under Professional women's sports in the US), For Soccer-Crazy Girls Only: Everything Great about Soccer, The Real Tea On U.S. Women’s Soccer, Gabarra: The dreams of WUSA and WPS are the reality of NWSL, Will NWSL be a success? Well ..., WHAT IS THE STATE OF THE NWSL AFTER THEIR FOURTH SEASON?, NWSL has survived longer than any other women's soccer league. When do players get paid?, Follow the money to see if U.S. pro soccer leagues remain viable

Some of the similarities between MLS and the 1968-1984 version of the North American Soccer League (think Pelé and the Cosmos) are hard to ignore. The NASL grew quickly through expansion, even as its established teams struggled; several MLS sides have fallen behind, as the league adds new teams virtually every season. Enthusiasm for a few of the NASL’s teams was counterbalanced by apathy among others. Likewise, several MLS sides draw enormous crowds while others, irrespective of the product on the field, struggle to draw fans. The similarities are even more striking on the women’s side, which saw two leagues close shop in less than a decade. Both the Women’s United Soccer Association (WUSA, 2001-03) and Women’s Professional Soccer (WPS, 2009-11) began with optimistic visions of being the best women’s league in the world. Both leagues had trouble attracting sponsors, fans and committed ownership. Both had to close down when the money ran out. Even though the NWSL has lasted into a sixth year and is thriving in several cities, the league last offseason lost two franchises that were unwilling to continue losing money. The biggest difference on the MLS side is the money at stake. NASL teams flitted around the map, folding at the drop of a hat, because their owners had invested so little that folding or moving a team made perfect financial sense. The Minnesota Kicks’ second, less-involved owner famously folded the team over the phone. Today’s MLS owners have franchises worth hundreds of millions of dollars and most have soccer-specific stadiums to host the teams — investments too large to let fail. The NWSL, though, is more concerning. Costs are more controlled than the WUSA or WPS, which is a positive. The league also has five teams that share ownership with MLS teams, plus the United States and Canadian soccer federations paying salaries for their national-team players. Those are helpful backstops to prevent a sudden end to the league.

BornonJune8 (talk) 3:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Please thread your comments, it helps keep the talk page legible. And there are still a lot of issues with the article. The title is awful, the lead is way too long, the prose are in these boxes which are entirely unnecessary, and most of the prose isn't even a comparison; it's just side by side discussions of their history. All of that is better suited in their respective articles. If there is information that really merits inclusion on Wikipedia, it is probably better served in an article like History of soccer in the United States. The format for this article alone makes it unreadable and it should be nuked. Jay eyem (talk) 14:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete so much synth and OR. Nfitz (talk) 04:07, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Any content here that's not WP:SYNTH can be covered in Women's soccer in the United States. Ytoyoda (talk) 19:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A comparison between leagues would be more appropriate as a short section or table in Women's soccer in the United States that use statistics rather than subjective comparisons. Sounder Bruce 01:11, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW, WP:NOT, WP:SYNTH, and WP:TNT. The clear consensus above seems to be to delete. It's just not what we do. We abhor synthesis. The writing is awful. Bearian (talk) 02:05, 10 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 13:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Lewin Lectures on Physics[edit]

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

Multiple unreffed sections which sound promotional. The essence of this page is already in the main Walter Lewin article, which is why I'm not suggesting a merge. If not a full delete, it should be a redirect I believe. Kj cheetham (talk) 09:56, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 10:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:21, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The relevant section in the main Walter Lewin article already covers this topic, and though it needs an edit for tone, it's better than this. The bulk of this article is just explaining the standard content that introductory college-physics courses will typically include, but in a hyped-up way. There's no need to discuss these videos separately from Lewin himself, and nothing in this article needs saving. XOR'easter (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Covered elsewhere. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:32, 11 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 per WP:A7. So Why 08:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CPL Software Labs[edit]

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

Advertisement of a Non-notable company. Lack of independent reliable Resources. fails WP:GNG, WP:NCORP DMySon 09:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 13:51, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 13:51, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 13:51, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Note that we also have the Draft:CPL Software Labs which was rejected at AfC, as well as reference to something I haven't seen before, a freestanding Wikidata item which at one point had a promotionally worded Description. AllyD (talk) 14:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (possible CSD A7): An article about a software company, created by a WP:SPA and IPs. The only external links are to their Weebly page (misspelt), Github and Wikidata, none of which are reliable sources. No evidence of attained notability provided or found. AllyD (talk) 14:17, 5 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 Ethnic group. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 09:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic origin[edit]

