Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 October 23

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< October 22	October 24 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 11:32, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bhavana Studios[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:NCORP: routine events for a film/music company and references are just passing mentions. 1292simon (talk) 23:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... (The article in question is to establish a reliable source of reference for the movie production company and its projects and is not used for the promotion of the company or its projects. There is no intention of using the article as a promotion for the brand or business mentioned in the article or any of its projects. Being on the Wikipedia encyclopedia is vital to provide the understanding to the people who want to know more about the subject in the article. There are many other articles also in the same category referring to a movie production company. Eg: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friday_Film_House , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodwill_Entertainments. Please dont't delete the article and allow it to be live on the site. ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphabetacharlie123 (talk • contribs) 05:00, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moved this from where it was posted above the nomination. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They have ONE movie, coming out in 2021. Hardly notable Oaktree b (talk) 02:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Could not find substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources for this 2-yo business. WP:NOTPROMO. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:32, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG the first film of the studio is coming out only in 2021 clearly not notable at this point.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:59, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Teckpert[edit]

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

Non notable organization that doesn’t satisfy WP:ORGCRIT. A before search shows hits in user generated sources and mere announcements such as this, this & in other unreliable source such as this. Celestina007 (talk) 22:52, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:52, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:52, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:52, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:52, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:52, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An outsourcing web design company that doesn't seem to have created any notable websites. Oaktree b (talk) 02:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable --Devokewater (talk) 20:05, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've seen notable websites marked "Powered by Teckpert" -- Eljefecapitan b (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eljefecapitan (talk • contribs) 19:53, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sources in the article are all press releases except for one which is an interview of the CEO. Lacks coverage that would establish notabi;lity. -- Whpq (talk) 15:38, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:12, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bodnant Community School[edit]

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

Nothing here suggests notability. I have had this on my watch list since its creation hoping, and perhaps expecting, that this would be one of the very few primary schools for which notability could be established but nothing has surfaced and searches reveal very little. It does not have a very long history - many schools in Wales have a much earlier foundation date and having the old building demolished so that a new school can be built is hardly notable. There is a general presumption against retaining articles about primary schools unless there is clear evidence of notability. This one clearly fails WP:GNG so I have , rather reluctantly, nominated it for deletion. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 01:21, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - primary schools are rarely notable enough for a stand-alone article; sadly, this one is no exception to that. I couldn't find any sources better than the ones cited and it's all a bit too WP:ROUTINE Spiderone 16:36, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable primary school.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:16, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:40, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert W. Edmondson[edit]

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

Non-notable leader of short-lived denomination. Note: all the references in the article were from sites associated with the denomination, none are WP:RS. Bistropha (talk) 22:14, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Bistropha (talk) 22:14, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article is totally weird. Was the subject a Lutheran-Catholic or a Mormon? Is the obituary for a completely different person of the same name? Mccapra (talk) 06:14, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The obituary seems to refer to the same person: a former military chaplain with degrees from the same institutions. NB: Some biographical claims made by or about Edmondson may not be verifiable from reliable sources. For example, a church site stated that he had been awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2019,[1] but his name does not appear in a 2020 list of past recipients.[2] Discrepancies about his personal history, and the statement in his obituary about Edmondson as a teller of tall tales, raise the question of whether some part of his ministerial career may have been an extended hoax. Bistropha (talk) 20:12, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sourcing is not enough indepdent of the subject. The obituary does not look to be the type that is written by news journalist, but looks to be an independent submission by people who knew him, so it does not seem to add toward notability. It seems that Edmondson may have at some point left the Anglo-Catholic Lutheran Church that he was a part of and become a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. At least nothing in his obituary precludes that conclusion. I wonder though it the article on the Church he was at one point a part of is verrifiable. On the other hand the obituary never mentions having been any religion other than a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and there are LDS chaplains. Even if Edmondson was not a Latter-day Saint chaplain, the obituary never says he ever was a Lutheran, and so there is a possibility that this article is an example of building the Frankenstein's monster.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:52, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We can’t keep a bio based on such thin and apparently contradictory sourcing. Mccapra (talk) 04:26, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per G5: User:Saqlain Malek. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Saqlainify. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:10, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Malyk[edit]

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

Previously A7'd in the middle of the previous AFD, which I opened. An editor had also tagged it with G11. See previous AFD and page logs for details. I re-iterate that I would like this to be deleted "with prejudice against re-creation," which is the same reason I wanted to AFD it in the first place instead of speedy-deleting. Recommend WP:SALTing target and various spellings thereof, and/or modifying the edit filter to pick up attempts to re-create this page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:50, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:56, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Software trustworthiness[edit]

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

An editor mentioned on the talk page that this is no different than the article Fault tolerance. I also wouldn't recommend a redirect because I doubt many people would search for such a term on Wikipedia. SL93 (talk) 21:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in its present state, but with no prejudice against re-creation with proper sources. My impression is that this was originally created as a way to spam some references (to papers published in unreliable predatory journals) into Wikipedia. I removed those references as unreliable three years ago, and that has left the article unreferenced and neglected since then. But a Google scholar search for "software trustworthiness" finds many acceptable-looking sources and over 1500 hits, starting with "A survey on open source software trustworthiness" in IEEE Software 2011. If someone wants to take the effort to rewrite the article based on these sources, in a way that also distinguishes this concept from fault tolerance, I would have no objection. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:10, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:17, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:38, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is no information on the page. No references, no notability. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Footlessmouse (talk) 23:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 11:39, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Walls[edit]

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

Candidates who loose the primary election for state legislature are the epitome of non-notability. In this person's case there was one incident that received flash in the pan news coverage and nothing more. This does not merit an article. We should have an article on the person who actually was elected to the state legislature in that election, but that is independent from this case where we very clearly should not have any article John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:59, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:17, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:17, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Subject of article lacks insufficient significant coverage in reliable sources & also doesn’t satisfy WP:NPOL. Celestina007 (talk) 05:53, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, WP:NPOL and there are major WP:BLP issues here. SportingFlyer T·C 07:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get articles just for being unsuccessful candidates in party primaries, but there's no other evidence here that he has a strong claim to either having preexisting notability for other reasons independently of the candidacy or passing the ten year test for enduring significance. Bearcat (talk) 01:10, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article doesn't establish what was notable about their career otherwise. Ran in election, lost, then back to oblivion. Not notable.Oaktree b (talk) 02:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom subject lost a primary in a local elections and no WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources Spudlace (talk) 04:23, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:21, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. No significant coverage on which to base an article.--Kinu ^t/_c 05:25, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:40, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tito Ovia[edit]

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

Subject of the article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources thus doesn’t satisfy WP:GNG. She is the daughter of a prominent person but per not inherited, that doesn’t count for much. Furthermore, making it to the Forbes list doesn’t make one notable. Celestina007 (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 04:44, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 04:44, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:16, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney Raanan[edit]

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

I'm not seeing how this article meets the criteria of WP:GNG or WP:BIO. The sources do not discuss him significantly, and the one that does just seems like a press release that is published in a hip-hop magazine for some reason. ... discospinster _talk 20:11, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 20:11, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 20:11, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets both WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Has significant contribution towards development of D-4F drug. Freoanlsji (talk) 19:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sourcing consists of puff pieces in local news and press releases, and don't look to meet GNG. (It doesn't help that some of the sourcing seems to confuse the subject with their brother.) No sign of WP:NPROF or other special criteria -- the very early career awards don't contribute. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, mainly per Russ Woodroofe. With the articles about dentists one has to be particularly careful and skeptical reagrding various awards and honors, and the ones mentioned here don't appear to be significant. Nsk92 (talk) 11:13, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that the article has been sufficiently improved Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:38, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Simba Sleep[edit]

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

Paid article about a non notable organization that doesn’t satisfy WP:ORGCRIT. A review of the sources & even a before search only links majorly to press releases , Pr sponsored posts & user generated sources which are all unreliable as they are not independent of the organization Celestina007 (talk) 20:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have added two more citations from reliable sources to better highlight the innovation and notability of the company. Boxcarboy (talk) 18:13, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has more notable sources used, the Guardian for one. Oaktree b (talk) 02:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b, one reliable source used does not satisfy WP:ORGCRIT. Celestina007 (talk) 03:38, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it would perhaps benefit from a Bloomberg search or using SEC filings to establish notability. Somewhat well-known company, but we're missing quite a bit from the article to be able to keep it. Almost there. Oaktree b (talk) 03:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your assistance. The article now includes citations from several reliable sources including the Guardian, the Telegraph, the Times, the Finacial Times and Bloomberg. Boxcarboy (talk) 17:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with the updated sources, WP:CORP is satisfied --Devokewater (talk) 16:29, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are enough sources to establish notability. They also used footballer Gareth Bale in their advertising. He is pretty famous footballer and considered Top 10 a few years ago. I know this has nothing to do with the company, but the fact that they hired a celerity is notable. Expertwikiguy (talk) 18:31, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 11:42, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adair Boroughs[edit]

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

I do not believe that Ms. Boroughs has met the notability guidelines of Wikipedia. At the very least, if she has, the article seems to fail to sufficiently establish the case for that notability.

In the end, I could be wrong, or at least out-ruled on this. I didn't believe another congressional candidate had the notability for an article earlier this year, but the decision was to keep their article.

It is also possibly that the circumstances could change before this deletion discussion even ends. If she wins her congressional election in less than two weeks, she'll then unquestionably have enough notability, and, under those circumstances, this article should be kept (or recreated if it has already been deleted before then). But it is still important we start this discussion, as "wait and see" is not really our rule-of-thumb here at Wikipedia.

