Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 October 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 3 October 5 October >

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. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:24, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

H. P. Michelet[edit]

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

current sourcing absolutely fails WP:GNG and a quick search doesn't show indication of notability Graywalls (talk) 22:24, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 22:24, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 22:24, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 22:24, 4 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Black Fist (film)[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NFSOURCES. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 21:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:49, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Found 18 critic sources (not user) listed at IMdB [[1]]. I didn't check them, but to pass WP:NFILM you only need 2. Donaldd23 (talk) 22:25, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - @Donaldd23: You say "I didn't check them". Perhaps you really should because a bunch of glorified blogs does not constitute "full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics" as stated by WP:NFILM. I am still doing some more digging but at this point I've not found anything and am leaning delete. -- Whpq (talk) 20:19, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I am unable to find any coverage that would establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 12:30, 10 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator, no one is arguing for deletion. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 10:52, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merwin Mondesir[edit]

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

I admit the article passes WP:NACTOR since Mondesir has had significant roles in Seventeen Again, Grave Encounters and It Stains the Sands Red. However, the article fails WP:BASIC. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 21:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:49, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:50, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Vexatious nomination. Passes WP:NACTOR. Actors are known for their work and this one had significant roles easily meeting the SNG. See Historical Dictionary of African American Cinema, The A to Z of African American Cinema, and TV Guide. The nomination claims that the person has to pass SNG and GNG, however that is not what our guideline states WP:N A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. Lightburst (talk) 22:19, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:NOTABILITY is quite clear, they must passed either the general notability guidelines, or a subject specific guideline. If the nominator admits they pass the subject specific guideline for actors, then this is a bad nomination. After you read the short bit for BASIC you should've read the following bit for other ways they can be "presumed" notable. Dream Focus 23:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The nominator acknowledges that he passes NACTOR. — Toughpigs (talk) 23:21, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It only needs to pass WP:NACTOR. Does not need to pass WP:BASIC as well as mentioned in WP:N. Pamzeis (talk) 23:28, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, I withdraw this nomination. I assumed a BLP article had to pass WP:BASIC. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 23:35, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per all of the above, notability established. Gleeanon409 (talk) 04:51, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per all of the above, notability established. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:32, 5 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. TheSandDoctor Talk 02:37, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Badran[edit]

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

WP:TNT Launchballer 21:28, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:51, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:51, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:41, 5 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. While there are a lot of poor arguments here, such as the implication that passing mentions count toward notability, the well-reasoned arguments are evenly split, and I do not see consensus emerging based on further participation. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd Monserratt[edit]

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

2006 AfD closed as no consensus. There's a lot written, but I'm not convinced there's anything notable here. He got a library branch named after him [2], but I'm afraid there is no notability criteria that says anyone who has this is inherently notable. In fact, the LA Times article I just linked suggests that he got the branch as a memorial to someone who died too soon to really hit their stride (become notable). Neither being a leader at UCLA, a director at NALEO, or chief-of-staff for a councilmember meets NPOL. Coverage cited in the article includes a local obituary (permanent deadlink), Daily Bruin obit (student newspaper, dubious reliability, not indicative of notability), an incredibly short LA Times obit, coverage of him as an activist at UCLA, mostly in passing, small local paper, and similar. A really good source is LA Weekly, but to me that still isn't indicative of more than local notability. Admittedly, it's a borderline case. In summary, this seems to be a case of a person who died too soon to become clearly notable. And that's a real shame. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scouting-related deletion discussions. --evrik (talk) 23:59, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This was listed at WP:GAN#HIST back in July in an effort to move the article to Good Article status. --evrik (talk) 00:09, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Long standing article (15 years). Subject is notable. Had a wide influence. Lots of press on his work and his death. Only problem is he died in his thirties. --evrik (talk) 00:09, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are stub articles for sci-fi novels with small niche audiences on Wikipedia that have been online for almost as long and haven't received any AFD noms. Why is this singled out? --JohnDBuell (talk) 00:48, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t see the connection. You’re welcome to nominate those articles if you have a problem with them. We have numerous articles from the late 2000s that don’t meet our notability standards. I came across this article intending to review it for ga, but I couldn’t exactly see why he was notable. And, with all due respect, the article probably wouldn’t be listed as a ga as it stands, ignoring notability— the daily Bruin is of dubious reliability, there are prose concerns and sourcing. But the first issue is that of notability. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
... so no GA review? ;-) I think you answered the question. Next time, perhaps you can just fail the GA review? --evrik (talk) 01:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not a GA requirement. So if a reviewer has doubts about a subjects notability, bringing it here is the correct procedure. AIRcorn (talk) 02:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of those mid 00's articles were left there in hopes that someone else would get to them and flesh them out. Didn't ever happen. But my actual point is this - AfD met a real purpose for keeping down impacts on the wiki and db servers in an era where bandwidth was much much lesser and hard drives were smaller and more expensive. I now have fiber at home, 802.11ac, and terabyte hard drives everywhere I look. Now on the one hand, if you're trying to keep up quality, you don't want fancruft, press releases, and such like trying to pass itself off as encyclopedic, but I fail to see where an article that has tried to improve itself is either fannish or a press release. --JohnDBuell (talk) 14:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per reasons above. --JohnDBuell (talk) 14:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning keep at this stage. Most of the coverage is around his death, but in my opinion there is enough to just pass the GNG. AIRcorn (talk) 02:47, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Which reference(s) discuss the subject in-depth and are also reliable? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:07, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is this one [3] AIRcorn (talk) 05:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This one as well: Becerra, Xavier (2003-06-19). "Congressional Tribute in Honor of Mr. Lloyd Monserratt" (PDF). Extensions of Remarks In the House Of Representatives. --evrik (talk) 21:51, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I saw that, but I don't think a congressional tribute establishes notability-- the most relevant discussion I found had a user saying saying: tributes reprinted in the Congressional Record are inserted at the request of the member for that district of the state, and represent nothing but service to constituents.They're not only not sources showing notability , but aren't even reliable as the is no editorial control nor even institutional responsibility. With only one substantial, reliable, independent, and in-depth source, I don't think there's enough for notability. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wait, articles by the New York Times, and the Los Angeles Times, and a Congressional Record mention. How can you say only one substantial, reliable, independent, and in-depth source? I see at least four. --evrik (talk) 00:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Coverage in the NYT and LATimes is not substantial or in-depth, congressional mention is not reliable or independent, as detailed above. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • The coverage was not superficial. Also, the congressional record is a reliable source. There are more sources. --evrik (talk) 02:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean delete This is a really hard case for a notability determination and feels like WP:NOTMEMORIAL on its face. There's coverage of his death because he was chief-of-staff for a councilmember during his unfortunate passing, but the best article is an LA Times article lamenting the fact a library branch was named after him. That being said I could make a good case to !vote keep on some of the obituaries, but I don't think he's notable enough - just demonstrating how grey this one is. I think what makes this so strange is that he would be clearly non-notable had he not passed away. SportingFlyer T·C 21:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SportingFlyer: His involvement with the UCLA incident garnered LA Times and NY Times coverage. His involvement with the Becerra mayoral scandal also gave him press. His biggest problem is he died so young. --evrik (talk) 21:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In terms of the New York Times article, I strongly contest that a three-sentence article in which he is mentioned once and not in the lede is significant coverage. Sorry. SportingFlyer T·C 21:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just added another LA Times article about the election scandal. --evrik (talk) 21:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since the coverage is very thin--yeah, it's the NYT, but we need more than a mention; notability means a subject was discussed at some length and in some depth. "Congressional recognition" or whatever is just a function of who you know, and really means nothing for our purposes. Drmies (talk) 22:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me count, there are 26 references. Of those ...
LA Times - Six references
NY Times - One reference
Time magazine - One reference
La Opinión - One reference
LA Weekly - Three references

It seems to me that notability is established. --evrik (talk) 04:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's also been established that just being mentioned in articles doesn't mean WP:GNG is met. The NY Times article, as mentioned, is brief and mentions him once - that clearly doesn't count. The LA Times articles on the student election aren't really about him but more about the controversy generally, and I'm not sure we would keep an article on the event. As I've mentioned above, it's not impossible this gets kept, but it's very, very far from being a clear cut case. SportingFlyer T·C 09:47, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is a lot of clean up that needs to be done if kept. --Enos733 (talk) 22:23, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Funny you say that, this deletion nomination started by an editor who noticed the article at WP:GAN#HIST. --evrik (talk) 04:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hey Evrik. I understand you have put a lot of effort into this article and it is no fun having your work discussed like this. Still if I could offer some advice it would be to back off a bit from responding to every post. I recognise most of the editors who have commented here and they are all experienced and genuine good faith contributors. They would not have made their !votes lightly. The truth is that this person is, as has been said a few times, borderline for meeting our notability requirements. Unless you have a new source that you think will help (at the end of the day a reliable source with significant coverage is what will change peoples minds) or need to answer a direct question you are probably not helping your cause at the moment. AIRcorn (talk) 05:37, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate what you say, but isn't this a discussion? I have gone back several times since this discussion began and added more content and sources. Some of the things said do not capture all the sources, or worse, describe the sources improperly. Truth be told, the LA Weekly articles are probably the most comprehensive. The other articles document specific facts. I said this earlier, but it bothers me that in trying to get this article to GA status, it got nominated for deletion. --evrik (talk) 15:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article is well-written and well-referenced, and is about a real person that had significant influence in Los Angeles-area politics. I know when I was a kid I always wanted to know why the park or the library was named after this person or that person and the information was always hard to come by, until WP was founded. When I became an editor there was a huge Eurocentricity problem that has slowly started to become more balanced due to the information of articles like this one about significant people of color. Rockero (talk) 15:54, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - while never an elected official, his longstanding activism and ongoing coverage make him notable. Bearian (talk) 19:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment users above have said that he had a "wide influence" and "significant influence in Los Angeles-area politics" but I'm failing to draw the same conclusions from reading the text (notice that this isn't a vote for or against, at least not at the moment). Having memorials and working on the campaigns of various politicians does not make some inherently "influential" – I would need to see a source that explains his "wide/significant" influence directly or says he's "influential", otherwise such claims seem like OR. Aza24 (talk) 20:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is the AP Wire service quote on the Morales campaign, and the quote by Alex Padilla. In this source, Greene, Robert (2003-01-16). "The Silenced Warrior". LA Weekly., it says ..."a key player in the strategic Latino alliance ... of elected officials ... an alternative Los Angeles Latino power base." While not a direct quote, you would have to understand the dynamic between the Torristas and the Molinistas. His influence also came from his work with NALEO. --evrik (talk) 04:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep With the additional sources now cited, via Newspapers.com, Monserratt's national influence in the Latino community at the time is made clearer. I believe that the article therefore meets GNG, albeit not NPOL. More work is needed for a GA, however. It would be useful to caption the infobox photo with the year it was taken, btw. Of course, one of the challenges in sustaining a 15-yr old article is that some sources no longer appear in web searches, even after trying the wayback machine.  JGHowes  talk 15:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where do you get a "national influence" from the two Newspapers.com articles? One is a quotation in the Tampa Bay Times that doesn't indicate his notability or influence and the other a very short article about the UCLA election that gives him about two sentences of coverage. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:24, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that he was national director of constituent services for Latino campaigns around the country and his analysis of the election results was quoted by the national wire services speaks for itself.  JGHowes  talk 22:49, 11 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) 21:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Driffield and District League[edit]