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

The very poor fork from Ethnic group. See discussion on talk page. I propose restore the original redirect to Ethnic group. Andronof (talk) 09:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ethnic group. The brief discussion on the talk page is 16 (!) years old, and didn't reach consensus. The article is indeed very poorly cited, while Ethnic group isn't bad, and Ethnicity now redirects there. Merge discussions do not have to come to AfD, either. However, since ethnic origin, ethnicity and ethnic group are closely related (if not precisely synonyms), it seems sensible to have one article to cover them. Any attempt to expand and source the article otherwise would only create a WP:FORK of the target article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:59, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to Ethnic group. My very best wishes (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FORK. It's an older and, to be blunt, racist term. I would not oppose a redirect combined with a hard move-protect. Bearian (talk)
Merge any relevant sourced parts to Ethnic group. The Ethnic origin article is poorly sourced. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 05:30, 11 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 13:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Georgetown University commencement speakers[edit]

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

Whilst the organisation is notable, I would argue that the list alone is not notable enough to deserve a place in the Encyclopedia. OXYLYPSE (talk) 08:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. OXYLYPSE (talk) 08:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. OXYLYPSE (talk) 08:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:25, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete The fact that the sole source is the university itself is telling. While most of these people appear to be "notable" by WP's low standards, there's no evidence that anyone ever cared that any of these people spoke at GU. Mangoe (talk) 18:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this is notable for the person doing so it can be included in their article, if it is defining in some way for the university it can be included in that article, there is no reason to have this list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:00, 6 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. Fenix down (talk) 07:39, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rafa Escobar[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; doesn't appear to be a notable manager; has never managed a professional club Spiderone 07:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:36, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:36, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 07:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The team has any importance at the local level. --Fittipaldi92 (talk) 15:09, 8 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) 06:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Flamingo Oasis[edit]

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

Not a notable hotel. Fails WP:NBUILD --Pontificalibus 06:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. --Pontificalibus 06:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. --Pontificalibus 06:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur with nom. WP:MILL hotel, nothing notable stated. Sources have no in-depth independent coverage. MB 03:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SPAM and -- I can stress this strongly enough -- WP:MILL. It's only "the 29th tallest building in Benidorm." That is a city of 71,000 permanent residents. It's not even in the top four metro areas of the Valencian Community, nor in the top ten in Spain. Bearian (talk) 02:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yeah... this is a poorly sourced article about a non-notable building. Unclear reason for deprod. Reyk _YO! 13:26, 11 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. Virgin Islands representatives at international beauty pageants[edit]

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

This article is a duplication of Miss US Virgin Islands with the additions of contestants (which I deleted) to non-notable pageants that were deleted many times via wiki consensus like Miss Supranational, Miss Grand International, Miss Intercontinental. Richie Campbell (talk) 05:26, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:31, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:31, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2019-09 ✍️ create

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

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

The result was delete. With no arguments for keeping this article, the consensus is to delete. Should they meet the criteria for inclusion at a future date, an article can be re-created. PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 19:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kiat Goh[edit]

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

appears to be paid for promo about a non-notable musician. the few sources that exist about him are questionable at best, straitstimes in particular has the most hits which is dubious considering their history of sloppy reporting. Praxidicae (talk) 13:26, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:NSINGER does not appear to be met (except, perhaps, point 1 which trends along a clarification of GNG). Whether WP:GNG is would depend on how reliable these sources are. I'm not too familiar on them myself. I'll probably look into the sources and update this comment. I think some input from the WikiProject might also be of help. From a look at the sources currently, I'd trend towards WP:TOOSOON at this stage. Input from the WikiProject may be of value. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would say WP:TOOSOON as well. – robertsky (talk) 05:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac 1 5 04:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NSINGER. It is likely too soon per above. The sources towards notability just do not meet the criteria, especially for a BLP. With that in mind, and since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, there would be no objection to recreation when better sources are available. WP:NEXIST is used a lot as a reason to keep but it also includes However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface. -- Otr500 (talk) 22:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for not meeting WP:MUSICBIO. First two citations are industry sites reporting media digital content. Lacks broad coverage outside of Singapore. Tutored by a Grammy-award-winning Reiner Goldberg but there is no inherited notability by studying with a notable person. No singles or albums on his country's music charts. Not yet. Blue Riband► 01:47, 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 delete. Sandstein 13:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mitti: Virasat Babbaran Di[edit]