I'll disclose that I am actually personally a fan of Ms. Boroughs. I just don't think she has yet to establish enough notability for an article on Wikipedia. It's policy over personal preference/opinion here. SecretName101 (talk) 19:17, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SecretName101 (talk) 19:17, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Candidates are not eligible for articles just for being candidates, and this likely violates WP:PROMO - even though the text isn't written promotionally, it functions in the same way as a campaign brochure, the sourcing in the article is really poor, and she's not known for anything except being a candidate. We can restore if she wins. SportingFlyer T·C 07:33, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in future elections whose winner is not yet known — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one, and this article neither demonstrates that she had preexisting notability for other reasons prior to the candidacy, nor shows a credible reason to treat her candidacy as being of any special WP:10YT-passing significance per se. Obviously we'll recreate an article after election day if she wins the seat, but Wikipedia is not a free publicity platform to help unelected candidates reach the voters in the meantime — and nominator is correct that "wait and see" isn't appropriate: as I've pointed out in other recent discussions, if we decided that there was a moratorium on deleting premature candidate articles X days before the election, then every candidate in America could just bumrush Wikipedia with their campaign brochures on Day X. Bearcat (talk) 01:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are precise on the consequences of such a moratorium of deletion before an election. I didn't ultimately express it explicitly in my deletion nomination, but that very thought had crossed my mind while nominating this for deletion that if we let "wait and see" become a policy for articles on candidates close to elections, then we'd see many non-notable candidates have BLP articles written for them in the closing days of elections. SecretName101 (talk) 21:42, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a policy that would turn Wikipedia into a free campaign publicity site. It would create a true mess.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of being notable outside election. Fails WP:BIO, WP:NPOL. scope_creep^Talk 12:55, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete candidates for public office are not default notable for being such. If Ms. Burroughs wins an article on her will of course be created, but she is not notable as a candidate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:47, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 11:44, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Hoppe[edit]

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

I honestly can't even sort through the cruft here, but in my research, I don't see how this guy is notable - none of his "books" have received critical coverage from the expected sources, and almost every source is primary or a passing mention, or unreliable. And while AFD isn't the place to address tone, I'm quite concerned this has been here for a decade and presents it as if this is some legitimate experience as opposed to the actual quackery that it really is. Praxidicae (talk) 13:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being the one who wrote the first version of the article I'll chime in. A few questions first:

First of all, what do you mean by cruft? Are you talking about the code or the content (or maybe even both)?
Secondly, what would be an 'expected source' for a Wikipedia article about a New Age channeler and his messages? Is there a Wikipedia list somewhere that I can check against?
As for labelling the content as quackery - the promotion of fraudulent or ignorant medical practices - do you mean that the article is in bad shape? I would agree. It hasn't been updated significantly since it's inception ten years ago. But then an update seems more appropriate than deleting it. Or do you mean to say that it covers a topic that you're not interested in or you feel has no place on Wikipedia for whatever reason? Please elaborate.

To be honest I haven't looked at the article since the last time I worked on it (2013), but would be happy to go over it and come up with a list of suggestions for updates and in the process hope to be able to add a few, more reliable and notable 3rd party references if that would help to keep the article up. Anyway, just my two cents for now. Looking forward to your comments. And please keep in mind that this is the first time I participate in a article-for-deletion discussion, so if I don't follow the proper protocol I'd welcome any constructive feedback. Thanks! --MasterIAM (talk) 21:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile I tried to do some research to come up with arguments that support notability imho:

His book 'Act of Consciousness' (2015) is on Book Authority's list of 100 Best Consciousness Books of All Time
Several of his books have been translated into multiple languages, for example, Act of Consciousness into six European ones (links to publishers can be provided). Much of his other written material has been translated into 22 different languages, made accessible through non-US websites (links can be provided)
The article itself has had an average of 800 hits/mo over the past 12 months and on average 650 hits/mo over the past five years, which proofs to me that there is an interest in the guy.
As mentioned in the article itself Geoffrey Hoppe was part of the Tuning In film documentary (2008)
His voice and material was also used in the documentary movie titled Time of the Sixth Sun (2019)
And will also be part of the upcoming documentary They Call Us Channelers (tba)

All that to say that there is an on-going interest in the guy and what he has to say. MasterIAM (talk) 19:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:20, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:20, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:20, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Refs are to self-authored books, LinkedIn, IMDB, Cosmic Lighthouse and other unreliable sources. Mccapra (talk) 04:21, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His writings do not appear to have attracted significant attention outside the fringe bubble that they naturally inhabit. Endless echoes among people who are not applying any critical evaluation don't add up to a case for notability. XOR'easter (talk) 21:39, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Talking to "beings" on an airplane doesn't warrant an article. How is this even an article on here? Oaktree b (talk) 02:55, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A certain number of "hits per month" does not decide notability. Reliable sources do. A YouTube personality can have millions of hits per month and not be considered notable enough for an article. Self published books do not necessarily decide notability, although they help with research after notability is determined. Anyway, unless someone can come up with reliable sources, this article should be deleted JackFromReedsburg (talk) 15:50, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No support for deletion. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 20:56, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edward H. Milligan[edit]

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

Sadly, I don't think this individual meets our notability criteria. There's perhaps an argument for notability under WP:AUTHOR, but I haven't been able to find significant coverage to meet WP:GNG - which is presumably why the article has to rely on non-published sources for details of the date of death. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:45, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:45, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:45, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:45, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Published source of Date of Death information provided.User Vernon White 20-10-2020

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @DGG: as although his expertise is in academics, believe he also has a more general library background and can advise. Personally feel like there might be enough there, especially if we can find better sourcing on Besterman/McColvin Award. At the moment, neutral as I look further into Milligan. StarM 15:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He was the librarian of a specialized society, which does not usually lead to notability, but he seems to have been the principal figure in the field. He furthermore has two of the automatic passes in WP:PROF--he received an honorary degree, (other than one from his own institution) , and a festschrift was written as a tribute to him. I'm not familiarwith the prize, but it might be additional. DGG ( talk ) 18:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input, DGG, which is always appreciated. Yes, I did consider the festschrift, although the reference in the article suggests that it was self-published by one of the editors, so I largely discounted it. I hadn't appreciated the significance of the honorary degree for WP:PROF, however. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks DGG (talk · contribs). Also pretty sure I learned the term festschrift from you in a conversation somewhere about this project. StarM 20:06, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:01, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This is a case that does not quite fit with the standard criteria, either for academics or authors, but I would expect the holder of his library post to be a prime authority on the history of Quakers. I see at least 5 serious academic works among his listed publications. Furthermore, having a festschrift, normally associated with retirement is an indication that other scholars regarded the person as notable. Several of these alone would perhaps not be quite enough for WP notability. Added together, I think they should take him over that hurdle. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As Ted Milligan died quite recently, it may be that an authoritative obituary maybe published soon. Vernon White ^{. . . 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:10, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tampa Bay Christian Athletic League[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG due to lack of independent sources available. All of the ones cited in the article are primary sources, apart from the last one, which is a dead link. A search for independent sources yielded only trivial mentions such as this and this. Spiderone 09:51, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:51, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:52, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - run of the mill soccer league. Bearian (talk) 18:13, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - not at all a soccer league, it's an organization of private schools encompassing a wide variety of sports.Jacona (talk) 12:52, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a shame that it doesn't seem to have any real coverage in secondary sources. I would ideally want to see some sources that don't originate from the schools themselves. Spiderone 17:21, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have much time right now, there may be additional coverage under the previous name, Brandon Christian Athletic League.Jacona (talk) 18:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It does gain a few hits [3] [4] [5] but still falling quite short on WP:SIGCOV in my view Spiderone 19:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A newspapers.com search found 19 articles under the current and former (Brandon Christian Athletic League) names, mostly from the Tampa Bay Times and Tampa Bay Tribune. Some of these amount to SIGCOV. The article needs to be improved, but it meets gng.Jacona (talk) 12:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:01, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Probably delete -- It is possible that some of the schools providing teams may be notable, but that does not make this amateur sports league notable, even if their games are sometimes reported in newspapers. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:23, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a youth sports league, only local coverage and we don't normally keep youth sports leagues. SportingFlyer T·C 19:29, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, newspaper coverage about youth sport is trivial in nature. Geschichte (talk) 11:46, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:HEY thanks to User:Grand'mere Eugene Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:25, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heritage Hills High School[edit]

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

Promotional article, references do not establish pass of WP:GNG. References that might seem to suggest notability are in fact PR or self published. CleanAmbassy (talk) 06:45, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CleanAmbassy (talk) 06:45, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CleanAmbassy (talk) 06:45, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:51, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:51, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : This is how articles start. The stub looks miniscule- other editor join in and add references, structure and about 1500 characters, of text. See WP:SCH/AG for guidance. US stubs usually start with lists of sports results, UK stubs with a potted school history. WP/SCH editor always find some notability in high schools. The way forward is to take what we have got- put in references where they are not available, and use them to find out more. This is about 1000 keystrokes to becoming a 'start'. --ClemRutter (talk) 10:24, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails WP:GNG, all sources bar one are passing mentions and the other one is a dead link, and the article is heavily promotional. The ability to write a bunch of promotional garbage on a topic does not make it notable. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added some history and citations using articles clipped at newpapers.com, where a search on the school's name yielded 9,127 articles. Even if 95% of those articles are mentions of brides/grooms who attended there or routine sports write-ups, probably 500 could be substantial articles. This article is interesting, describing the building site as a place where Abe Lincoln roamed as a boy. Meets WP:GNG. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 00:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The nomination is by a banned sock.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:56, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Per AllyD Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:12, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Khosla Ventures[edit]

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

I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content CleanAmbassy (talk) 06:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CleanAmbassy (talk) 06:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CleanAmbassy (talk) 06:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CleanAmbassy (talk) 06:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My name is Judy Huang and I work in marketing at Khosla Ventures. I received an email from "Get Your Wiki" advertising their services, looked at the page, and noticed the page was nominated for deletion shortly before the email was sent. And so, here I am.