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

Very low-level local amateur football league (article claims it sits at the 13th level of English football, whereas English football league system says 19th (!) - both are debatable as the system isn't actually officially defined that far down). Six of the nine teams in the (two years out of date) team list played at public parks/leisure centres, which gives an indication of the level we are talking about. Found a couple of brief news stories from the local paper (including one saying the league went on hiatus this summer due to "lack of interest") but no real evidence of notability at all. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:09, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:13, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:30, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:30, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, non-notable. GiantSnowman 20:49, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 21:08, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable division... JMHamo (talk) 22:33, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not notable. Below the level we should be covering. Nigej (talk) 07:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:35, 9 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 22:19, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of animated television series of 2022[edit]

List of animated television series of 2022 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is entirely WP:CRYSTAL. TV series get delayed all the time and there is no guarantee that any of these will air a year and a half from now. See Covid19 for one of those reasons. This article also provides no value at all for a reader with mostly TBA table entries. Move to draft and keep it there until 2022. Gonnym (talk) 20:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Gonnym (talk) 20:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 7/8 are press releases rewritten by the same person (and full of WP:JARGON no normal person can interpret), the one that isn't is a Patch article which comes down to 'I talked to my neighbor Bob on Facebook and he says he's got a Netflix series, which is swell!'. Half the projects don't have a network, and yup...COVID. Wait until things are announced by their respective networks as in production, and are sourced to more than one site and a neighbor. No draftifying either because of the one-sourcing. Nate • (chatter) 02:39, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obviously without prejudice against recreation sometime in mid to late 2021 when there's firmer information and better sources than this. Even List of animated television series of 2021 didn't exist until about four months ago — so there's no serious reason why we would already need to jump this far ahead of any reliably sourced facts about the next year after that. (Also, that Patch source may be the fucking funniest thing I've ever read, and I don't mean that in a good way: expected to premiere on Netflix in 2022, when the dude hasn't even pitched the damn thing yet, and my eight year old niece can draw better than the "sample" cel that's being used to illustrate the story? Good luck, animator dude!) Bearcat (talk) 03:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I didn't want to comment on the 'quality' of the sketch on Patch, but if this is headed to Netflix in 2022...I expect Ted Sarandos will be 5150'ed and everyone to sell their stock. I'm removing that one, because apparently that 'reporter' needs to really improve their Patch password and their kid used their account to post this. Nate • (chatter) 05:41, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, my stars, that left me speechless. Bearcat (talk) 15:32, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy - This page will have to get recreated eventually, so we should keep a draft of it for when it is needed. Foxnpichu (talk) 22:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This is sourced to one website and one writer. No, it shouldn't be userfied because this is both incomplete and terribly researched, and the creating user has a whole bunch of copyvio notices, so they cannot be trusted to be a steward of this page. Nate • (chatter) 02:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then instead of moving it to the userspace, move it to the draftspace. Foxnpichu (talk) 10:40, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment As said above, you just copy a previous list-of template, then work off that. I'd rather a fresh start when we have notable shows than keeping this as-is. Nate • (chatter) 21:40, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Very well. I have struck my !vote under those grounds. Foxnpichu (talk) 23:33, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per above. Very little effort is involved in creating a table like this, and the sources currently provided are unlikely to be used in the eventual article. I don't see any point to preserving this in draft or user space. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honestly, having looked at this article, couldn't it be Speedy Deleted under G11? Foxnpichu (talk) 11:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As nom, I have no problem with it being deleted. --Gonnym (talk) 11:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom. WP:CRYSTAL A list about 2022 may be overly optimistic considering 2020.   // Timothy :: talk  12:37, 9 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 Wolf 359. Sandstein 16:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wolf 359 c[edit]

Wolf 359 c (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An article based on a blog about a preprint from 18 months ago that has never been published. Unless a more reliable source can be find, it is hard to justify this as a confirmed exoplanet despite what the exoplanet.eu database says. Lithopsian (talk) 19:25, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:29, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a good compromise would be merge with Wolf 359. I passed this article despite dubious sourcing because it was redlinked at that page. (t · c) buidhe 21:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect with Wolf 359, which is a notable object. This is still a candidate planet and is not well studied. Praemonitus (talk) 15:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect with Wolf 359 per above. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 14:06, 7 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 22:18, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kim, Arizona[edit]

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

Let me start by saying that the assertion of a population of 125 on the part of the CAB is completely implausible. Aerials only go back to 1960, but they show a vast, almost trackless wasteland, marked only by the railroad and its paralleling highway. The topos go back further and show Kim to be a passing siding and nothing more; the closest building is a long ways off to the northwest. There is just no chance in hell that this was an "unincorporated community". Mangoe (talk) 15:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your citation is merely a topo quad which has nothing more on it than a name. This area is in fact so empty that there is a huge area marked as "unsurveyed", and that area isn't filled in that I can see until the 1965 edition, and there still are no buildings marked on the quad! In fact the 1927 map only has two places names, a couple of wells, some roads, and the railroad, besides a lot of contour lines. As proof of a populated place, this simply does not cut it; I would take it as proof of an unpopulated place. Mangoe (talk) 16:31, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mangoe, fair enough, I'm swayed enough to withdraw my !vote on this one for now by your explanation. Thanks, SITH (talk) 17:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm gonna say Delete on this one. There's multiple sources in the article that only refer to Kim as a railroad station, and a small one at that. @Mangoe: - I actually suspect the 125 population may be a reference to Mohawk, Arizona, as the CAB report has Mohawk in parenthesis after Kim, and one of the other sources mentions that Kim was near Mohawk. Hog Farm Bacon 19:07, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Concur with nom, no evidence it ever was anything more that a location along the railroad. I found a 1937 newspaper article that said 25 years prior, 1000 feet of track was washed-out in Kim which delayed trains to Tucson. It was probably a passing siding as stated above. MB 02:50, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the county as a first choice per WP:ATD-R. Delete as second choice. --Izno (talk) 03:19, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:16, 4 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) ~ Amkgp 💬 20:24, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lockdown Ki Love Story[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No independent coverage about the show apart from press releases and paid promotional articles before the launch of the show ChunnuBhai (talk) 18:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ChunnuBhai (talk) 18:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ChunnuBhai (talk) 18:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: WP:NTV says, "Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope), or on a cable television channel with a broad regional or national audience." Lockdown Ki Love Story airs on StarPlus, a national channel. From my Google search, there appears to be the typical coverage that a new daily soap opera would receive. In addition to the existing references from The Times of India, India Today and The Tribune, I added "Mohit Malik To Sing A Special Number On His Show Lockdown Ki Love Story" from Spotboye.com, which looks reasonable. I don't know a lot about Indian pop culture media, but I'm not sure what you would expect for a notable Indian daily soap opera that would be much different than what's here. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:23, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- This is absurd and in violation of WP:DELAFD. At the previous Afd for the article which closed not more than a month ago, the reasons cited for nomination were TOOSOON and lack of SIGCOV, which were completely valid at the time but neither is the case anymore. As per the data released by BARC last week, StarPlus is India's leading Hindi GEC[4] and as per WP:NTV any show is very likely to be notable if it airs on national television. Also, of the 14 refs provided in the article only ABP News is owned by Star India. The Tribune, Times of India, Republic World, India Today, Biz Asia are all Independent RS. Satisfies WP:GNG. Sunshine1191 (talk) 06:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the arguments above...Ngrewal1 (talk) 23:30, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Because this Article is based on a serial ,I Requesting to Admin of English Wikipedia please not deleted this popular Article from Wikipedia. SubconiousMind (talk) 15:15, 9 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) 19:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leicester City Football League[edit]

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

This league isn't part of the tiered non-league English system. "The league now only runs veterans divisions which are not considered part of the non-league system." It therefore needs to pass WP:GNG but there appears to be little to no coverage. Spiderone 17:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:54, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 17:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Govvy (talk) 18:11, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 18:34, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - to be honest the league probably isn't notable anyway, but worth pointing out that notability is not temporary, and the fact that the league now only runs a vets division (which seem to be the basis of the nom) doesn't mean it didn't offer a higher level of football in the past....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it's a poorly worded nom from me. With that being said, for a competition that's been going for 120 years, the lack of coverage is astonishing. Admittedly, it's very hard to search for sources when you have to wade through all the sources relating to Leicester City F.C. Spiderone 19:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:32, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - while it's true that the league now only runs veterans divisions, there's no indication that it was ever notable. Nigej (talk) 07:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:36, 9 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 22:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lalima Boarding School[edit]

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

Non-notable school, puff article. Sources provided appear to just be listings, so not SIGCOV, BEFORE didn't turn up anything else. GeneralNotability (talk) 17:51, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. GeneralNotability (talk) 17:51, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. GeneralNotability (talk) 17:51, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. GeneralNotability (talk) 17:51, 4 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 22:16, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Luv'in the Black Country[edit]

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

Non-notable film. There are three references in the article, one of which is a database listing with no significant coverage of the film, another which is affiliated with the makers of the film, and a third which does not mention this film. Coverage I can find is limited to database entries with only a sentence or two about it, some blogs, a little bit of primary coverage from the people who made the film, and a couple of brief statements that the film was being shown at a local event. Searching for luv'in the black country in internet archive brought up no hits. Newspapers.com also brings up nothing meaningful, on either side of the pond. Has been notability tagged since 2013, fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Hog Farm Bacon 17:49, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 17:49, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 17:49, 4 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 valid reason for deletion. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 10:51, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ainu flag[edit]

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

Not notable.

Summary: A tricky case. This article is about an image, for which I confirmed copyright infringement and submitted a deletion request at Commons. This article itself is not copyright violation, but without the image, it cannot satisfy the notability criteria.
Details: The image in question is a reproduction of a work of Bikky Sunazawa (1931-1989). It has been uploaded to Commons multiple times and I have filed two successful deletion requests (1 and 2). The ongoing deletion request is the third one. It was submitted on 26 July, but unfortunately, the Commons deletion procedures are stalled.
To be clear, when I submitted deletion requests for the image, I didn't know its copyright status. On 2 October, Bikky's son Jin Sunazawa posted a blog article in which he made it explicit that his family retained the copyright of the flag designed by his late father. He repeated the same claim in his YouTube video clip (04:40-05:45) posted on 4 October. Now copyright infringement is confirmed.
Also in the blog is his request not to use the flag. Mr. Sunazawa stated that the flag had been abused by Ainu groups who had misused public funds. Although it's not entirely clear whether his request was directed specifically at Ainu activists or at the general public, I don't think we can claim fair use against the copyright holder's will.
Now that there is no way to keep the image, the article devoted to it loses notability.