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

A non-notable film with no significant coverage in reliable sources. Current sources are mostly about Hema Malini producing the film (WP:NOTINHERITED). It was released in August 2019 and I'm not seeing any review per WP:NFILM. GSS ^💬 04:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 04:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 04:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hema Malini. --Micky (talk) 18:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mojo Hand (talk) 22:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac 1 5 04:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:NFILM and I agree with WP:NOTINHERITED regarding the sources Spiderone 08:50, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Québec-Radio[edit]

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

This Internet radio station does not meet the WP:GNG. Raymie (t • c) 03:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 03:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 03:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable internet radio station. CupcakePerson13 (talk) 05:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable Devokewater (talk) 09:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to Le Québécois: As an WP:ATD. Barely found anything about the station. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 06:18, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely unsourced and with no claim to notability. --Lockley (talk) 06:46, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Santa María (TV channel)[edit]

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

Local Catholic cable TV channel that airs very little if any local programming, mostly EWTN output. This is not a broadcast station, just a cable channel. Fails WP:GNG. Raymie (t • c) 03:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 03:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 03:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 03:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable television station. CupcakePerson13 (talk) 05:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources in sight, fails WP:NMEDIA. It also fails WP:BCAST, because the network does not produce original content. I have already moved a brief paragraph to San Miguel, Buenos Aires, where the channel broadcasts from.--Darius (talk) 01:31, 7 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 Deftones discography. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 09:51, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Music in High Places: Live in Hawaii[edit]

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

I'm not sure if for a video album we are still looking at WP:NALBUM, but I don't think this meets any part of WP:NOTABILITY. Possibly worth a redirect and Deftones is probably the best redirect target. Boleyn (talk) 12:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Deftones discography, where it is already listed in the "Video albums" section. If anyone happens to search for the title they can be sent there. The video itself appears to be a quickie release and possibly unauthorized (anyone familiar with the band would be quite surprised if they approved that cover design), and it received no media notice in its own right. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:12, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Deftones: Barely found anything about the video album. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 01:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect as above, not independently notable in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:57, 6 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; redirected to Zee TV per WP:PRESERVE. BD2412 T 00:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zee Rishtey Awards[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG and appears to exist only to promote Zee TV shows ,to which the award belongs also Draft:Golden Petal Awards was rejected for same reason. Princepratap1234 (talk) 14:12, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Princepratap1234 (talk) 14:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Princepratap1234 (talk) 14:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:50, 30 June 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 has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given ineligibility for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 01:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable award, a before search yields almost exclusively press releases and advertorials. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 07:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Tayi above Spiderone 17:47, 5 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) 01:46, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert George Robinson[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER. The article has no references, and I can only find one source in a Google search. Lettler^hello 01:09, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^hello 01:09, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^hello 01:09, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lettler^hello 01:09, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The claim to notability is that he won a medal during World War I. That medal was given to over 24,000 British soldiers during that war, and I see no other evidence of notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the DCM doesn't satisfy #1 of WP:SOLDIER and no other notability to satisfy WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:04, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unfortunately not notable. Doesn't meet any of requirements of soldier or the general notability guideline. Article is also entirely unsourced. -OXYLYPSE (talk) 08:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable Devokewater (talk) 09:26, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, only DCM, not notable. Vici Vidi (talk) 07:37, 6 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) 01:45, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of artists with a title track[edit]

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

Pure WP:LISTCRUFT. There is no accompanying page to discuss this and nor is there likely to ever be, since "artists that have a song with the name name as their band" isn't really a notable topic or even something that gets coverage outside of maybe some listicles. There's no sources, either, and it's likely that everything listed is WP:OR. Was PRODed back in 2010 but it was challenged and the page has doddered on since. — Kawnhr (talk) 01:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 01:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 01:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 01:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as much as I appreciate Blackfield’s inclusion, the article is pure WP:TRIVIA. Sergecross73 msg me 01:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:OR. Synthwave.94 (talk) 01:54, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The list equivalent of a TRIVIALCAT. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. There are no reliable sources that I am aware of (let alone multiple reliable sources) which discuss this and I don't see any reason why how a band may have entitled one of there albums is anything but trivia. Rlendog (talk) 15:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article displays some pretty impressive geek-level knowledge (I'm surprised that someone other than me knows about Storm Corrosion), but this is not an encyclopedic topic unless there is some evidence that it really matters when a band titles a song after itself. Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:LISTCRUFT. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:TRIVIA and WP:OR. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 06:18, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same as above. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BD2412 T 00:12, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scoop (TV series)[edit]