I wanted to make a few comments:

Reliable sources state Khosla Ventures is notable. For example, The New York Times said Khosla Ventures is "one of the most prominent venture firms" and said here that Khosla is "one of the top venture capital firms investing in clean technology."
Khosla has more than 5x the assets under management mentioned in the notability guidelines from Wikiproject Private Equity at $5 billion as of 2017[6] (much more now).
There are many strong sources for general notability, such as this New York Times piece, this book chapter focused on Khosla and another venture firm, and other sources.
The current page has many poor sources, broken links, promotion/trivia, etc. and a controversy at the end that is about a different company. I would like to offer a proposed rewrite that would address this by summarizing good quality citations, like mainstream newspapers and a book.

Thank you in advance for letting me participate in the discussion. Hopefully my contributions are useful. Best regards. Mums3435 (talk) 20:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Drafts The article is a mess and refbombed. Of the references I've read, none meet the criteria for establishing notability. But if Mums3435 wants to have a go at fixing it up and can, more importantly, find references that meet *both* WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND, I say it makes sense to move it to draft. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable --Devokewater (talk) 11:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The nomination is by a banned sock.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:55, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Sandstein:. I work for Khosla Ventures. The timing and content of emails I received from “Get Your Wiki” inferred they were the ones that nominated the page for deletion and were operating the now-banned CleanAmbassy account. The latest email I got from them also inferred they were – at the very least – monitoring this discussion (not sure if they have participated though). The apparent scheme is to nominate the page for deletion, then get hired to “save” it from being deleted. Not sure if this information helps in your investigation of covert Wikipedia manipulation. I noticed they are not yet listed at WP:PAIDLIST. Let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Best regards. Mums3435 (talk) 20:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Close "No consensus" without prejudice against re-nomination: It seems to me that this is the only outcome which neutralises the risk of gaming by reputation management commerce. AllyD (talk) 08:38, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find this nom wholly without merit, and the subject clearly notable in light of the refs. Yes, the article could do with a once-over, to tidy up the content and citations, but that's no reason to kill it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:53, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:10, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Richard C. Weaver[edit]

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

Shaking hands with two U.S. presidents doesn't really seem that notable to me. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 01:48, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 01:48, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the stuff here really fails under the not news guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep he's been the subject of multiple news stories over many years; see Washington Post (2008) Washington Post (2001), Washington Post (2003), LA Times (2003-- paywalled but looks promising), a brief mention here, Roll Call (2005), AP (republished in Sydney Morning Herald (2005), passing in The Telegraph (2014), and similar. It's admittedly rather borderline, but I think his stunts drew sufficiently wide attention for a sufficiently long period of time to avoid WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS concerns and to push him into the realm of notability. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the news coverage and it is not about a single event. He has done it numerous times. Expertwikiguy (talk) 06:59, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:58, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Platform company[edit]

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

The article was created by an account that was blocked for sockpuppetry and who had a lot of copyright problems. The article is written like an essay, and the content does not at all correspond to what most people would imagine that "platform companies" are. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:09, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:23, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this needs tidied up, possibly WP:TNT --Devokewater (talk) 16:42, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) SMB9 9thx my edits 03:37, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manchurian nationalism[edit]

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

seems to be some kind of WP:POVFORK and a smattering of information from pages like Manchu people. The article itself even conceeds that " historian David Egler to describe Manchurian nationalism as "artificial"." Prisencolin (talk) 17:58, 23 October 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 October 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:18, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:47, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep according to what you're insisting as POV, actually I didn't see this look like the WP;POV became this is ethnic nationalism. There is many difference in the both two article and not that in the sources provided there indicate it significance or not notable. So no merge or delete, just keep. Mr-5 / (M 📩 ✉ / C🖋 ) 08:00, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep How is this POV if the article evenly presents the different viewpoints on the topic? I also do not understand how it can be a fork, as this article adresses not just Manchu but also Han Chinese and Japanese points of view. In addition, the article is notable as the topic - Manchurian nationalism - was actually a major political topic from the 1910s to the 1930s, despite the fact that it was largely engineered (one could contend that all forms of nationalism are partially or completely engineered, anyway). Applodion (talk) 12:07, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In my opinion the article is not POV, there are several views presented. It's referenced enough to pass WP:GNG and has over 720 hits in the last month - enough for such a topic. Less Unless (talk) 17:48, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep topic is notable Spudlace (talk) 04:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:43, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 11:49, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paul J. Feiner[edit]

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

"Town Supervisor" does not meet WP:NPOL. KidAd talk 17:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:01, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:01, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete his position fails WP:NPOL and while there are a couple New York Times articles which discuss him they are in the local section, so he hasn't received coverage from outside his small jurisdiction. SportingFlyer T·C 07:35, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NPOL....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:52, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Town supervisors do not get an automatic inclusion freebie under WP:NPOL just for existing, being an unsuccessful candidate for higher office is not a notability clincher either, and the article is not referenced well enough to make him more special than the norm. Our inclusion standards for local politicians have been tightened up considerably even since 2015, so the fact that the first discussion was a de facto keep by withdrawal is not definitive. Bearcat (talk) 01:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Town supervisor is not enough for WP:NPOL on its own, but he has received a fair amount of coverage in the press, including being on the receiving end of some anti-semitic hate speech [7] Spudlace (talk) 04:34, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Being victimized by hate speech, as unfortunate as it is, is not in and of itself a notability clincher for a politician in an otherwise non-notable role. Bearcat (talk) 14:39, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being a town supervisor does not make someone notable, nor does being a victim of hate speech.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:30, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't mean NPOL, but he does meet GNG which NPOL says that minor officials are notable if they meet the GNG [8] [9] [10] Spudlace (talk) 03:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first source you provided is the closest to satisfying WP:GNG. The second source is not directly about him and only includes a trivial mention. The third is just a run-of-the-mill local news story that any local politician could get. The WP:GNG case is not strong here. KidAd talk 03:43, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of some media coverage in a county politician's own local media market is not, in and of itself, a WP:GNG pass that would exempt him from having to pass WP:NPOL — every county or municipal politician in every town or city or county that has media will always get media coverage, because covering local politics is local media's job. At the local level, a county politician's coverage has to nationalize in such a way that would make him significantly more notable than the norm, not just demonstrate that he exists as a person with a job. Bearcat (talk) 16:16, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:46, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Basshunter. Redirect as WP:ATD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:06, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Old Shit (Basshunter album)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. After I was reverted for introducing a fake album cover I tried to find sources in the article, but there were none, there are no reviews, the album never charted, and according to this article, it was released in 1999, not 2006. Probably it was re-released in 2006, but we have no sources to indicate independent notability. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 17:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 17:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 17:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was released in 2006 on the occasion of the LOL <(^^)> release. 1999 is fake date same as "Now You're Gone: The Album (2007)" from cited source. I can try to improve this article. Eurohunter (talk) 17:37, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete essentially unsourced. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:33, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Basshunter: Barely found anything about the album. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:59, 1 November 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. Geschichte (talk) 19:25, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great Learning (company)[edit]

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

Promotional article with sources based on press releases[11][12][13]. The article was previously deleted through AFD and it yet fails WP:ORGCRIT. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 17:24, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 17:24, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 17:24, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:59, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not established- despite the WP:REFBOMB, it appears to be a typical education software company going about its business. Quite an example of name-dropping in the article! 1292simon (talk) 23:33, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:53, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Since the previous AfD the company has been involved in announcing various initiatives, a brand ambassador, and received a start-up award in its field, but I am not seeing the evidence of attained notability needed to overturn the May 2019 AfD consensus. AllyD (talk) 09:25, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:16, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hanumanthegowda[edit]

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

Not a single source found in the article or the Internet in English or Kannada (ಹನುಮಂತೇಗೌಡ) provide information in the article. I request non-Kannada editors to have a say to prevent bias that was present in the previous discussion. TamilMirchi (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TamilMirchi: nobody was biased in the previous discussion. Let's not use inappropriate words. Please delete it directly if it is not worthy to be on Wiki. Thanks. Goodnight 😊.NinadMysuru (talk) 22:57, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Fails WP:NACTOR : No major roles, no awards, no significant coverage in reliable sources. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: More than half the sources are not reliable. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:39, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 17:49, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hamdan Azhar[edit]

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

Notability not established, not covered by reputable sources. Huffington Post, which is only sometimes reliable, features him in a long list of quotes, he is not the primary subject of the article. Other sources are mainly about the emoji paper, not about him. Having written just a single paper which got picked up by news does not satisfy WP:NACADEMIC. Sources like banks.am are covering an event in Yerevan. It is industry media, covering an event that the owners of the website are likely affiliated with. It is therefore partial and not reputable. Ysangkok (talk) 16:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable as a data scientist or as a journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:49, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete his work as a data scientist seems to be as a consulting statistician, and the rmeained is just links to his own publciations and press rleases. DGG ( talk ) 19:49, 28 October 2020 (UTC) �[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:47, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about him. Search results return mostly articles where he's mentioned as the founding member of the Bitcoin Center. Perhaps a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:08, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

St. Peter Lutheran Church (Schaumburg, Illinois)[edit]

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

Non-notable congregation. Fails WP:NORG. No WP:SIGCOV found. schetm (talk) 16:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. schetm (talk) 16:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. schetm (talk) 16:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are no independent sources that would add to showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:41, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:05, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Osmosis (company)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NCORP. The added sources are all interviews with the founders, primary, and unreliable. The Forbes and HuffPost articles were written by contributors and are not independent of the subject. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 16:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 16:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:39, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:39, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Like many startups, lacks WP:SIGCOV. Only one source (the Philadelphia Business Journal article) appears to meet the requirements of WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:34, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If there is a reasonable encyclopedia article to be written, it isn't this version; it would need a complete rewrite with higher quality sources. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:34, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. The references I can find all appear to be churnalism and promotional, based entirely on interviews/quotations with the founders and/or press releases, failing WP:ORGIND. I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:11, 1 November 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 The Creative Counsel. Sandstein 18:12, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ran Neu-Ner[edit]

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

notability not established, sources are mostly unreliable and the rest are dead or not covering NeuNer. The only reputable source, CNBC, does not cover NeuNer himself, but simply quotes him. The other CNBC source is just a list of articles. The awards he received are not proof of notability. The Entrepreneur Magazine reference is dead. The Alumnus Profile reference is dead. Ysangkok (talk) 16:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 16:19, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is passing mentions at best. Absolutely insufficient material for a well-referenced BLP, failure to demonstrate notability - David Gerard (talk) 17:38, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Dial911 who originally accepted this AfC draft.