--Nanshu (talk) 17:29, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An article's notability is completely independent of the copyright status of the images it contains. An article can discuss an image without including said image just as, for instance, we can talk about music without including the songs. Also, if the image is not admissible on Commons because of copyright issues, it can still be uploaded onto English Wikipedia under fair use. _dk (talk) 18:52, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons stated above by _dk. Article is about the flag existence which is notable. Although yes, it would certainly be a better article with an image, so one should be uploaded under fair use. WestCD (talk) 00:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This flag passes GNG (see Gbooks). The image is an entirely separate matter, which can and should be dealt with on Commons. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:28, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. @Underbar dk and WestCD: Just out of curiosity, allow me to repeat the same point. Do you really think we can claim fair use in Wikipedia even if the copyright holder asks for the disuse of the image in question? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nanshu (talk • contribs) 15:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nanshu: As much as I want to respect the family's wishes, fair use does not require the copyright holder's consent as far as I know (IANAL tho). We can add in the article that the family does not want to see the flag being used because of the feud. _dk (talk) 00:55, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Underbar dk: The situation is not exactly the same as that of this flag, but I'm thinking of a manga series by a deceased author whose surviving family decided to pull it from circulation. The copyright gave absolute power to them so that no one was able to overturn their decision. Fair use does not require prior consent. That's true, but the real question is whether fair use is powerful enough to overturn prior dissent (if so, on what conditions?). WP:NOTFREE does not cover such a case. --Nanshu (talk) 16:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even if it were true "the article is about an image" that would not mean we had to delete the article if we could not get a copy of the image. The flag is clearly notable and needs an article. We can have an article on the flag with no image of the flag.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:23, 5 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 2020 detainment of Hong Kong residents at sea by China. Content can be merged from history. Sandstein 11:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The detainment of the 12 Hongkongers[edit]

The detainment of the 12 Hongkongers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Same topic as 2020 detainment of Hong Kong residents at sea by China with less info. The title is too vague to make a good redirect, so I am proposing deletion instead of a merge.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:02, 4 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Nass (Musician)[edit]

Bill Nass (Musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Rejected at afc and moved here by creator, this fails WP:NMUSICIAN.

Theroadislong (talk) 16:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 16:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 16:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and/or move back to draft (with salt if necessary). The article states nothing about him that would make him "inherently" notable under WP:NMUSIC, but the referencing (which is mostly primary sources like online music stores and social media) is not good enough to get him over WP:GNG in lieu — and self-moving an AFC-rejected draft is not on the creator's menu of options. If you want to work on improving a previously rejected draft, you need to resubmit it for another kick at the AFC can once you think you've improved it enough, and are not entitled to just immediately move it yourself. Bearcat (talk) 00:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Coverage of his music is only in the form of social media promotions and press releases reprinted in unreliable publications. For some reason his personal life has been an obsession in the tabloids of his country, but he still does not have the specific and reliable coverage that is necessary for WP:NMUSICIAN. ☆ DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) ☆ 19:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there are a number of sources that pass WP:SIGCOV such as this [5]. Northern Escapee (talk) 18:27, 11 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. TheSandDoctor Talk 02:38, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vijay Vijawatt[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC - no good source focusing on article subject, existing sources tend to focus on films with minor mentions at best of Vijawatt. Several sources just aren't good at all - IMDB? Lyrics site? Not reliable souces. Ravensfire (talk) 15:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 15:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 15:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 15:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - doesn't seem to be covered in reliable sources at all; should be deleted outright Spiderone 23:19, 10 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 22:15, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peace Corps medical restrictions by country[edit]

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

There is no evidence this is a notable topic worthy of an encyclopedia article. No discussion to be found, no sourcing in the article, which also hasn't been maintained. If anything, we need a sentence in Peace Corps saying some countries have medical limits, but I'm not even sure that's notable. StarM 15:18, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. StarM 15:18, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. StarM 15:18, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. StarM 15:18, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no where is there sourcing to justify this list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:19, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lack of substantial sourcing for a stand alone article. --Yoonadue (talk) 03:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non encyclopedic, unsourced OR, and crufty   // Timothy :: talk  03:17, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a notable subject for a stand alone article. Spudlace (talk) 07:19, 10 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 22:15, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tadimety Aromatics[edit]

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

Article fails WP:RS and is written as WP:PROMOTION. It has not been substantially improved since its creation in 2012 by an editor who appears to have had a WP:COI and has made no other contributions to Wikipedia. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 15:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 17:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 17:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Indian media searches find routine listings but not the independent coverage required to demonstrate attained notability. AllyD (talk) 17:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - surprised that this has lasted so long! Almost zero coverage; barely even passing mentions in secondary sources let alone SIGCOV Spiderone 23:09, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete :Fails GNG surely. Dont know how this lasted so much Indianfootball98 (talk) 03:14, 11 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 Stanley Ho#Family. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clementina Leitao Ho[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. Notability is not inherited. No coverage. scope_creepTalk 11:45, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:33, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:33, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not independently notable, coverage is mostly passing mentions. 1292simon (talk) 00:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Stanley Ho#Family. There's a bit of coverage about her 1, 2, but they are mostly passing mentions and/or coverage due to her connections with her husband, thus failing WP:BIO and WP:INHERITED. Suggesting a redirect ({{R from spouse}}) per WP:ATD-R. -- Dps04 (talk) 17:19, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 14:54, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am not sure if I can write here but Clementina Maria Angela De Mello Leitao Ho, was the most notable woman in the 20th century of Macau. I know that being a native. I saw that page on ZH wiki and came here. Jin Kim Hwa (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails SIGCOV, no direct and indepth coverage. Biographies should strictly follow sourcing and notability guidelines.   // Timothy :: talk  01:18, 10 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 Magneto (Marvel Comics). Eddie891 Talk Work 22:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative versions of Magneto[edit]

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

Unnecessary article split that fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTPLOT. Per WP:WAF, this should have been summarized in the main article rather than split. I don't see any use in merging because it is much easier to just start from scratch than condense unweildly plot information. TTN (talk) 14:49, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:49, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:49, 4 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 22:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Presidents (UK rock band)[edit]

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

Unsourced and badly written article (eg: "Dismayed by these events the band decided to call it quits"), possibly a BLP violation (as most of it is unsourced content that refers to living people), tagged for notability and no references for seven years. Probably best to blow it up and start over, this time making sure everything is properly sourced. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It's impressive that such an article has survived for so long, but there's absolutely nothing here to demonstrate notability per WP:NBAND. If anything, the band's own website makes it pretty clear that they're non-notable. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 15:20, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:39, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:39, 4 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 Professor X. Sandstein 16:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative versions of Professor X[edit]

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

Unnecessary article split that fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTPLOT. Per WP:WAF, this should have been summarized in the main article rather than split. I don't see any use in merging because it is much easier to just start from scratch than condense unweildly plot information. TTN (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Professor X per WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 15:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep is better with maintenance templates rather than merger of deletion, here are some sources which I can prove is OK;

click, click thou this a mirror site, click, click, here and click. I believed little of this can be OK. (F5pillar---/ 'Messager🖋📩) 15:21, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Trivial top X lists from less than reliable sources and a literal Fandom wiki do not constitute significant coverage on the topic. TTN (talk) 15:24, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Screen Rant and Comic Book Resources are both reliable news publications, and are considered such by the community. A lack of familiarity with them isn't an argument. If you have a problem with them, the proper venue is WP:RSN. Darkknight2149 23:55, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @F5pillar: Only two of those sources (Comic Book Resources and Screen Rant) are considered reliable news publications on Wikipedia. You need more than two sources to prove that this passes WP:LISTN. Darkknight2149 23:55, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge as is the consensus at other similar AFDs. This is a non-notable WP:CONTENTFORK that doesn't meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of direct detailed coverage in reliable third party sources. Material sourced to fan wikis should be burned with fire. Primary sourced plot material should be covered in context as part of a proper article about Professor X or the X-Men series. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:09, 4 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 22:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marian Kretschmer[edit]

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

Appears to be non-notable biography; Only major contributor seems to be a promotional account. AviationFreak💬 14:08, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. AviationFreak💬 14:08, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. AviationFreak💬 14:08, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. AviationFreak💬 14:08, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable comic artist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:47, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't find anything that would make Kretschmer notable, no exhibitions, collections, monographs or reviews. Vexations (talk) 19:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No notable or wide coverage found of the subject or his works. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 02:19, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There is nothing in the article or what I could find online that contributes to his notability. I found some social media, a few gallery listings, user-generated content, a blog, but that is it, zero SIGCOV. Does not pass GNG nor NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 17:34, 8 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. TheSandDoctor Talk 02:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Evolution[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to be notable; Only major contributor seems to be a promotional account. AviationFreak💬 14:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. AviationFreak💬 14:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. AviationFreak💬 14:07, 4 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. WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE also applies, but consensus to delete is now clear. Sandstein 11:02, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Snapes[edit]