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

Borderline and has been in CAT:NN for over 11 years because it's tricky. TV series on BBC, with notable actors and writers. I don't think it does pass WP:NOTABILITY though, based on coverage and significance. Boleyn (talk) 13:07, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:16, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:16, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I agree that it's borderline and especially difficult to search for -- "scoop" is not a useful search term for news articles about much of anything, unfortunately, and given that it is associated with the BBC we're losing a whole range of potential independent sources. Google searches make it pretty clear that it's well known enough a quantity, though I fully acknowledge this isn't necessarily helpful in determining notability. However, it's a nationally broadcast show that lasted several years on the largest national broadcast network. This seems like the type of thing that WP:NTV is made for. It can at least be verified independently by [9], and has passing mentions in various articles about the participants. matt91486 (talk) 06:07, 29 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) 01:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NTV. I agree with Matt91486 that a BBC series that ran for three seasons is likely to be notable, even if currently searchable sources seem to be hard to find. — Toughpigs (talk) 01:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a kid's show so formulaic they have to keep it locked behind the service desk to prevent other bad writers from stealing their tired plots, but it just passes WP:TVSHOW and WP:NTV. Nate • (chatter) 01:39, 5 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. All redirected to List of longest living dogs or List of oldest cats. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 09:47, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rubble (cat)[edit]

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

I am nominating Rubble's page, and several other similar pages, for deletion for the same reason as my previous AFD nomination: holding the title of "oldest living cat" (or oldest living dog) for a year or two is not enough to pass WP:BIO and is a textbook example of a case of WP:1E where the one event isn't even particularly notable outside of the Guinness Book of World Records. Wikipedia already has lists for the pets who held this achievement (cats, dogs), which these articles could possibly redirect to. I am also nominating the following related pages because they are non-notable for the same reasons as Rubble.

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

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

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

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL HAWTH OFF HEAD TALK 0:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

This is a great story ! do not delete! Some one please make a table of the oldest living cats like is done for the supercentarians, by country. I think every cat who makes it to 30 yers old deserves to be on the list. Besides, there is a lot of less interesting stuff on wikipedia anyway. Is someone afraid wikipediamwill run out of space? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.66.248.191 (talk) 00:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The table you mentioned already exists, 73. I linked it in my nomination, and it is even more extensive than the one you suggested (the youngest cat on the list is 26, not 30.) HAWTH OFF HEAD (TALK) 0:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Redirect all to List of cats. Lettler^hello 01:10, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to either List of oldest cats or List of longest living dogs, depending on species. Each one is notable only for the age at which they died, and the only sources being used in all of them are on their deaths. As the nom says, this is pretty much an example of WP:1E. All of the essential information regarding their longevity is concisely presented on the respective lists, which is a far better way to organize the information. Rorshacma (talk) 02:32, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:51, 5 July 2020 (UTC); clarified my vote for delete -- BhagyaMani (talk) 07:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete it, the cat is a record holder and is worth having his wiki. Start by deleting all the people who fail to meet notability criteria and have a page on Wikipedia, or the tons of mostly unknown bands littering wikipedia. 2A02:587:391C:7800:18EC:F68C:A696:31B8 (talk) 10:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support deleting, per nom.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 14:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. I love both cats and dogs and it is amazing these animals lived so long but unfortunately they are not notable for Wikipedia. I am very sorry. :( And to anonymous: I am working on the deletion of non-notable bands. ;) GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom Spiderone 17:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Rusted AutoParts 05:15, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, there's two deletion noms here with Support bolded, leading to confusion for the polling. Rusted AutoParts 05:15, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all per Rorshacma. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:29, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all per Rorshacma. I too am a fam of cats, but a separate page of this type clutters the encyclopedia. Also, the various oldest (whatever animal, person, etc.) can be directed to the appropriate list to avoid a redlink. Erasmussen (talk) 19:58, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all per good reasoning above. --Lockley (talk) 06:14, 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.

[:3-1] Ray, Meenakshi, ed. (3 July 2020). "Vikas Dubey: Man behind Kanpur firing wanted for 60 cases of murder, robbery". Hindustan Times. Retrieved 4 July 2020.

[1]