A quick Google News search gave references like this, this & this. The subject appears to be an authority in cryptocurrency domain and a prominent show host. I accepted it keeping in mind the 50/50 rule of AfC. Dial911 (talk) 17:44, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dial911, thanks. I don't know if you're aware but there's not much love given by AfC to cryptocurrency-focused sources. Also, sources that start with https://www.forbes.com/sites/ are basically blogs and should not be confused with Forbes magazine. ~Kvng (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Creative Counsel as WP:ATD. ~Kvng (talk) 15:04, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:13, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tanuj Mahashabde[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Nothing has really changed since the past Afd discussions. All of said actor's notability is still derived from his one role in the series Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah. One notable acting credit does not qualify for a separate article. Fails WP:NACTOR. Also tagged for notability since January 2019. Sunshine1191 (talk) 15:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sunshine1191 (talk) 15:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Sunshine1191 (talk) 15:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sunshine1191 (talk) 15:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per previous consensus. Nothing seems to have changed since the last discussion. Still fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. TheRedDomitor (talk) 03:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 17:48, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Allyson Stewart-Allen[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Poorly sourced (close sources only) article about non-notable academic, fails WP:PROF / WP:GNG. (I first tried PROD'ding this, but was notified that the article has been already deleted once in 2014. Apologies for any confusion!) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:36, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject certainly doesn't pass WP:PROF, with a few handfuls of citations to her work reported by Google Scholar and no indication that she passes that guideline on any other count. I can find no reviews of her work, which would go towards WP:AUTHOR, and nothing in independent reliable sources other than articles by her or quotations from her, so no evidence that WP:GNG is passed. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This doesn't have the problem of promotional weak-source puffery of the version deleted in 2014, but there's still no evidence of notability of any sort. Certainly her citation record is too weak for WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:46, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:39, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete few GS citations to her work indicates a fail of WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 13:37, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 13:37, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 13:38, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 13:38, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She's won awards, but I have no indication of what they are, why they are important or what she's done to earn them. And I don't see what she does to earn a living, I can't establish notability on these few lines alone. Oaktree b (talk) 03:22, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 12:58, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not pass PROF or SIGCOV.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 09:36, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not seem to have the level of notability that would justify an article. Dunarc (talk) 21:56, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 17:46, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Stefanidis[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Deletion discussion in 2012 resulted in "no consensus". Can find no significant coverage of him since then, so looks like he never became notable. Edwardx (talk) 15:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:40, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:40, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find any significant indepedendant coverage either. Teraplane (talk) 00:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He produced the Olympic soundtrack, but seems to have done nothing before or after. I don't really understand what it is he does from the article, which leads me to believe he's not notable... Works for a company that does something... Oaktree b (talk) 03:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Person remains non-notable, while the article is the sole creation of a single-purpose account with a fairly obvious conflict of interest. memphisto

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lev Yashin Cup. Fenix down (talk) 19:02, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Lev Yashin Cup[edit]

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

PROD contested believe it meets GN with sources, albeit they are mostly not in English. I do not believe that there is enough notability for this particular edition of the tournament to pass WP:SPORTSEVENT or the wider WP:GNG. One issue with a merge that I would also have is that I can't find any reliable sources for the results and the goalscorers. Even the Russian Wikipedia article only shows Dynamo Moscow's club website as the source, which is not independent. I do not believe that we should be hosting statistics that cannot be verified in any case.

Please correct me if I'm wrong but this appears to be just a run-of-the-mill friendly tournament for under 21s with no significant coverage. Spiderone 16:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 16:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 16:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lev Yashin Cup as a possible search term. The main article needs more work. Govvy (talk) 18:46, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - happy with redirect as an alternative to deletion Spiderone 18:20, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 17:43, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shelton Premaratne[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP, save for an external link to a primary source. No indication of notability. Opalzukor (talk) 13:38, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Opalzukor (talk) 13:38, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Opalzukor (talk) 13:38, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:40, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails requirements of WP:MUSICBIO / WP:ANYBIO. Dan arndt (talk) 02:53, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:57, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:27, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Birley Wood Golf Club[edit]

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

Declined speedy since it 'has sources'. Unremarkable golf club; ref generally are such as confirm its existence but don't establish notability. That is single notable golfer was a member isn't enough. TheLongTone (talk) 12:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Run of the mill. Only routine stuff comes up in searches. Just like 2,000+ other golf courses in England. Nigej (talk) 15:37, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:40, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability; no evidence that it has garnered any significant interest at more than just a very local level Spiderone 16:22, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MILL local golf facility. No coverage outside of routine listings, etc. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 08:28, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would agree with the other comments relating to a lack of notability. I note on the article's talk page it being Danny Willett's home course has been suggested as a reason for keeping, but I do not think having one notable golfer makes the course itself notable. Dunarc (talk) 23:57, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed not, clearly WP:NOTINHERITED TheLongTone (talk) 11:51, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Nashville Star#Season 1 (2003). Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:26, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KK Bodiford[edit]

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

A non-charting musician who has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 14:56, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nashville Star#Season 1 (2003). Foxnpichu (talk) 15:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect makes sense. As the article is written, I'm not seeing any qualifying notability measure. If any were presented, I'd consider switching.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nashville Star#Season 1 (2003) possible search term.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:12, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:03, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Highway Sisters[edit]

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

I can't find any evidence of the kind of notability, or even coverage, required by WP:NBAND. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was planning to nominate this article, if the other article was deleted. I had a look for sources, examined social media, looked at Spotify, Soundcloud and so on, and couldn't see sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:BAND. They have been going for three years, and there should be a huge social media impact. Non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 16:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:03, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:25, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FC Rapid București strip[edit]

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

As per WP:NOTGALLERY and previous consensus for this type of article.

Also might be WP:OR.

Spiderone 11:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:46, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per my reasoning at Talk:FC Rapid București#Proposed Merger. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:56, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a brief summary of the club's colours should be in the main article, but there is no need for a separate article showing every slight variation on the same basic colour scheme down the years...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - As I proposed, I think this should just be merged into the main team page. I haven't had a chance to do so yet but let me know if anyone has any objection that. Otherwise, I'll do that in a few days. DocFreeman24 (talk) 13:24, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I have an objection if what you plan is to literally move all the content into the main club article. There is no need for 40+ graphics depicting very slight variations on the same basic colours in the main article. If you plan to summarise the club's colours in two or three sentences of prose, that's fine -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, it seems wasteful to me to just delete the content rather than merge it in to the page about the team. But look, the consensus seems to be that this page fails notability generally and should just be deleted. So that's fine and I don't feel strongly about merging vs. deleting. I was, I believe, the first person to suggest that this content didn't deserve its own page. I proposed merging simply because that's the preferred alternative to deletion. But like I said, I don't feel strongly so if the consensus is to delete rather than merge, that's fine with me. DocFreeman24 (talk) 22:10, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, what is there to merge? Clear consensus this content is not notable. Giant Snowman 15:47, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (as I proposed in the merge bit, not really the right way to do it tho, so apologies for that) per WP:NOTGALLERY. It would be appropriate to show a couple of previous kits in the main article to show the traditional style and any particularly noteworthy deviations. The amount shown on the kit page is unnecessary and in fact absurd in places, check the 4 seasons of identical featureless all-maroon affairs of the early 2000s. And it hasn't been updated for 8 years. Bin. Crowsus (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above and previous discussions on similar articles. Nigej (talk) 17:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 11:08, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per norm and also based on the previous discussions on these kind of articles.Kashmorwiki (talk) 07:33, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:24, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Enoch Gyimah[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY, played only in Serie D, which is below the threshold. Fram (talk) 11:40, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:40, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:40, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:40, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:47, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's somewhat of a confusing article, playing three times twice for the same club in one season separated?? Then another club in the middle, then for a club with no article, unsure of the league... I am veering towards delete. Govvy (talk) 12:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for football players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails NFOOTY and BIO. Java Hurricane 16:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above with no prejudice against it being created again if he ever does meet NFOOTY or GNG Spiderone 20:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete D-level player that hasn't achieved any spectacular statistics in his career. Oaktree b (talk) 03:28, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination.Fatzaof (talk) 08:11, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:23, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El Cielito Café[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 11:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree, no indication of passing WP:NCORP. Mccapra (talk) 14:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable and article has serious PROMO issues. 1292simon (talk) 08:27, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, fails WP:NCORP --Devokewater (talk) 20:04, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:24, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) SMB9 9thx my edits 03:41, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ChessCafe.com[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Sources not reliable, doesn't meet WP:NWEB or WP:GNG Lynndonald (talk) 11:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Lynndonald (talk) 11:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lynndonald (talk) 11:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be a chess enthusiast website, with no notability beyond other such websites. The article here sounds like a sales piece for the website itself. To be kept, it would need mentions on notable third-party sources or something to show a chess master runs it? Oaktree b (talk) 03:31, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Site is dormant but is highly respected by the chess community for the quality of its content. Current poor state of the article is not a reason to delete. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's an interesting case. It is (or was, anyway) fairly well known in the chess world as one of the early popular chess websites. That's not reason to keep in itself, but it suggests to me that a good amount of whatever coverage it received would've been more than 20 years ago and thus require some digging to find. It'll probably be important to find material from outside of the chess world, since, somewhat counterintuitively, it has been popular enough to form partnerships with various chess publishers that means those chess publishers aren't going to be independent sources. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:47, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the older chess sites which provided quality content, it is frequently mentioned in actual paper chess books. It's recommended in Chess for Dummies and the like for example. [14] MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:58, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the information presented in the previous AFD and what others have stated. Famous chess players, who have their own Wikipedia articles, have published articles there. Their alexa rating shows they are one of the most popular Chess sites on the internet, or were during the last AFD. If anyone has any chess magazines they can search, perfects find a review of it. Dream Focus 20:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well established, and with many high profile contributors, including one of the leading chess commentators, Yasser Seirawan, respected chess historians and authors like Tim Harding, Jeremy Spinrad and Taylor Kingston. Also former women's world champion, Susan Polgar. A 400+ page book has sprung from it's high quality content and quite honestly, there are few chess websites that would be more deserving of an article here. Brittle heaven (talk) 23:35, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note I wish to vote keep per Brittle heaven well thought out rationality, but per notability guidelines, it should not have its own article. However, those same guidelines say "Web content that does not qualify for a separate, stand-alone article might be described in a relevant list of web content" which I think would be great. List of chess websites or something of the like. If consensus for keep does not hold, I would like to propose the page be renamed into that and we can begin working on adding other chess websites that do not have their own article. It will also be easier to find independent sources. Footlessmouse (talk) 01:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note that all the notability guidelines have a disclaimer in the banner at the top which reads: This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Guidelines are suggestions, not absolute law like policies are. WP:IAR is a founding policy which reads: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. Dream Focus 02:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per reasons above and sources indicated in the previous AfD and here. Barely found any news article about it, but I found a few books which briefly talk about the site and/or its segments: [15], [16], [17], [18] and [19]. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:NWEB. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:22, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christoph Hartmut Bluth[edit]