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

Procedural nom per BLPREQUEST Kb03 (talk) 13:15, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tentative delete. I don't think she meets WP:NJOURNALIST, so probably deletion would be warranted according to our ordinary process, but I have a question: are BLPREQUESTS done through OTRS? How do we know this one is genuine? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AleatoryPonderings, without revealing too much information, an OTRS ticket was involved. If you want to reach out to another OTRS member to confirm the ticket number is ticket:2020092210009119. Kb03 (talk) 16:15, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Kb03. I've struck the "tentative" above per your note. (Just to be clear, I didn't suspect you of any chicanery—just wasn't sure about the process here.) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:17, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I created the article, and I believe the page should not be deleted. She is a very well known journalist in modern music journalism (i.e. internet) and has been written about and quoted extensively in a wide variety of reliable sources. She is currently second-in-command in editing the music section of The Guardian. She has distinguished herself in her general music writing as well as more recently on the discussion of gender equality and feminism in the music industry and in music journalism. And a quick search shows me she is cited and quoted on upwards of 600 different English Wikipedia articles. It's worth noting that this deletion nomination was immediately preceded by an IP editor removing sourced information and adding unsourced information, quickly followed by a new registered user doing the same. I tried discussing with the user but they did not respond, and then this OTRS-requested deletion happens. I can only assume these two things are connected...... Οἶδα (talk) 21:52, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Οἶδα, and with respect to AleatoryPonderings. After reading both WP:NJOURNALIST and BLPREQUEST, I do think that she is a notable journalist; I do not think her life would be "badly affected" by being included in an encyclopedia. While neither an inclusionist nor a deletionist, I'd be more in favor of deleting for run-of-the-mill excessive BLP article reasons. But she does seem important because of her journalism in regard to both music and feminism and music and social media (although maybe those sections can be trimmed). If I have missed anything re: BLPREQUEST, please let me know. Caro7200 (talk) 23:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Stubify Barely falls short of WP:NJOURNALIST and the career section of the article contains quite a few pieces of unnessecary information. Kb03 (talk) 15:39, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree to Stubify as it is more logical than delete ("in response to an OTRS complaint"). As someone familiar with the article's subject and the history of indie music journalism, Snapes is regarded as an important figure in the scene and is frequently cited by her peers. Her journalistic work and her unique experiences as a woman journalist have been highly influential to indie music. And recently, her work has been very important in forcing the Me Too conversation into indie music. I also can't ignore the circumstances that precipiated this proposed deletion. I can only assume the requester is the same editor I mentioned above, and they should have discussed further on the article's talk page to confirm the minor corrections they initially changed. The information they felt was unreliable can easily be removed, and the article stubbed. Deleting the article is not a sound decision, and would unreasonably add another biography of a notable woman to the red. Because as I look over the subjects listed at Category:Music journalists, it is looking less like an WP:Other stuff exists argument and more like WP:Other men exist, whose individual notabilities has seemingly not been put under the same micro-microscope. Οἶδα (talk) 22:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This person is not notable enough that we should have an article over the subject's request for us not to.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:33, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I stated above, the issue began with an IP editor claiming a few references were outdated. Specifically, the school the subject attended and their relationship status which I have since both removed, as well as an opinion they asserted which I could find no mention of on the internet. Unfortunately they didn't elaborate further with any references of their own so I reverted the changes. Deleting the article outright on the basis of a miniscule portion of it being called into question is unnecessary. I've removed them, and further stubbing the article is easily done. Those supporting deletion are decidedly terse and flippant in their comments. And again, you may not be a fan of WP:OTHERSTUFF but Category:Music journalists is chock-full of stubs for journalists of similar and much lower notability. I would be disappointed to say the least if this developed and well-sourced article for a female music journalist of demonstrated notability is deleted following such meager deliberation. Οἶδα (talk) 15:21, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Stubify As the subject of this article, I am begging you to either delete it or reduce it to a stub, per my revisions today that someone keeps reverting. Details about what panels I have been on and people I have interviewed on stage and reviews I've written are completely irrelevant and quotidian and the kind of activity that literally every music journalist participates in - there is nothing distinguishing about them at all. I feel sick and harassed by the obsessive level of detail that has gone into compiling this page, and I just want to wrest back some control and for it to be pared down to the basics - places of employment, Phoenix book, Kozelek and Palmer if they have to be there - and that is it. If you're making a claim for my significance - which I do not support or want - then surely you see that filling this page with a bizarre level of insignificant detail only undermines that. I've been fighting this battle for weeks, Wikipedia will not help me, and I feel completely distressed by it. I just want to be left alone and to stop feeling surveilled by whoever is maintaining this. charliechalks (talk) 09:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, after considering recent edits. I regret the subject feels harassed, but I am afraid they misunderstand what Wikipedia is and how BLPs are neutrally developed and verified. The subject's stubbing edits on the article are also removing relevant, uncontroversial content. The implication I get is they personally want that information off their wiki, while simultaneously keeping more controversial (but well-sourced) content (which happens to be positive toward the subject). Normally I would vote again to keep the article as a stub, but going forward I personally do not wish to patrol the article which I feel is at risk of vandalism or BLP violations. And I do not believe the subject editing this article to their partiality will end in the future. The have removed slightly critical information and added minor original research before as well. For the sake and honor of BLP and its standards, I believe it is best to delete the page. Until the subject develops a more signifcant notability and meets a wider poriton of the criteria at WP:NJOURNALIST, the abscence of this article is preferable.......I wrote the preceding text prior to the subject's comment being added here, and am further alarmed by their expressions and the control which they seek to have over the article. Deletion unfortunately somewhat surrenders to that behavior, but is still preferable to preservation of a potentially biased article of a living person. Οἶδα (talk) 10:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As evidenced by my request for deletion, I do not want this page to exist at all, never mind for it to be flattering. I was making the case that if it was deemed that it had to exist, the Kozelek/Palmer/Phoenix elements are the parts that actually carry any minuscule amount of wider relevance as they were noteworthy events in the respective chronologies of those artists. I do not consider any of the prior information on it unflattering, simply completely irrelevant or posing a risk to my personal safety. I am disturbed by this page's existence and your obnoxious attempt to maintain ownership over it when I am neither a celebrity nor a significant figure. charliechalks (talk) 10:26, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well Kozelek/Palmer/Phoenix are not the subject of the article. And this began when you removed standard BLP information that has been published in reliable sources, and also made unreferenced claims in removing/adding other information. And I never once made any claims of ownership. That would be asinine: this is Wikipedia and no one here owns any page. That's kind of the point. Οἶδα (talk) 11:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or drastically trim. First of all, this is a completely normal journalist who straddles the fence of notability, if even that, to begin with. Secondly -- okay, if it helps, let's imagine the opposite scenario, where a putative User:LauraSnapesPublicist had regged 24 hours ago and added all of this dreck to the article, and showed up in the AfD to vote "keep" -- would any of us have a problem committing it to the flames? No? Then there's no point in contrarianism qua contrarianism. I don't think there is any cogent argument for the article being as long as this, and there definitely doesn't arise a cogent argument from the mere fact of her hating it. It's not as though she is a child predator or a corrupt politician or something trying to get the dirt taken off her article. She is, by any sane reckoning, a normal everyday human being (well, okay, a journalist -- but that's close enough). Being a music journalist does not mean that there's a public interest in everyone knowing whether your belly button goes in or out. jp×g 10:42, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've copyedited the article, and trimmed its length substantially while making sure that what remained was well-referenced. A few non-notable things were removed entirely. It should probably be noted that above comments pertain to an older version of the article which included a lot more dreck. jp×g 11:44, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. However, I voted "keep" before adding to the article. And admittedly I probably should have tagged the article as under construction or deleted a bunch of information and worked in my sandbox. I was in the process of drastically restructuring and removing information. The Palmer section needed to be shortened from the start but I found that fiasco too convuluted to shorten while maintaining neutrality. I wanted to trim and consolidate large parts of the article, as I stated prior to above. However, I don't agree with the "belly button goes in or out" comparison. I only ever added public information that was published by reliable newspapers, magazines, institutions etc. Some superfluous information I inclulded to combine into the Kozelek section about sexism and misogyny experienced by women in music, which Snapes has written and spoken about extensively. The article would incomplete without a developed section about that. But I'm not exactly interested in doing so anymore because I don't want to continue editing an article of a subject who feels harassed even though I may disagree with them and believe they continue to show that they misunderstand Wikipedia. And thank you jpxg for stubbing the article. Οἶδα (talk) 11:57, 5 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) ~ Amkgp 💬 20:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gift Grub[edit]

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

Non-notable; sources define notability for Mario Rosenstock, who has an article, not this subject. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Updating my !vote to "keep". Upon reflection, review and further interrogation of the sources, my view has changed. I think that there probably are enough sources dealing with the subject "in its own right". Independent of the people and radio show with which it is most associated. Guliolopez (talk) 10:57, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A quick google search reveals a lot of hits for significant coverage Gift Grub from relevant sources (one two three four five six to start with) - however I don't understand your need to establish notability by finding articles that don't reference Rosenstock's existence. It's surely akin to defining any sort of book series by its notability without mentioning its author and aside from WP:INHERITED (which doesn't apply here) I can't find any wikipolicies about it! ser! (let's discuss it). 22:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:46, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:46, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per Ser! It has received some coverage, notably the ones indicated above. Though the article needs a little clean up, it's good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 16:00, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:02, 4 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. Explicitly closing with no prejudice against a renomination. This discussion has been bogged down by her status as a potential nominee to the supreme court; the arguments for and against notability based on other aspects of her biography has received relatively little attention. A fresh discussion, occurring after the dust has settled on her potential nomination, may help clarify this. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Comerford Todd[edit]