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

Not enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to pass WP:GNG, and does not meet any of the criteria for WP:NACADEMIC, or WP:NAUTHOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:22, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:22, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Definitely meets WP:NAUTHOR per the many reviews I just added, possibly meets WP:NPROF#C1 per Scholar and possibly meets WP:NPROF#C3 if he is verifiably a fellow of the Royal Historical Society (which I haven't checked yet). AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The case for WP:PROF#C1 is borderline but WP:AUTHOR is clear enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:47, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 13:39, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mild Keep Has an authority control listing, meaning he's published enough to be indexed by international libraries. Article needs a rewrite to give more personal history. Oaktree b (talk) 03:34, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of folks who do not meet our notability criteria still have authority control listings. However, there are plenty of substantive reviews for WP:NAUTHOR; substantial library holdings for 2 books (per the WorldCat listing) helps support. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NAUTHOR .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:20, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jasmine Daya[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. Some minor trade coverage. Potentially notable. Promotional. scope_creep^Talk 11:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the exact nature of notability and reliability can be discussed, there are quite a few reliable sources that are mentioned in the aforementioned article (such as by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, The Globe and Mail, and others) that establish WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. Perhpas, more sources can be included to strengthen notability? Also, do not see how it is promotional. Momer313 (talk) 14:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only possibly good source is the Globe and Mail article, but it's an interview (see ProQuest 2382427887). The other coverage is just interviews or passing mentions in the context of cases she's been involved in. Her cookbook is self-published, as is Law Girl's Bump in the Road. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:PROMO piece fails WP:SIGCOV. KidAd talk 17:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Basically echoing both AleatoryPonderings & KidAd, just like AP already stated above, following a google search most sources observed are interviews thus aren’t independent of the subject, hence doesn’t do much for WP:GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 22:02, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with others, this reads like promo material for the subject. The gist of the article seems to be that she's filed some lawsuits, given some interviews, and published a book, none of which are particularly notable and a standard that a lot of lawyers could meet. DocFreeman24 (talk) 22:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She's a personal injury lawyer that likes to cook. There are a few dozen of these types of lawyers that advertise on TV in the Toronto area alone, so she is one of many. Has she won any awards ? I fail to see how she's notable. Oaktree b (talk) 03:38, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:07, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — MRD2014 (talk) 15:49, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Halogen (band)[edit]

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

Thin notability. Releases on barely notable, if notable at all, label. Most WAM Song of the Year contest winners don't have articles. Geschichte (talk) 10:57, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:22, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:22, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:22, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the subject released three albums, toured Australia and were described in multiple independent sources (now supplied in the article). Subject passes WP:NBAND.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, satisfies WP:NBAND and WP:GNG - suitable referencing now provided. Dan arndt (talk) 03:38, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NBAND.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:08, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Fenix down (talk) 07:29, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Senzo Mazingiza[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 independent of him. A before search did show this source (which isn’t really great as it reads like an announcement) asides that the other hits are blatantly unreliable as they are user generated material, sponsored posts, or interviews, which are not independent of him hence all unreliable. This is a WP:GNG & WP:ANYBIO fail. Celestina007 (talk) 15:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 17:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Hi team, i am responsible for the creation of Senzo Mazingiza article, the article is notable but it only fits for WP:SPORTSPERSON the problem is i did'nt know how to cite from the the reliable sources because, i was wondering how could a person like him culd still be no notable, until some admin give me refe to read WP:NPERSON and WP:42 So he asked me to read them and understand so that i could provide 3 sorces that team will use to establish the Article. You may Google him and see, because he is very popular in Africa because of his Sports experience since 2000 and he had helped a lot of International Football team to achieve in many League's. The guy he is from South Africa but where the 2010 FIFA WORLD CUP took place and he was selected as member of committee for the preperations. THANKS 4realtz (talk) 10:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to be the subject of a lot of coverage and not just for one event; the article is promotional but that, in itself, is not a reason for deletion News 24 Sowetan Live The Citizen BBC Kawowo Goal.com On their own, these sources aren't that much but the sheer number of articles, both recent and old, would be enough for an article in my view Spiderone 22:03, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is some reliable independent coverage on him, as well as numerous other not-so-reliable mentions. To me, he passes the WP:BASIC bar. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 04:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails GNG. His hirings/resignations are routine coverage no matter how many sites write about them. Dougal18 (talk) 15:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 10:39, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 17:33, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fueled (company)[edit]

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

Non-notable small private company. Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 10:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:21, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:21, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:21, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not sure what the company does and the "name-dropping" of larger companies they've worked with doesn't establish notability. What are their flagship products? How are they different than the competitors? Seems too vague to help me get a feeling for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 03:56, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. At least their Buzzword Bingo game is strong! 1292simon (talk) 08:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 15:45, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crispian Jago[edit]

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

BLP with no references. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 09:46, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems notable, but I'm still not sure what she does. Appears to be a higher-level, but not top tier, government functionary. Lack of inline reference tags to help establish notability and the article is hard to read. Oaktree b (talk) 03:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Maybe the blog is notable (and it feels like there's a bit of WP:COATRACK going on here), but this is not inherited by the individual. 1292simon (talk) 08:32, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If someone's notable, we should keep the article, and clean it up if necessary. At least I think it would benefit a relist to confirm sources like this (mentioning Jago's blog and readership) are on the same person and can help improve things. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:23, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is the same person. scope_creep^Talk 17:34, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I listed it, is although there is plenty of coverage, and there is, Telgraph, Guardian, Independent, Vox, Foxnews, Spectator and on, its very much mentions of the blog, or his atheist stance. The book chapter is in-depth, and reliable and independent, a good bit there, but a single reference is insufficient to establish WP:BIO

Delete. There's just not a lot to be written about the subject with the given sources. Most mentions are passing, and the book chapters include him but don't say very much about him.Citing (talk) 04:44, 3 November 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. Geschichte (talk) 17:31, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cathy Yanni[edit]

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

Single trade ref used to establish bona fides is insufficient. No coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 09:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:19, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:19, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:52, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This person has had a notable career that has helped the development of the alternative dispute resolution across state lines for issues such as the Opioid epidemic and the Camp Fire. I've pulled from several trade publications such as Chambers and Partners, The National Law Journal, cases from United States district courts and a notable case that was reported on the The Washington Post ^{User talk:ether161}

It is a WP:BLP and the first four reference are made of three legal documents and a Washington Post article that doesn't mention the lady. The next four references are also legal documents. The article needs biographical references that prove WP:V that the person is notable, sufficient to satisfy WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. At the moment there is not ONE reference on the page that can do that. scope_creep^Talk 06:39, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is basically a resume of cases on which this subject has worked, no differently than any others in the broad field. BD2412 T 03:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per BD2412. 1292simon (talk) 08:34, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:21, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:15, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

World Travel Magazine[edit]

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

Does not meet general notability guidelines. Article only references catalogs and non-secondary sources. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 09:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:36, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:38, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable magazine. Found no sources for notability in my search. Java Hurricane 09:56, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
hi. just got an email that this page i created is set to be deleted. Not sure why its stated as 'non notable'. World Travel Magazine is a print based travel magazine in Singapore, operating since 2009. Our journalists cover global destinations, as evident on website. If this entry is to be erased, then a whole host of wiki pages that have names and points of interest of travel magazines would need to be erased.

Notability

To ensure that page is not muddled with a whole list of references, I have added just 4. Adding a list of citations will make the page look imbalanced. Someone in list mentioned that its not 'notable'. Well our 22 journalist staff, >30k readers a month, >300k facebook followers are notable.

More web sources:

Sri Lanka Embassy stating our standing: https://www.lanka.com.sg/news-1-179.html

Other web sources:

http://www.petriepr.com/press/song-saa-private-island-feature-world-travel-magazine-petrie-pr/

https://www.1-altitude.com/media/#1458019053190-88e6e7ae-ec04

https://www.theyachtweek.com/blog/2016/02/press-coverage-world-travel-magazine-singapore

http://www.thelostguides.com/press/world-travel-magazine-press-image/

https://www.aquaexpeditions.com/about/in-the-press/page/8/

https://zeromariacornejo.com/blogs/in-the-news/world-travel-magazine

More social sources:

These days, mentions and shares happen on social, not websites! Check out our 300k notable(!) followers and their shares on https://www.facebook.com/WTravelMagazine/.

someone mentioned - only references catalogs"

So as to confirm year of operations.

The National Library Board (Singapore) with the relevant entry has been added as reference simply :to reflect that its a genuine entry.

The world catalogue reference has been added as reference to confirm year of publication.

Thanks. Vishal. VishalJain (talk) 11:43, 23 October 2020 — Note to closing admin: VishalJain (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed.

Delete. Nobody is disputing that the magazine exists. The websites cited in the article and above cannot be described as reliable sources which are independent of the article, as required by the guidelines at WP:RS: they appear to be press releases or appreciative comments from commercial organisations which have been featured in the magazine. The assertion by VishalJain that If this entry is to be erased, then a whole host of wiki pages that have names and points of interest of travel magazines would need to be erased is addressed at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. This magazine simply doesn't have the level of notability set out at WP:CORPDEPTH. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NCORP not met. Also the article creator has a very obvious conflict of interest. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all WP:COI issues aside, this fails WP:NCORP and any other relevant notability criteria; I'm not convinced by any of the sources provided above Spiderone 20:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:01, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

J S Randhawa[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/J S Randhawa

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

non-notable Doctor/Filmmaker. None of his work has received any significant coverage or reviews. Also, it is created by a blocked user which is not very nice. Palmsandbeaches (talk) 09:12, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The author created the article ~~five years~~ before the block, so the block isn't relevant (even if it were to happen that any of the reasons for the block should coincide with a deletion-worthy flaw in this article). Largoplazo (talk) 10:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From what I can see, page was created in June 2017 and the block happened in July 2017. But I agree that the block is not linked to this article. Yet, the rational of blocked user was only secondary. The primary reasons still hold. Palmsandbeaches (talk) 11:38, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I probably had both the author's contributions list and the article's history open at the same time and was looking at the wrong one. Largoplazo (talk) 11:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He was a non-notable x-ray doctor then founded a film company, which hasn't done anything notable, from what I can see. Being married isn't notable... Oaktree b (talk) 04:07, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 10:03, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sadhu Ram[edit]

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

Fails WP:RS. Palmsandbeaches (talk) 08:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete :clear case of not meetingWP:GNG.Shrikanthv (talk) 11:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spiritual master? He's a preacher? I have no idea what he is or what he does, so I fail to see notability. No mention in third party sources. Article doesn't elaborate. Oaktree b (talk) 04:10, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BEFORE has shown a couple of youtube videos and his personal webpage which don't pass WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV. Fails notability guidelines. Less Unless (talk) 13:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only one source and can't find much online. Doesn't pass WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV.Expertwikiguy (talk) 06:37, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 10:04, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neeraj Raj[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Founder of a non-notable company. Fails WP:RS. Have trivial mentions in company coverage which is mostly around funding. Palmsandbeaches (talk) 08:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable medical illustrator with a flickr account? Article is poorly-written and rambling. Has won an award, but not link to substantiate it nor how important this award is. Oaktree b (talk) 04:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable subject. The article also is promotional and flowery as per WP:FLOWERY and WP:PEACOCK with lines like "Early schooling was at prestigious institutions such as Hyderabad Public School (Begumpet)". Life section, career section and education section don't have any reliable reference to verify information as per WP:V. No notable work or contribution that can be validated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camella Gandhi (talk • contribs) 21:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Kempton Park. As an ATD Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:27, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeugland Hoërskool[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Jeugland Hoërskool (2nd nomination)

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

This was nominated for deletion back in 2014 due to lacking any refences, which it still doesn't have (in-depth or otherwise) and was keep "because SCHOOLOUTCOMES." SCHOOLOUTCOMES is not a valid keep reason now though. Since it has been over turned per the RfC about it (I think this is a good example of why). So, this should be deleted due to failing both WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Since it lacks the multiple in-depth reliable sources for it to be notable. I couldn't find any when I looked either (and no I won't list exactly where I looked, what specific keyboard buttons I pressed to do the search, or anything else along those lines). --Adamant1 (talk) 07:59, 23 October 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 October 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:24, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we need some actual 3rd-party sources to justify an article on a secondary school, not just internal sourcing to an organization itself.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I note that the location of this school was wrongly moved a few kilometres in this edit, and more importantly when it comes to searching, it is actually called "Hoërskool Jeugland", not "Jeugland Hoërskool":

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

Phil Bridger (talk) 10:55, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' Passes WP:GNG. Coverage [20] and [21]. [22] is just a listing of schools in the area but it's notable enough to note, and [23] is brief but not bad. Also [24] isn't great but reported sports results is one marker of notability so including it. There are many more results, especially directory listings, discussions with school alumni, and a video with alleged bullying from the school. SportingFlyer T·C 12:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where do the guidelines say anywhere that reporting of sports results is a marker of notability? Also, how do the first and second sources, which are just pictures with a caption, meet WP:GNG in any way like your claiming they do? BTW, just an FYI the guidelines are pretty clear that multiple references from the same outlet only count as one source because they have to be journalistically (and otherwise) independent from each other. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:21, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Someone - maybe Bearian? - has set out their own standards that schools must pass in order to get past WP:GNG. You're right the first two sources are brief, but I think there's plenty on which a neutral standalone article can be written. SportingFlyer T·C 14:12, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's who it is. I semi-agree with that for like a University maybe. I don't think it works if your talking about like a high-school football teams scores being in the local or even regional newspaper. At least where I'm from all high school sports gets that kind of coverage. For something to be notable it has to be unique and not applicable to every other thing in it's "category." Like were not going to have an article about a school just because it has walls. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:10, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly not true that for something to be notable it has to be unique. Such a rule would turn us into the Guinness Book of Records rather than an encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think the whole "trivial" thing exists then or things like "changes in share or bond prices" or "product or a product line launch, sale, change, or discontinuance" not counting toward notability even though they sometimes get national or regional news coverage? Rarely if ever is something like "hiring, promotion, or departure of personnel" notable (except in extremely rare cases) and 100% it's not because every company hires and fires people. Those are already things we don't include and in No way does not having articles on companies full of tables of everyone the company has hired and fired turn Wikipedia into the Guinness Book of Records. Nor does not listing every single, or any, products a company has released. It's ridiculous to claim it otherwise. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:38, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please think before you write. Nothing there says that a company has to be unique, let alone a school, which, per WP:NSCHOOL which is part of WP:ORG, only has to pass the WP:GNG, not necessarily WP:ORG. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to know how you translated "changes in share or bond prices" to me saying "a company has to be unique." --Adamant1 (talk) 17:55, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You very clearly said "for something to be notable it has to be unique". They were your words, not mine. It's impossible to hold a civilised discussion about anything when you blatantly deny the obvious evidence. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:03, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Something" as in the subject/content of the articles. Which would should be obvious since that's literally what we are evaluating. Seriously, we aren't deciding if a company is notable in a vacuum here or based on some sort of osmosis. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Er, yes, of course I know what "something" means in this context. I'm afraid I don't understand the rest of your comment. You simply said that the topic of an article has to be unique. I disagreed. If you think that your position can be justified then justify it. Otherwise just stop posting, or (and this would be a first) admit that you were mistaken. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:22, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All I have to say is that you really must be commit WP:WIKIHOUNDING if you know I've never admitted to making a mistake before. BTW, your the one that responded to my comment to SportsFlyer. So, I think the solution to this back and forth would have been for you to not start it in the first place. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:37, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG / WP:NSCHOOL. Sources in article and WP:BEFORE were not WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and in depth. // Timothy :: talk 17:41, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kempton Park. I've trawled but regrettably don't see sufficient decent sources to support a meaningful article. The only mention that jumps out from a significant source is [25], debatable whether it counts as in-depth coverage. Humansdorpie (talk) 20:47, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources provided are little more than mentions. The Mail & Guardian seems to be the best coverage and it actually provides very little coverage of the school. That means the subject currently fails WP:GNG. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:32, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. --KartikeyaS (talk) 19:05, 4 November 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 as improved. Consensus is clear. BD2412 T 18:34, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Parktown Boys' High School[edit]