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

Low-level staffer fails WP:GNG. Placement on a Supreme Court shortlist (that she helped draft) does not make her notable. KidAd talk 04:44, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning delete. Per Wikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judges/Notability#Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States: "Persons whose names are floated by the executive branch as being under consideration for nomination are not inherently notable, but this is strong evidence of notability that can be established by any other indicia of notability". In this case, there is zero indication of any other indicia of notability. BD2412 T 15:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete deputy White House counsel is not an inherently notable list. Being on President's Trump's list of potential Supreme Court nominees is not a sign of notability. Most of the people on the list are notable, but that is because most are already federal judges, and of the ones who are not their are normally either state judges at a level of default notability or holders of elected positions that make them notable. Being on the list itself is not a sign of notability. No if Justice Ginsburg dies tomorrow and President Trump nominate Ms. Todd to the Supreme Court on Monday than she will be notable, no matter what happens after that, but unless that happens or a less dramatic other development that causes her to be notable, she will not be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:29, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I posted the above before Justice Ginsburg died. I had no idea she would die. Unless Todd is nominated by President Trump for the new opening, she will not at this time be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course, if President Trump dies tomorrow, the entire calculation of who might be under consideration goes out the window. BD2412 T 19:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete Before her post in the Trump administration, and her even more recent addition to President Trump's list of potential Supreme Court nominees, Kate Todd was a Senior VP and Chief Counsel for the US Chamber of Commerce's Litigation Center. She is a prominent member of the Federalist Society, and has served on the faculty of George Washington University Law School. She was executive editor of the Harvard Law Review and clerked for Associate Justice Clarence Thomas. If she isn't notable, who is? JohnGHissong (talk) 04:46, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
None of that makes her notable. KidAd talk 05:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"If she isn't notable, who is?" George Washington, Woodrow Wilson, Winston Churchill, Britney Spears, Meghan Markle, Ronald Reagan, Tom Cruise, Oprah Winfrey, etc. Chetsford (talk) 23:06, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTAL based on a tweet? Hardly justification to keep an article with terrible sourcing. KidAd talk 17:52, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, but the tweet literally says, "SOURCES: ". In seriousness, though, this subject was a law professor at some point. Is there any scholarship to mention? BD2412 T 18:17, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At the time of her wedding announcement, she was an adjunct law professor at “ Cornell University in Washington,” a satellite campus of Cornell University. I don’t think adjuncts are notable for being adjuncts. KidAd talk 18:26, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but I would still like to know if she has published anything of note. Call me skeptical, but curious. BD2412 T 18:30, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, I think Trump would be very unwise to nominate Comerford Todd to the Supreme Court per the Harriet Miers Supreme Court nomination. Keeping the page based on the possibility would also be unwise. KidAd talk 18:58, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Trump doing unwise things is not that rare. Except that in some ways Trump was able to win the Republican Nomination in part because of how he played the nomination field, he had a plan that gave some Republicans confidence. Trump's first win in large part came down to the voters who hated him as a person, but just could not bear to deal with who Mrs. Clinton would put on the Supreme Court. The Republican advance in the 2018 election in the senate was in large part tied to Supreme Court issues. It is not just Miers, but even more so George H. W. Bush's first supreme court pick. With a friendly senate Trump does not need to find someone with as light a record of rulings as Justice Thomas had before his appointment. They will want rulings, and this means someone who served as a judge. I could be totally wrong, but I still think Trump will go with Amy Comey Barrett. And then he will seek to play up Senator Feinstein's bigotted anti-Catholic rhetoric against her nomination to the judiciary to the max in the election. I could be wrong, but that is the set of outcomes my money is on. Nothing to date makes me thing Todd is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think this assessment is generally on-point. KidAd talk 19:35, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kagan is the only current member of the Supreme Court who had not been a federal judge before her appointment, and Democrats do not have a long list of non-judge appointments to the Supreme Court that acted in ways not expected that haunt them like Republicans have with several including Blackmun. Even at that Kagan has handed down some rulings that are not liked much by some on the left, so I can see some concerns coming from this. Since we do not have an actual listing of Todd's age I cannot comment on that. With Supreme Court membership being lifelong, there is a pull to appoint fairly young people to the court so they can have long terms. That looks to be the main thing that Todd has in her favor, but with no judicial experience, it would be a hard sell. The precedent that scares Republicans is David Souter who had virtually no experience as a federal judge, and Harry Blackmun. Since these are the justices who wrote Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Roe v. Wade, the two rulings most disliked by the pro-life movement, it is very hard to see Todd being seen as a viable Supreme Court nominee.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is NPR better? My point is not that she will be nominated or not (none of us know whether that's the case), but that she is being considered for it. – JocularJellyfish TalkContribs 23:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E (subject of significant coverage for only for one thing, being mentioned as a possible SCOTUS appointee) with no prejudice against future recreation if she's actually nominated. Chetsford (talk) 23:06, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Being a Deputy White House Counsel is most definitely notable in and of itself. But also she's been OFFICIALLY listed by the President of the United States as a potential U.S. Supreme Court nominee, with a nomination very possible in the next few days. -- Evans1982 (talk) 02:00, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deputy White House Counsel is not a notable position. There are six of them. "she's been OFFICIALLY listed by the President of the United States as a potential U.S. Supreme Court nominee, with a nomination very possible in the next few days" is just WP:CRYSTAL. KidAd talk 02:03, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As of now we have a notability standard for judges which specifically excludes names merely suggested by the White House from inherent notability. If this article happens to be deleted, and the next day she is named as the nominee, the article can be undeleted with the flick of a switch. BD2412 T 02:05, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As per KidAd, Deputy White House Counsel is a relatively minor post. We have a wide body of precedence that sub-cabinet officers below the rank of Assistant Secretary (Deputy Assistant Secretary, in other words) have no inherent notability. And Deputy White House Counsel is certainly less important than a Deputy Assistant Secretary. Unlike a DAS, a Deputy White House Counsel does not have rulemaking authority, they oversee a smaller staff, and they're paid less (Todd earns a salary equivalent to Level V - the lowest level - on the Executive Schedule according to Ballotpedia). Chetsford (talk) 04:00, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete As Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, it is unknown what her notability may be in the future. As it stands right now, it is not substantially expressed with these sources. Trillfendi (talk) 15:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In the extremely unlikely event that President Trump nominates Todd for Supreme Court before this discussion closes I will change my vote. I am almost tempted to say keep the discussion open one more week to make it so we probably close after President Trump names a Supreme Court nominee, but it is very hard to know what time table we will see a nominee named. We could see one named today, we migth not see one named until October or later. I expect we will see one named by the 28th of September, but this is without knowing when Justice Ginsburg's funeral is. There are a whole lot of unknows at play, but since if she is nominated after we delete the article we can easily recreate it, I see no compelling reason to delay a decision here due to that. As I have said before, I do not think President Trump will nominate Todd.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:37, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It can always be relisted. BD2412 T 20:00, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Associated Press identifies her as a leading contender for Ginsburg's SCOTUS seat. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 12:48, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Whether or not she is ultimately nominated, this gives background to the nomination that may not be immediately available after the process has completed. While she is not notable by being famous, she is notable by being in the current news and being able to find this info out in the future is beneficial to all; deleting it seems a political move that helps no-one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mythlandia (talk • contribs) — Mythlandia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep, at least for now "...the only lawyer on Trump's shortlist who has not previously been a judge..." That seems notable to me. It appears that about 20 news stories in the past month have mentioned her. Durindaljb (talk) 08:20, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per John Pack Lambert's comment, circumstances may change in the coming week, so a relisting is preferable
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:51, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We should have a Supreme Court decision by Saturday. It makes sense to wait until then. KidAd talk 17:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep regardless of whatever dreadful choice Dumb Donald makes. There's no meaningful argument that the subject fails the GNG. Aside from the substantial coverage Todd received for being on the Trump list, Todd had previously received nontrivial coverage for her management of the White House's judicial selection process as well consideration for other judicial positions. [6][7] It's a mark of the institutional boneheadedness here that so many editors will casually dismiss positions in the White House as not worthy of notice, as opposed to positions with the WWE, Marvel Comics, or porn studio Girlfriends Films, which is why so many reasonable people living in the real world view Wikipedia as a project run by drunken adolescent howler monkeys. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 20:41, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe a consensus has formed to wait a few days until the official announcement before action is taken on this AfD, but I have some problems with the above argument. It is one big WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS rant. All because Wikipedia includes pages on pornography producers and reality television stars, it does not mean that pages for non-notable academics, lawyers, and government people should remain. Notable people should have pages. Non-notable people should not have pages for the sole reason that porn stars have pages. That is a flawed and silly idea, and it will only lead to the creation of more drek. KidAd talk 03:31, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I second Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's keep. --bender235 (talk) 19:34, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think we should question why the vitriolic haters of President Trump, those who have so little respect for the norms of Wikipedia that they engage in gratuitous insults of him, want to keep this article. This makes me suspect its very existence is a violation of NPOV rules that a certain set of extreme leftist are bent on destroying. We need to stop allowing these extremists to have any say on how Wikipedia is built. Mrs. Todd was not nominated for the supreme court, and his position as one of six deputy White House counsels is clearly not a significant enough position on its own to justify an article on her. The main keep arguments were based on a false premise, and so should be discarded and this article should be deleted with all deliberate speed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails the notability requirements I could think of. Occupies a low position in the white house; has had no independent coverage on her and most mentions (if not all) are in the context of her being placed in the list of nominees for the court (fails WP:GNG and can be a case of WP:ONEEVENT), and they include at most a short summary of her non-notable career (appears to fail WP:BASIC and WP:JUDGE); she also has not achieved anything sufficiently special or carried in high regard by any significant group of people. The sources given in her article and in this AfD did not convince me otherwise. Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 05:19, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least some !votes in this discussion appear to be premised on the possibility that the subject would be nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court. Since that has not happened, I would suggest that participants revisit whether they continue to think that the subject is notable in the absence of this development. BD2412 T 02:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Allowing editors to revisit the discussion given that she was not nominated to the Supreme Court.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable white house staffer (t · c) buidhe 22:33, 4 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. TheSandDoctor Talk 02:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NKR (NDB)[edit]

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

This is a non-notable radio tower, apparently used primarily for aircraft navigation. A basic search and I can't even verify any of the information in the article other than basic existence, let alone see any evidence of notability. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:55, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:55, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:55, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:55, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NOT a directory of every tower on the planet, no sign of notability. —Kusma (t·c) 13:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:51, 7 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. TheSandDoctor Talk 02:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Davidson Laksono Lim[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON, designer with a 2019 bachelor’s degree, no evidence of particular notability to date. ☆ Bri (talk) 13:35, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:48, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:49, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:49, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP: As it mentioned there that he is also work as a model and was representing Singapore in Mister Asian International 2018 as it mentioned here List of Singapore representatives at international male beauty pageants, this newly released article also tagged as a Wikipedia:Stub, which let fellow Wikipedia users being a contribute hand in hand in a "very-fresh" topic article page that just being made. This page also mentioned some references that he is a young talented interior designer who's creating the first ever Mangrove Edu-Tourism for Indonesia and receive government supports, which located in Surabaya. The other way he's also supporting Paralympic athelete who's taking part time job as an mural artist, by building for Serikat Mural Surabaya (SMS) Centre, a group of disability athelete and mural artist that going to competed in 2020 Paralympic Games.--I Nyoman Gede Anila (talk) 21:27, 10 October 2020 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: I Nyoman Gede Anila (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
Inherent notability does not exist for male modeling or the other pursuits AFAIK. WP:NOLYMPICS requires medaling at Paralympic Games, since they are in the future this obviously doesn’t apply. Unless you are claiming inherent n, there will need to be some sources to back your argument that he is notable. Otherwise what you said is null and void. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's no evidence of sufficient notability to pass WP:ANYBIO. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 15:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article clearly did not meet WP:GNG.--Richie Campbell (talk) 23:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it's a notable person for Singaporean male-pageant history, since he is representing us in the respective Mister Asian International 2018. And some of the sources that appear on that page are legitimate sources in Indonesian. It is better to redirect this page with a BLP sources command (needs additional citations for verification/requires reference help) rather than delete the page.--Calvin Loh Xue Liang (talk) 16:47, 10 October 2020 (UTC) — Calvin Loh Xue Liang (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete. Fails to meet the lower bar of the WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 14:11, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello! It seems pertinent to note that Calvin Loh Xue Liang and I Nyoman Gede Anila are sockpuppets, confirmed by myself on the Simple English Wikipedia. Best, Vermont (talk) 16:19, 10 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.

(add

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

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor Talk 02:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Athenäum[edit]

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

It exists, but doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 13:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:35, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:35, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete: I'm not certain that this journal fails WP:NJOURNALS, but I'm also struggling to prove that it passes WP:NJOURNALS. I'm mostly turning up things about the 18thC Athenäum after which this journal is named. As a scholar of Romanticism, I would not say it is influential or historically important in the English-language branch of the field. (I don't know anything about it.) But it's longstanding enough that I wouldn't be surprised if a German speaker turned up evidence of its importance in Germany. Unless that additional evidence arrives, though, I think deletion is appropriate. ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 01:05, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete for lack of evidence of notability, and lack of anything to say beyond its existence and editorial board. I ran across this one a few weeks ago while trying to find out whether we have an article on the Athenaeum journal founded 1913 in Pavia — we don't, and I didn't create one because I wasn't convinced it was notable. But at least that one has a longer history. This one is too recent for an argument along those lines. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:38, 8 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 Caravonica, Queensland. Apparently already done... Sandstein 11:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Placid, Queensland[edit]

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

Suburb is non-existent. Does not have any government sourced references or citations, such as census, postcodes, planning application approvals and is not listed as an official suburb. Australian suburb pages will usually contain at least 1 official reference. Article had been tagged with obligatory 7 day deletion proposal period that is now expired. Bgtips1001 (talk) 13:21, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:35, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:35, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm. It looks like I was the creator, 13 years ago. I agree it does not meet the requirements for a suburb, OSM shows a node (not area) suburb of Lake Placid in the western edge of the suburb of Caravonica. The references used don't really say it is a suburb either. I support Delete Merge to Caravonica, Queensland as creator. Thanks for picking it up. --Scott Davis Talk 14:14, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There is an unbounded locality of this name in the Queensland Gazetteer ("Named by Queensland Place Names Board 1 October 1969."). --Canley (talk) 22:14, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It could probably be merged into the Caravonica article. It would be as per other pages for suburbs that have unbounded localities as they are part of the bounded state suburb. Bgtips1001 (talk) 23:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a good idea so I have changed my comment in light of Canley's information. The lake could also be mentioned in Barron River (Queensland) and Barron Gorge National Park (if there are references) as the park boundary appears to cross the middle of the lake. Streetview shows brown (tourist) signs to Lake Placid, but not white location signs that I could see last night. --Scott Davis Talk 00:09, 5 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of qualifiers for 2018 men's major golf tournaments[edit]

List of qualifiers for 2018 men's major golf tournaments (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Duplicative of other articles, principally the four individual articles on the major championships in 2018 (Masters, The Open, PGA, U.S. Open). Full of WP:OR, WP:NOTSTATS, WP:NPOV issues, with unsourced concepts such as "primary means of qualification" which seem to have been invented for this article. wjematherplease leave a message... 11:26, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. wjematherplease leave a message... 11:26, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. wjematherplease leave a message... 11:26, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:51, 4 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, withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agnes Callard[edit]

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

The subject fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG Less Unless (talk) 11:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 11:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 11:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Non-notable and almost no context. Pamzeis (talk) 11:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:33, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:33, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Ancient philosophy and ethics" sounds like one of those academic specialties where citation counts are typically uninformative and we should look to other indicia. The Guggenheim Fellowship is enough for WP:PROF#C2, I'd say. XOR'easter (talk) 21:26, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 11:40, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 11:40, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Barnes (musician)[edit]

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

The subject fails WP:MUSICBIO. WP:BEFORE has shown only 1 irs, the rest are connected to the subject. Less Unless (talk) 10:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 10:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 10:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While she's achieved success as a musician, the only aspect of her career which would pass WP:NMUSICIAN would be as a finalist in the BBC Young Musician of the Year: and while she was a semi-finalist having won the brass section, I don't consider this on its own is enough to demonstrate notability. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 12:41, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Angela Barnes is notable as the first woman in history to be employed in the brass section of the London Symphony Orchestra. This is a major watershed for one of the most prominent orchestras in the UK. The fact that she won the job at such a young age adds to the notabilitry of this British horn player. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quincetree12 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC) — Quincetree12 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep Barnes appears to have been the first woman in the brass section of a major UK orchestra. As well she meets WP:MUSICBIO for items 1 and 9 as finalist for BBC Young Musician of the Year and item 6 as a member of the London Symphony Orchestra. Yourworstemily (talk) 00:59, 8 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. Ignoring a comment by a blocked sock, there is not consensus about whether the sources provided are sufficient for notability. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Julio Cesar Giraldo[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet WP:RUGBY notability criteria. Has not performed in professional league or a high performance national side. Currently plays for Major League Rugby which is not a fully professional league. Has a history of performing in several amateur rugby clubs. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 02:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 02:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 02:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 02:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article on Major League Rugby says in the first sentence that it is a professional rugby union competition and the top-level championship for clubs in North America. So, unless the lede of that article is completely false, Giraldo does indeed play in a professional league. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Major League Rugby is not a fully professional league as per WP:RUGBY. Professional rugby union competition ≠ fully professional league. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 05:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. Doesn't qualify for WP:NRU as Major League Rugby isn't listed as a notable league (is professional, but doesn't get enough coverage to qualify it as notable yet) and hasn't played in any other professional competition or internationally. However, there is one source that might qualify it for WP:GNG and from a google search there appears to be more sources, so if these can be added to the article I think it'd just qualify. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 12:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Rugbyfan22, Could you clarify what "oppose" means. Are you opposing the AfD? Are you opposing keeping the article? The terms we use at AfD are generally "keep" or "delete". -- RoySmith (talk) 12:48, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 12:48, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Apologies, used to doing page moves instead of AfDs. My points as above though. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A known Rugby player. passes GNG. INDIAN DUGS (talk) 07:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Known by whom? Could you be more specific of any references we might be unaware of that may establish WP:GNG. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 08:39, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Believe the following articles are just about enough to qualify it for WP:GNG, 1, 2, it's very much a weak keep though as I've suggested. Both are now in the article, but incorrectly referenced. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: Thank you for the links. My two cents on those is as following: the first link is an interview with the subject, which is a poor source to establish notability or significance. The second is an article on the subject's transfer to a new club, which is by all means not a passing mention, but it is very casual and ordinary for transfer news on non-notable rugby players to be posted on rugby news portals. I stand by my conviction that this fails WP:NRU and WP:GNG as there are no multiple independent sources (except for maybe the second article you've linked to, but that's just one source) to denote notability or significance. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 20:53, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He has garnered coverage in both English-language and Spanish-language sources, and therefore meets WP:GNG. He is a bit of a trailblazer as the first Colombian to play professionally in MLR, which is probably why the level of coverage exists. The article could use improvement, though, although that's a different topic than AfD, and I've added a few references just now to improve the article. CUA 27 (talk) 14:02, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 03:11, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - article needs an info box and more work really, but feel he just meets the criteria to be retained with the coverage included in the article.Skeene88 (talk) 13:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. He has just recently joined Rugby United New York, so I see a spark of WP:TOOSOON here. There is very little coverage on the subject, so in this case I believe not meeting the WP:GNG takes precedence over WP:NRU. Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 03:01, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī (talk) 09:44, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have added more material and sources. References in the article now include: Americas Rugby News, El Colombiano, ESPN Deportes, DJ Coil Rugby, El Nuevo Siglo, Colombia Sports, El Universal. In my view, the suggestion by the nominator to delete the article because "there are no multiple independent sources ... to denote notability or significance" is simply not consistent with the facts here. CUA 27 (talk) 13:54, 5 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) 09:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ipswich & Suffolk Youth Football League[edit]

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

Since there doesn't appear to be a FOOTYN standard for youth football leagues, my understanding is that the topic simply must meet WP:GNG. I can't find even local coverage of this league in secondary sources. Furthermore, the league's website seems to have been taken down so there isn't even much in the way of primary sourcing! Given that the prose was entirely sourced from a website that no longer exists, it makes it hard to evidence the claims in the article. Spiderone 09:29, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:30, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:30, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:30, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it would take something pretty out of the ordinary for a youth league to be notable and I am not seeing that here..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't know! Fails GNG, maybe this was suppose to be promotional! :/ Govvy (talk) 11:29, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a youth league would at least have to be on a national level in the very largest footballing nations (akin to college football in the US) to even be considered notable. Geschichte (talk) 12:11, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - insignificant, low level, local league - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 16:48, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable. Way below the level we should be covering. Nigej (talk) 07:10, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:36, 9 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. TheSandDoctor Talk 02:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tsebelda Saint Catherine Church[edit]

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

No evidence that this meets WP:NBUILD. That would "require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability". (t · c) buidhe 09:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 09:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 09:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Couldn't find anything. But here is the currect weather in Tsebelda, Abkhazia   // Timothy :: talk  14:02, 9 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. TheSandDoctor Talk 02:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tsebelda Church of Saint Andrew the First-Called[edit]

Tsebelda Church of Saint Andrew the First-Called (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence that this meets WP:NBUILD. That would "require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability". (t · c) buidhe 09:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 09:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 09:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Couldn't find anything. But here is the currect weather in Tsebelda, Abkhazia   // Timothy :: talk  14:00, 9 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. TheSandDoctor Talk 02:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tsarche Picheriste Church[edit]

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

No evidence that this meets WP:NBUILD. That would "require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability". (t · c) buidhe 09:14, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 09:14, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 09:14, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 09:14, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The church lacks any sources about it. Let alone multiple in-depth reliable ones. So, the article fails WP:GNG and as such should be deleted. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:17, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:58, 5 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:03, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chkhalta Church[edit]

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

No evidence that this meets WP:NBUILD. That would "require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability". (t · c) buidhe 09:14, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 09:14, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 09:14, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 09:14, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A middle age-era church is probably on a list of local monuments, which if proven could be an indicator of notability. But for now, this article desperately needs sources. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:49, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article does not meet GNG or NBUILD. I'd guess that there is another article about this site under a different name. This author has been creating a lot of these copy-paste stubs (all on one day, Sept 27) without sourcing and they keep being deleted See here.   // Timothy :: talk  17:02, 10 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) 09:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leicestershire Church Football League[edit]

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

A league of highly questionable notability. I can't see how this can pass WP:GNG and I don't believe that any of its members are eligible for any national cups. Spiderone 08:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 08:44, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Well, this is fun, Church football now? What's next five a side under 4s? Govvy (talk) 08:48, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Since this fails both the general notability guidelines and is also not high enough of a league to be notable either. Which, should be pretty apparent from it being a church league and all. Go figure. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:19, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Most of the other affiliates of Leicestershire and Rutland County Football Association have their own articles. The alternative of merging a summary to that article would unbalance it. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument which is generally not considered to be a great reason for keeping an article Spiderone 16:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - insignificant, low level, local league - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 16:47, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- While this league is definitely a minor one, its teams have regularly competed in the LRCFA county cups, including a cup win at country level. In practice, it is a full 11v11 adult men's association football league, with league and cup games every season, and I would therefore suggest that the fact that it is a church league is irrelevant to whether or not it is deemed notable or not. It is one of the local Leicestershire leagues; if other leagues can have a page, why not this one? Mallard16 —Preceding undated comment added 21:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, we shouldn't use the existence of other articles as a reason for keeping this one, especially since the notability of some of those other local Leicestershire leagues are highly questionable too Spiderone 09:12, 6 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) 08:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bournemouth Saturday League[edit]