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

This school doesn't appear to be notable. Since all the references in the article are primary, extremely trivial, or about other things besides the school. Like obituaries for people that have gone there. Plus, I was unable to find the multiple in-depth reliable sources that direct discuss the school that it would need to pass either WP:GNG or WP:NORG, and high schools are not inherently notable per the RfC about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:17, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If a high-school that produced various politicians, olympians, artists etc., all backed up with reliable secondary sources, isn't notable, then we'd be deleting 99% of the schools on Wikipedia.--Eklektikos (talk) 14:56, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the hyperbull. The pointless fear mongering aside can you point to three in-depth sources about the school that are currently in the article? Adamant1 (talk) 17:47, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hope 'hyperbull' is a misspelling of 'hyperbole,' because calling my comment 'hyperbull[shit]' is neither considerate nor respectful, whether you agree with me or not.--Eklektikos (talk) 19:57, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is. Sorry. Phone edit, done in desktop mode to. Which isn't really the best way to do this. Blame my choppy home internet though. Adamant1 (talk) 20:36, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've found some South African news sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5; more can be found through Google News, but I don't know if they're reliable. There's also scholarly coverage: 6, 7, 8, 9. The vast majority of coverage seems to relate to scandals involving the school rather than the school itself: if these are the only reliable sources we can find, most of the article's current content would have to be removed. There is book-length coverage: The Lion Roars: Parktown Boys' High School : 1920-1999 by Nan O'Carroll (Google Books), but I cannot verify its reliability because I could not find more information about the author or the publisher. Wikinights (talk) 22:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just giving the news coverage a quick glance I'd say no. The first one is an opinion piece, the second one is about the principle being let go from a local source (which is pretty trivial), the third is exactly the same thing (It doesn't even talk about the school and this isn't an article about the principle), the forth one is exactly the same thing (about the principle, not the school, local news source, etc. etc.), same for the fifth. Wikipedia isn't a news site anyway. So, none of those work. The first scholarly article is about "boys at schools dying" and only mentions the school briefly in refence to a kid that died (which is what the news articles on the principle are about and again not really about the school itself per say), the second one is about a coach who molested some kids at the school (which, again, isn't really about the school), the third is about some kids who beat some other kids at a hostel that is slightly related to the school somehow, but not the school. The book might work though. I'd probably give it a pass. I'm not sure how it fits in with everything else though. If you take the book, then it's one source that might or might be reliable. It's clearly in-depth though. So, at least that's something. As a side thing, based on the sources other then the book you could make a good argument for there to be an article about the boy who drowned and the principle. It seems like both have in-depth sustained coverage. I don't think it means anything for this articles notability that they do though. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:47, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinights, The Lion Roars: Parktown Boys' High School is published by Black and Red Books, an organisation established by Fredy Perlman in 1968. I'd say it's probably reliable for basic factual details, but a quick look at the website suggests they have an "anti-authoritarian" POV. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:54, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the correct publisher you're referencing (blackandred.org). 1. The Google Search "the lion roars" site:http://www.blackandred.org" turns up nothing. 2. The website catalog (link) does not list The Lion Roars. 3. The website "About Us" (link) says it is published in the U.S., no mention of South Africa. However, worldcat.org says it was published in Johannesburg: [26], [27] Wikinights (talk) 18:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per rationale provided by Adamant1. Celestina007 (talk) 23:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most of the press I can find about this school is negative - sadly a student drowned this year and so it has been all over the news, and this also tragic article from a few years ago [28] and while the article is short, has been discussed by politicians: [29]. I also think the sources demonstrated above pass WP:GNG very easily and I disagree with all of the arguments which are trying to knock out the news coverage of the school. It's clearly notable. SportingFlyer T·C 08:16, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the more notable schools in South Africa and almost 100 years old. SA newspapers have not yet digitised like American newspapers - be careful of WP:BIAS against African schools who don't enjoy the same level of coverage as their first world counterparts, which the nom seems to be targeting as part of a clean up. And please remember WP:BEFORE - its up to the nom to look for additional sources before AfD, don't just rely on what is in the article Gbawden (talk) 11:16, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIAS is an essay and therefore not relevent to this. Also, I'm not sure what's so hard for you to understand about "I was unable to find the multiple in-depth reliable sources that directly discuss the school", but I was pretty clear in the nomination that I did a BEFORE. A bunch of articles about a kid drawning, while tragic or whatever ultimately have nothing to do with the school and that's anyone including me have been able to find. Maybe next time read the nomination before you vote and either provide some in-depth sources that are actually revelant or just don't participate, because just citing an essay and giving the nominator flake for something isint helpful or constructive. Its not going to result in the article being kept either. Only finding good quality, usable sources will and at this point there just isn't any. Adamant1 (talk) 13:07, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, the school is one of the most notable in South Africa and has made national news in South Africa for years. The amount of media coverage on the tragic death is far, far beyond what is required for notability, but most importantly, the school has received coverage dating back years. Your comment here is also exceptionally concerning. You are not the gatekeeper for this article. We're allowed to look at the sources and do our own BEFORE searches and determine that the school is notable through participating in the AfD process. In this instance, there are many, many possible sources we could use to make this a good quality article. SportingFlyer T·C 17:50, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AFD says "Articles for deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted." The last time I checked nominators are allowed to be a part of that discussion and them doing so isn't being a gatekeeper. If you can't handle someone saying that they don't think your sources work, then either find better sources or find other things to participate in. Making accusations about the intent of commenters or anything along those lines is off topic and isn't helpful though. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:00, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are fine. Stop bludgeoning these discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 18:03, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting twice isn't bludgeoning. Unless your an authoritarian. It's also the same amount you've commented. Don't Wikilawyer. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:27, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per identified sources. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:51, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources. African schools tend to be at a disadvantage on Wikipedia because of the difficulty in identifying sources. A key pointer to this school's notability might be the source which identifies Parktown Boys' as the 33rd best school in Africa, a continent of 1.2 billion people. But for multiple sources Google Scholar is your friend, weighing in with 91 hits - some of which source notable alumni, and others which discuss the school in some depth and support a general claim to notability on the grounds of age, prestige and quality. (Plus Ninja is an ex-student...) Humansdorpie (talk) 22:41, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I could be wrong, but I don't think Ninja being an ex-student really has any baring on this. Nor does most of what else you said. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:56, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per rationale of Humansdorpie & SportingFlyer. I'll dig around for further sources when I have time, but the sources there are sufficient for now imo. --DSQ (talk) 08:46, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources "there" do you think are sufficient? --Adamant1 (talk) 13:06, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those which have been flagged up for you above. The Oxford Review of Education Journal describes it as an "elite public school..one of the oldest and best-performing schools in the country". Which is exactly what it is. It's not just some random High School.^[1] It has a long, illustrious history and produced more than its fair share of politicians, business people and prominent academics. Swathes of the current article could (and should) be culled, but that's all. --DSQ (talk) 20:08, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have copyedited the article a bit, removed some content that doesn't look encyclopedic, and added some sources including a detailed account of the school in Independent Online, and some citations for several notable alumni including Henry Benson, Baron Benson. AfD is not cleanup. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:33, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No one said AfD was cleanup or that this was about cleanup. I know I sure as hell didn't. Adamant1 (talk) 14:20, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 18:51, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kadyrov Cup[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The article was recreated following clear consensus to redirect to Akhmad Kadyrov. A user has overruled this and created the article again. The article claims that this is a regular tournament but I can't find evidence of this, not even from searching in the Russian language. The Azerbaijani Wiki article gives no further assertion of notability either. A WP:BEFORE search gives plenty of coverage about Ramzan Kadyrov and Mo Salah but that has nothing to do with this one-off pre-season tournament here. Spiderone 08:14, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 08:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - loads of pre-season friendly 'tournaments' out there, no evidence this is notable enough for an article. Giant Snowman 15:47, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to National Senior Certificate. Sandstein 08:56, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Matriculation in South Africa[edit]

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

I did a PROD on this that unfortunately was removed when it really shouldn't have been. Since the article is an un-needed content fork of Matriculation#South_Africa and another article that is about essentially the same subject. There's no evidence it passes WP:GNG enough (or at all) to warrant three separate articles on the same topic. Let alone two. So, it should just be deleted or redirected to Matriculation#South_Africa. I could really care which. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:24, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to National Senior Certificate which seems to cover the same area exactly. - htonl (talk) 09:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good find but note that that page says that "This certificate is commonly known as the matriculation (matric)..." so WP:COMMONNAME indicates that we should have the topic under this title, not that one. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no particularly strong feeling either way, would be happy to go with merging the NSC article into this one. - htonl (talk) 12:19, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep South Africa is a major country with a respectable education system. Other countries have articles for their equivalents – see Baccalauréat; High school diploma; General Certificate of Secondary Education; &c. – so why wouldn't we have one for South Africa too? The details of the South African system are quite notable as entire books are written about it – see Marking Matric or Matriculation Examination Handbook, for example. As for PROD, it might help if editors had to pass a basic exam before being allowed to use it. Here's a suitable question:

Q. What is the first thing to do before nominating?

A. Consider whether there is a valid reason for deletion. For articles, try alternatives to deletion like improving the page, merging or redirecting.

Andrew🐉(talk) 10:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Matriculation Examination Handbook is a primary source written by the African Joint Matriculation Board. Therefore, as you should know it does nothing for notability. That it's a "book" isn't really relevant. Nor is "other stuff exists." Which, again, you should know. As far as the PROD test goes, people like you would remove them anyway, because there's no bar, outside of keeping everything no matter what, that you'd be satified with and you'll just find some thing to your whole "anyone who wants delete anything is just incompetent at this and doesn't know what they are doing" schtik to justify (or deflect from) your clear lack of any standards or ethics about the process what-so-ever. Adamant1 (talk) 14:52, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a primary source. A primary source would be something like the actual exam papers. Notice that that bound set from 1918 is over 100 years old. This is a very well-established and respected qualification which goes back to the 19th century. But, in any case, it is easy to find more books which cover the topic such as this. Sorry, you haven't done your homework. You got an F. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would be primary in the same way same any other government institution (or company for that matter) writing about itself and its precedures is, because its not a secondary scholarly (or media outlet, or acedemic author, or anything else) doing a synthesis of the material or anything else that would qualify as usable. As far as the other source goes, one paragraph that's barely about it isn't enough IMO. Its fine if you do, but even if it was there would have to be another source, because one paragraph in a single book isn't enough, obviously. Ultimately, two in-depth secondary sources is a pretty damn low bar of entry. To the point that its hilarious as hell how much capitulating and doublespeak you and other people do when articles can't meet it. Seriously, maybe just skip it for once and find a couple of more sources. Or just go obstruct another AfD. Adamant1 (talk) 18:10, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More sources? Here's some more sources of the sort that a standard WP:BEFORE search would produce:

A comparison of teacher stress and school climate across schools with different matric success rates
Equating examinations as a prerequisite for ensuring standards in centralised Senior Certificate (Matric) examinations in South Africa
Investigating the significance of the 2008 Matric curriculum on first-year Economics performance
The Discursive Hold of the Matric: Is There Space for a New Vision for Secondary Education in South Africa?
Incorporating multiliteracies into public examinations: the constraints and affordances of the Matric English language examination
The impact of study guides on “matric” performance: Evidence from a randomised experiment
Exploration of the levels of mathematical proficiency displayed by grade 12 learners in responses to matric examinations
Matric results in mathematics and languages: A predictor of undergraduate and postgraduate success
The matric results of 2002 and 2003: the uncomfortable truths of the Western Cape
Steroid use in matric pupils (South Africa)

Andrew🐉(talk) 19:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm sure an article about steriod use in students is a deep dive on Matriculation. The one about Western Cape would probably be cool for an article on Western Cape. Even with the sources though, notability isn't the only arguement that can be made in AfS abd there's still zero reason have three articles about the exact same subject. Except that you just want to be petty about this and keep everything. If its helpful to or not. Which just shows in the fact that in your vote you critized the nomination for not suggesting alternatives like merging or directing, when I was clear id be fine either and then you shot them both down as possible options. You can't even keep things stright about it from message to the next, because your so busy attacking people and being a contrarian about this. Adamant1 (talk) 20:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The starting point for this is that the nominator first proposed that this topic be deleted without discussion as uncontroversial. But WP:PROD says this "must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected." But the nominator has been trying to delete other education topics for South Africa and other African countries. And there has been opposition – see here or here for example. The nominator should please expect more opposition if they continue on this path. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Get real dude. There's nothing controversial about doing a PROD on an article that's a duplicate of two others. Nor is there a rule against nominating multiple articles about subjects from the same content. The only reason there is a "controversy" about it is because you and a few other users' go to strategy is to personally attack and target anyone who does AfDs, because you don't have jack else. Sorry, but I'm not going to be your bootlicker and I'm sure as hell not going to bow down to your self-entitlement complexes. Next time follow the guidelines and keep your vote comment about the article. It's not that difficult. Making off topic personal attacks in your vote comments never result in articles being kept anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this appears to be the appropriate title for the article, per WP:COMMONNAME, and the topic clearly meets the GNG, as a reasonable WP:BEFORE would have disclosed. This is not the place to discuss meeting other articles into this one, and AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Newimpartial (talk) 21:43, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Newimpartial: Hey, do me a favor and do a search for Matriculation in South Africa with the Google Search bar. Then click the Find Sources: Google link and tell me if the results are different. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:36, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Newimpartial (talk) 23:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hhhmmm, glad to know it's not just me. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as per Andrew. Then merge with National Senior Certificate and redirect here. --DSQ (talk) 17:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. and merge as suggested. A reasonable solution. DGG ( talk ) 19:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC) �[reply]
Keep and merge/redirect as suggested by DSQ et al. Humansdorpie (talk) 21:00, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd be totally fine with a merge. I figured it be a given that merging it would be a choice without me having to explicitly say it was. I assume everyone involved is pretty aware of what the possible options are without anyone having to list them all repeatedly in every AfD nomination. In this case, the important thing is just that there isn't three articles about essentially the same subject. I could care less how that happens though. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:34, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Parker Pyne Investigates. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:16, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Parker Pyne[edit]

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

No sources, no indication of importance. Opalzukor (talk) 06:55, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, then redirect to Parker Pyne Investigates. Regardless of notability, there is no content worth merging. The article contains original research, including SYNTH and speculative material. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 13:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep - Fails to cite a legitimate rationale for deletion, per WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN. If anything, AfDs need to provide an indication of unimportance (or at least, justify a criteria for deletion) but I'm not seeing that here. Likewise, original research is typically solved with removals and rewrites per WP:NOTCLEANUP. Dark knight 2149 18:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Topic fails to establish notability per WP:GNG. Even should there be some older print-only sources discussing the character, I find it doubtful that it would need coverage outside of the context of the main article. TTN (talk) 20:40, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Parker Pyne Investigates: Nothing is referenced, no reception, the only part that has some value is list of appearances, but again, no references. No objection so soft deletion, maybe someone will want to dig something from the history here one day? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:07, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Parker Pyne Investigates The character essentially only appears in this collection of stories. The character does not have the same level of coverage as other Christie detectives; I don't think there is enough for the character to pass GNG on his own. Rhino131 (talk) 11:35, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect as failing to establish notability per WP:GNG. No references, no reception, no additional research can be found. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:55, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify. Closing earlier per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī (^talk) 10:09, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chencho Dorji[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Sudeva is in the I-League, which is a WP:FPL however the article fails since Sudeva hasn't actually 'played' in the league and nor has Chencho 'coached' in the league.

Additionally, this is WP:TOOSOON as we don't even have confirmation of when the season will start and recent reports was January 2021... so who knows if Sudeva will just change coaches prior. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 05:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 06:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 06:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:46, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:46, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify likely to be notable in a few months, but not right now. Right now, fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG, but draftifying is a better alternative than deletion in my opinion. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 08:19, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft I have nothing against the article going into draft space. The article seems to fail WP:GNG at present and there are issues with it that need addressing. Govvy (talk) 11:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify This person will meet notability criteria soon when Sudeva FC play in the I League.So no need to delete now.Sullyboywiki (talk) 11:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - it should stay in draft space until it can be proved to pass WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTY Spiderone 11:37, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draft as above. Giant Snowman 15:47, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify : This person may meets WP:GNG soon.So it is better to keep it in draft space.Kashmorwiki (talk) 07:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 09:57, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Height[edit]

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

Fails WP:NGRIDIRON as a career minor league player. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:19, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails under WP:NGRIDIRON (has not played in the specified top-level teams), WP:NCOLLATH (played at Division II level with no national awards, Hall of Fame inductions, national media attention), and WP:GNG (article is not supported by significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, and my searches did not turn up such coverage). Cbl62 (talk) 09:24, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. i made this article very early in my editing days, and did not fully understand the rules.DMC511 (talk) 13:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NGRIDIRON, and WP:NCOLLATH. Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:19, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with not meeting notability standards. Thanks to DMC511 for trying back in the day!--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:32, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 07:44, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Match Premier Cup[edit]

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

Lots of countries have pre-season friendly tournaments—which are of no consequence or significance. This tournament is open for four Russian clubs. To write that the clubs "claim titles" from this tournament is probably an exaggeration. Media coverage exists, as with any soccer game, but not significant coverage of the tournament. Geschichte (talk) 04:02, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 07:59, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If it's sourced, then that adds some notability, however I don't see notability outside of Russia. This seems like one of those articles okay for Russian wikipedia, but I am not sure it's notable enough for the English. Govvy (talk) 10:57, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - loads of pre-season friendly 'tournaments' out there, no evidence this is notable enough for an article. Giant Snowman 15:46, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - most of the coverage is routine and from primary sources (I am counting Match TV, the sponsor of the tournament, as a primary source); I saw nothing more than routine/trivial coverage from independent sources in a search Spiderone 12:59, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Baltic Cup (football). Fenix down (talk) 07:42, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Baltic Cup[edit]

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

Cup cancelled because of covid-19-pandemic. Official site link is dead. The cancellation itself hasn't exactly resulted in widespread coverage. This can be created afresh as 2021 Baltic Cup if and when the event is rebooted. Geschichte (talk) 04:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:34, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:34, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:34, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:34, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Baltic Cup with a note on that article as to why it was cancelled Spiderone 07:55, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect agree with Spiderone, was thinking that way as-well. Govvy (talk) 10:52, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect is a sensible solution. Giant Snowman 15:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Baltic Cup (football) (not Baltic Cup the DAB page), to preserve the categorisation. Is it postponed or cancelled? If cancelled, categories should be updated. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ximena Zamora was never listed for deletion, though, and has been prodded before, so it will have to be nominated on its own. Geschichte (talk) 09:41, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Susana Rivadeneira[edit]

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

Non-notable onetime beauty pageant winner, falls in scope of the WP:BLP1E policy. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:12, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ximena Zamora (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Catalina López (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lugina Cabezas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Doménica Saporiti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sandra Vinces (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lady Mina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Constanza Báez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Alejandra Argudo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Francesca Cipriani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Connie Jiménez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Daniela Cepeda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Virginia Limongi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cristina Hidalgo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am nominating the above, all listed at Miss Ecuador#Titleholders, for the same reasons of lack of biographic notability. With the exception of Lady Mina with six references, all have four references or fewer. This is along the same lines of recent debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roxanne Allison Baeyens where the community decided these individuals who achieved note for one regional beauty pageant, without further information, should be deleted. Also in common with the other deletion debate, several articles were created by sockfarms: Mrdhimas and Colombiabeauty. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:36, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all these are all non-notable beauty contest winners.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She was in the top 10 in a beauty pageant a decade ago and doesn't seem to have done anything earth-shattering since then. Oaktree b (talk) 03:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. BD2412 T 05:27, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all no notability beyond pageant. Clear WP:1E case.Less Unless (talk) 13:47, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:46, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Klinger[edit]

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

Comedian fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO KidAd talk 02:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 02:24, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 02:24, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:37, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:37, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Might be notable, but the article has no reference tags used and few links to other articles. Appears to be an article from a novice wikipedian. Needs much work to be proven to be notable and what I'm seeing isn't. Oaktree b (talk) 03:51, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ Languille, Sonia (2 September 2016). "'Affordable' private schools in South Africa. Affordable for whom?". Oxford Review of Education. 42 (5): 528–542. doi:10.1080/03054985.2016.1220086.

[1] Languille, Sonia (2 September 2016). "'Affordable' private schools in South Africa. Affordable for whom?". Oxford Review of Education. 42 (5): 528–542. doi:10.1080/03054985.2016.1220086.

[1]