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

Level 18 of the English football league pyramid seems pretty low to me. Are all English football leagues inherently notable or is there a line that we draw somewhere? Wherever that line is drawn, I'm struggling to see how this league would be on the correct side of it. WP:FOOTYN says "Leagues whose members are eligible for national cups are generally notable." which is clearly not the case with this league. It then says "Leagues that are a country's highest level are generally notable." which is also blatantly untrue with this one. I've checked to see if this can get through on WP:GNG but all I can seem to find are primary sources, which merely indicate that this league exists but nothing to suggest notability. Spiderone 08:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 08:18, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - an amateur league played mostly/wholly on public park pitches, no evidence of notability. If it's the same as the similar league in my area, then the only coverage it receives consists of brief reports in the local paper (sent in by the league secretary) which jostle for space on the inside pages with the local senior citizens' bowls league and pub darts league...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:52, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is an amateur league and there isn't multiple in-depth reliable sources about it. Trivial mentions in local news sources don't count. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:26, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - insignificant, low level, local league - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 16:47, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a chance of being notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:19, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable, way below the level we should be covering. Nigej (talk) 07:07, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:34, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment At this point someone should snow delete this so it isn't needlessly kept open. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:39, 9 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. Anyone wishing to work on this in draftspace may ask me for a copy. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:03, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zvi Sever[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:BIO. Seem not be a professor. [8] A WP:BEFORE didn't turn up much. Phd Thesis is not signed, not findable on an academic website and not of the requisite length. scope_creepTalk 08:11, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.: "Sever initiated two international projects: one involves returning the Okapi to Uganda within the "Okapi Preservation Project".[16] The Okapis are in endangered status[17] and because they only live in Democratic Republic of the Congo which is considered unstable, the return of the Okapis to the Semuliki Rain forest in Uganda will assist the preservation of the entire species."
also, he was "Associate Professor, Department of Biology at University of Indianapolis, Indiana, United States" אור פ (talk) 08:20, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:21, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:23, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment אור פ He is not an associate. There is no document showing up, in the departments search with his name on it. Not a single one. His PHD looks hookey, is not signed, is too short and doesn't show up in any academic phd thesis search engine. scope_creepTalk 08:29, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
for his PHD, its in google books [9] and The National Library of Israel [10] also in Tel Aviv University Library Catalog (Zoology-Phd) [11] - Tel Aviv University is the biggest University in Israel. Also, why do you write is too short? the link is only to the english abstract.
Also, I dont think is fair and dignified to write "hookey", please search before you write. אור פ (talk) 08:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your right. I apologize. Sorry, that was crass. I completed a very comprehensive WP:BEFORE. He is also not showing up in the people directory at the Life Science faculties he is supposed to be working in. Other folk will examine the credibility of the claim over the next few days. scope_creepTalk 09:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
i will check the rest, but he achieved two new findings about the porcupine Hystrix indica population – that it is monogamous, and that it mates every night throughout its life, not only for reproduction, but also to maintain and strengthen the pair bond, the relationship between the male and female partners. These findings were considered innovative.[15] in the study of the evolution of sexuality, since mating not only for reproduction but also for bonding was only related to men, to Bonobo monkeys and to some dolphin species till then. אור פ (talk) 09:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
there is a letter from University of Indianapolis that he was member in the Biology Departmentas Associate professor in the University of Indianapolis, Indiana, United States in the years 2003-2020 in his website letter from University of Indianapolis in his website, look like it was upload afer the post in haaretz website אור פ (talk) 06:43, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment According to Hebrew wiki talk page[12] the article was written for payment --Shrike (talk) 09:41, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
not the english one. אור פ (talk) 09:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A terminal associate professor is rather unlikely to be notable as an academic, and certainly this title does not contribute to notability. His work appears to have few citations, certainly below WP:NPROF C1, even in what I believe to be a lower-citation field. There are no signs of other WP:NPROF criteria, nor of GNG notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:52, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
there is a letter from University of Indianapolis that he was member in the Biology Departmentas Associate professor in the University of Indianapolis, Indiana, United States in the years 2003-2020 in his website letter from University of Indianapolis in his website - have a look אור פ (talk) 06:43, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter whether he was an associate professor or where. What matters is impact. I see little sign of it. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
world expart for Okapi and Indian crested porcupine, this is not impact? אור פ (talk) 08:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It would, if we had independent reliable sources confirming this. At this point, all we have is what he says himself. --Randykitty (talk) 08:10, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
here some websites that write that he his an expart for Indian crested porcupine [13], [14], [15], [16] אור פ (talk) 07:00, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - member special group of international faculty, and afer in the Biology Departmentas as Associate professor in the University of Indianapolis, Indiana, United States in the years 2003-2020. World expart about Indian crested porcupine (Hystrix indica), influences - international project of returning the Okapi to Uganda within the Okapi Preservation Program, international project of Ethical code for Outer space activity by the United Nations. he achieved two new findings about the porcupine Hystrix indica population – that it is monogamous, and that it mates every night throughout its life, not only for reproduction, but also to maintain and strengthen the pair bond, the relationship between the male and female partners. These findings were considered innovative. —אור פ (talk • contribs) 06:44, 6 October 2020‎ (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The citability is low, and there is nothing else to indicate notability under WP:PROF. The article reads like a promotional piece and is refernced overwhelmingly to the subject's own work. Gems like "Prof. Sever is known for his tendency to display unusual concepts and this way he leads a move to persuade" (referenced to the subject's article [39]) abound here. This type of promotional language usually indicates some type of WP:COI. Nsk92 (talk) 07:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
i fix this line. any other promotional language? אור פ (talk) 07:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Citation counts and academic rank do not show a pass of WP:PROF. The sources, which are thin and mostly primary, do not show a pass of WP:GNG, and most of the content of the article is unsupported by independent reliable sources and should be cut if this is to be kept at all. No other notability evident. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:46, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. and I will rewrite. It's presently borderline; there's a good deal of trimming necessary. The citation count is respectable for field biology of this sort, the two porcupine papers have 25 citations each (presumably because of the specific topic) .. The usual standard -- a paper with 100 citations -- is for biomedical science and quite irrelevant here. What I need to look at is the actual references to his porcupine work by other scientists es. He might meet the basic prof guideline for prof as being influential is his specific field, or they might even show sufficient comment to justify using them as secondary. sources under the GNG> DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence has been presented so far that he was unusually influential in his field more than is typical for an academic. (t · c) buidhe 10:30, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing found that would meet GNG or PROF. Citation record decidedly unimpressive. I agree with my colleague DGG that 2 articles each cited 25 times is respectable, but respectfully disagree that this indicates notability. --Randykitty (talk) 08:10, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • you can google it and see how many Citation record he have for Hystrix indica: [44] אור פ (talk) 09:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: I have looked at several of the references listed and none go beyond the routine. Nowhere is there an in-depth discussion of Sever's work. --Randykitty (talk) 07:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per אור פ; otherwise draftify. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:10, 11 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sierra Chart[edit]

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

Unreferenced stub on a non-notable program for traders that fails WP:NSOFT and WP:GNG. There are some hits in niche finance blogs of dubious reliability (e.g., [45]), but I'm not finding significant coverage in reliable sources. Deleted three times already (albeit a long time ago), so I might suggest adding a pinch of salt if consensus is to delete. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Logs: 2007-11 ✗ PROD, 2007-11 ✗ A1, 2007-11 ✗ CSD G11
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:46, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:27, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Dialectric (talk) 15:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence that it is notable (t · c) buidhe 10:28, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and above. Zing(Talk!) 05:37, 9 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 11:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Xiklab Digital[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:NCORP- coverage is of routine events or from non-reliable sources. COI concerns regarding article creator. 1292simon (talk) 00:49, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 02:21, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 02:21, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Impressive client list, but that doesn’t make them notable. I don’t see anything that isn’t just an account of normal agency life per WP:MILL. Mccapra (talk) 06:06, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article needs to be trimmed down, notably merging or removing the pre-Xiklab content. However, most of the sources in the article are reliable, including [46], [47] and [48]. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:NCORP. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 16:00, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:25, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This seems like a pretty run of the mill article about a pretty run of the mill company that is just going about its business. Which is reflected in the fact that the article is just made up of "they merged with another and expanded." Both things are extremely trivial and not notable. Companies merge and expand. Its what they do and 99% of the time there's nothing particularly special about it, but especially not in this case. "Merge and expand" seem to be what all the sources are about also. Which means they do not establish anything about the company. Except that it exists. So, in no way does the article pass WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A quick Google search returns 6,940 results only, which is already an indicator that it's very likely to fail WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Even the sources in the article are mostly promotional. HiwilmsTalk 07:37, 9 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:03, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Devar[edit]

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

I found a review and added it, but couldn't find anything else except film database sites and sites centering on the music. I know this has well known actors in it, but WP:NOTINHERITED. It was tagged for notability in April, so here we are...is it notable enough to be kept? Donaldd23 (talk) 00:03, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:03, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:03, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I found coverage of the movie in The Friday Times, D.N.A. Sunday and The Essential Guide to Bollywood. — Toughpigs (talk) 00:42, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It seems to be lacking significant coverage in multiple reliable in-depth sources. The Friday Times piece is about an actor who played in the movie (not the movie itself), The Essential Guide to Bollywood is a brief 1/4 of a page single paragraph overview that is not in-depth, and The D.N.A. Sunday article is about the lyrics of Anand Bakshi (which again is not about the film). So, none of them work for notability. Outside of that, there's a review by molodezhnaja, but it seems to be a blog, and a brief mention of someone from the film by a "news outlet" (but again, it's not about the film either). There definitely doesn't seem to be the multiple in-depth reviews of it that are usually required for a film to be notable. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:19, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as there is enough reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion and in the article for a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:59, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:24, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Easily meets WP:GNG after recently added sources...Ngrewal1 (talk) 23:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Atlantic306, sources are not enough to show notability. (t · c) buidhe 11:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Atlantic306 voted for the article to be kept. Sunshine1191 (talk) 15:16, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Looks sourced well enough for a film from the 60s. Surprisingly the review is from a German source and the article is not an IMDB mirror either. Sunshine1191 (talk) 15:16, 11 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 13:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Baichoo Madhoo Government School[edit]

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

Non-notable primary school. Onel5969 TT me 14:53, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:58, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mauritius-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:58, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:58, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Of note is that the article does not qualify for soft deletion, because it was prodded before this nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:14, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All the sources about it are either primary government documents or trivial passing name drops in articles about candidates running for office that held rallies there, none of which speaks to notability, and secondary schools are not automatically notable. So, this should be deleted. Since it fails both WP:NORG, WP:GNG, and does not get a special pass simply for being a school. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Looking at the sources, I agree with Adamant1 assessment above.   // Timothy :: talk  18:10, 10 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 11:21, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer[edit]

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

WP:ROTM mid-size regional law firm that fails WP:NCORP. Only claim to notability for the firm is being involved in some high-profile tobacco litigation in the '80s and '90s, and I'm unable to verify that it played a significant role. It had some notable partners in its early years, but notability is not inherited from them. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:30, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:30, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:30, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:30, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning delete. WP:NOTINHERITED applies as much to law firms with partners who went on to fame as it does to anything else. I would be willing to reconsider this position if substantial evidence of national (or at least more than regional) coverage can be shown. I suppose some of the information could be merged into the pages of the founders. BD2412 T 03:14, 6 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 2020 Washington gubernatorial election. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Loren Culp[edit]

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

Classic case of failing WP:NPOL: all the coverage relates to the election and dates to after he became a candidate. (He isn't likely to win, either). This article should redirect to 2020 Washington gubernatorial election. Attempts to redirect or PROD this article have been rejected. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theresa Greenfield (t · c) buidhe 04:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:18, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:18, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:18, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No credible claim of notability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 2020 Washington gubernatorial election, as a usual and appropriate outcome for political candidates (see WP:POLOUTCOMES. Article can be restored after the election if the City of Republic sheriff wins and any relevant prose can be added to the election page. --Enos733 (talk) 16:29, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 2020 Washington gubernatorial election. Does not meet WP:NPOL. KidAd talk 18:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, without prejudice against recreation of a redirect. As always, people do not get articles just for standing as candidates in elections — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one — but this features neither credible evidence that he has preexisting notability for reasons independent of the candidacy, nor the depth and geographic range of sources needed to make his candidacy more special than everybody else's candidacies. Being Canadian and not particularly knowledgeable about Washington state politics, I have no special insight into whether he's "likely" to win or not — obviously he'll be recreatable if he does win, since his notability claim will have changed from "candidate" to "officeholder", but he won't be entitled to an article if he loses and isn't entitled to one just because the election isn't over yet either. Bearcat (talk) 23:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per nom. Most coverage is election-focused and subject does not appear to meet WP:NPOL. — Tartan357  (Talk) 06:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If he gets elected (not super likely, but it is possible) than he will be notable, not before then.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per the above !votes. SportingFlyer
  • Keep, meets WP:GNG. WP:NPOL explicitly mentions GNG as an avenue for a political candidate to be notable: Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline. (my bold) Culp has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and therefore meets GNG. This includes national coverage prior to his candidacy, so there is no issue with WP:BLP1E. Evidence that Culp meets GNG:
Tim Smith (talk) 00:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Candidates are not deemed to have passed GNG just because they have campaign coverage — every candidate always has campaign coverage, because giving equal time to candidates in elections in their coverage area is literally the media's job. So if that were how it worked, then our established consensus that candidates are not inherently notable would be completely meaningless, because no candidate for anything would ever be unable to show coverage. Rather, to exempt a candidate from having to pass NPOL on the grounds of his media coverage, that coverage needs to explode well above and beyond what every candidate is simply expected to have, in some way that would surpass the ten year test for enduring significance (such as Christine O'Donnell) — we need concrete and credible reasons why his candidacy should be seen as so uniquely important that people will still be looking for an article about him in 2030 regardless of whether he wins or loses, not just "campaign coverage exists today", to deem a candidate notable enough to exempt him from having to win. Bearcat (talk) 17:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets GNG per the comment above. WP:BLP1E does not apply here since Culp received national media coverage for his position on Initiative 1639 before he even ran for governor. A redirect would not be appropriate, as it would make just as much sense to redirect this article to Washington Initiative 1639 as it would to 2020 Washington gubernatorial election. Surachit (talk) 04:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree with the "keep" !voters as there is no evidence that he was notable before the campaign, as required by NPOL. (t · c) buidhe 04:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • NPOL is not the only standard. Also, I'm not saying that he was notable before the campaign. Or that the campaign alone makes him notable. But I think the fact that he has received national media coverage for two separate events does make him notable. He's received significant coverage by reliable sources, and unlike what some "delete" !voters are implying or outright saying, not all of his media coverage came after he began his run for governor. Surachit (talk) 04:31, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't flesh out my argument since this looked like this was settling in the (correct) direction of a redirect to the gubernatorial race, but I also agree the GNG coverage of him (which all political candidates receive) is not enough for a stand-alone article, and he would not have been notable had he not run for office. He is not mentioned anywhere in the initiative article, so that argument fails on its face. SportingFlyer T·C 09:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and complete article. Culp has impacted the right-wing ideology in the United States, and after his stand against Washington state (2018) gun issues he wrote a book "American Cop" about the experience and his beliefs, which is - at moment of writing this - #1 best seller in a niche genre (Utilitarianism Philosophy) on Amazon.com (arguably, there should also be an article about that book). No matter what the politics or our individual positions, no matter whether this candidate wins the gubernatorial race or not, he is a notable (even if mostly regional) player in right-wing influences in the politics of the United States. 50.107.157.54 (talk) 12:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can't find any reviews for the book, so it fails WP:NBOOKS. The book tour was effectively part of the political campaign, according to Crosscut: [49] (t · c) buidhe 12:49, 9 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rose Garden Massacre[edit]

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

This has trended on Twitter, but the phrase is not mentioned in either of the target articles and I see no reliable sources that would suggest this is a valid term to disambiguate. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:D not an appropriate disambig.Lightburst (talk) 04:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I looked around for any references to the term "Rose Garden Massacre" and couldn't find any that were not either from Twitter or articles about people on Twitter using it. So, this is clearly not an appropriate disambiguation or article. since it's clearly not an actual thing outside of being a Twitter hash tag. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:14, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nonsense twitted up in a day. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


I think it is a political attack term. WP:NETRUMP ...which has nothing to do with either article. As a disambig it is nonsense. It disambiguates nothing at all. JMHO Lightburst (talk) 16:17, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This possibly super spreader event was not Massacre,The event need to be mentioned as Trump admin's mishandling of COVID-19,but not in Tabloid style.-Paperworkorange (talk) 16:19, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete words have meaning. Even if everyone who was infected at the Barrett announcement meeting dies, it would still not make the event a massacre. I am less than sure we know how many were actually infected from that event, none have dies, and even if they did die a massacre is a mass murder, not just any event that leads to multiple deaths.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:27, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete cannot find any uses of this term in reliable sources. (t · c) buidhe 10:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's attested and used, but not in a serious way. Bearian (talk) 19:14, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete it! Deleting this article is a partisan political move and would hurt Wikipedias reputation! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blumencraft (talk • contribs) 12:29, 7 October 2020 (UTC) Moving this down here as it disrupted the ordinary formatting. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - We've got two entries, neither of which are given this name in reliable sources. This doesn't serve the basic purposes of a disambiguation page. Hog Farm Bacon 01:50, 10 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 Embassy of Afghanistan, Canberra. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 11:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Afghanistan-Australia People to People Dialogue[edit]

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

Only one independent reference. Encyclopaedic content would be better included in the article for the event's organiser, the Embassy of Afghanistan, Canberra. 1292simon (talk) 02:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Embassy of Afghanistan, Canberra as it is the most appropriate target. Two sources in the article aren't independent and another source ([50]) gave trivial coverage of the subject. That leaves the last source in the article, which is only one source and not sufficient for the WP:GNG. I do feel like this subject is worth some sentences in the Embassy article. It is plausible that the article could be kept because more sources could exist in either Pashto or Dari, but I don't speak either of those languages. --Danre98(talk^contribs) 12:43, 4 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. czar 17:24, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Überzone[edit]

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

Does not appear to satisfy notability requirements per WP:MUS. No charting singles nor collaborations with notable musicians. No press coverage nor references of significance. BLP sourcing template added 9 years ago with no remediation so far. MackSalmon (Talk) 01:51, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:08, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:08, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:20, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. No evidence of anything approaching notability per WP:MUSICBIO. I've searched under the artiste's own name and stage name, and found nothing beyond passing mentions and social media hits. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 13:11, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable musician. No reliable sources. Created by an anonymous user (IP address) way back in 2005 with the following message: "added Uberzone feel free to make grammatical corrections, etc ;-D." I think that says it all. The only thing that might provide at least some notability is that one of his songs charted at 45 back in 2001 according to Billboard (so the "non charting singles" reason no longer applies - although I don't know how much a 45th place is worth on these charts). But yeah, all I found aside from this are the usual junk like Discogs, Youtube, Beatport, SoundCloud, Apple Music and the like. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:01, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as well as having a release chart on a Billboard chart he also passes WP:NMUSIC with albums on two major record labels as confirmed here, AllMusic also has two staff written reviews of his albums. Will search for more coverage tomorrow, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment One of the above mentioned albums was not an Uberzone album, but instead was a dance compilation album which happened to include some Uberzone tracks. It's not clear-cut whether or not this qualifies for WP:NMUSIC criteria 5, but I would lean towards the negative, aside from the fact that the now defunct 'Moonshine' label would not meet my personal expectations for the definition of a 'major label'. The artist list for the label does include some artists with Wikipedia pages of their own, but I'm not qualified to discern whether or not these artists are notable enough to qualify Moonshine as an 'important indie label'. They appeared to release only compilation albums, so to my eyes that might not be a sign of an important label. MackSalmon (Talk) 07:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your nomination counts as your delete vote Atlantic306 (talk) 18:27, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately, the Wayback Machine has preserved the Rolling Stone article: Uberzone Faith In The Future. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:37, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems like it was just a poorly sourced article which hadn't had the benefit of the right people working on it yet. @Atlantic306: Thanks for your thorough research. MackSalmon (Talk) 08:15, 11 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Phillips (author, composer)[edit]

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

Non-notable academic, fails WP:Notability (academics) and WP:Notability (music), even apart from WP:GNG. Main claims to notability appear to be that he was once "awarded Artist in Residence at Headlands Center for the Arts by the North Carolina Arts Council" and that once "Tokafi made his Quartet for Instruments, composed in residency, album of the month", neither of which appear to be enough to establish notability.

I note that all of the major editors to this article, whether registered or IP, are WP:SPA editors who have edited nothing else; all but one of the IP editor addresses geolocate to Raleigh, North Carolina, where the subject "teaches comparative literature at North Carolina State University":

This also suggests this is a vanity page.

Apart from the article contents, having checked per WP:BEFORE, I can't find any independent evidence of notability. The only thing I found not already in the article's External links section was this passing reference, but neither it nor the ELs persuade me.

Note that this Thomas Phillips is not the same as the 1735-born composer referred to here and here. TJRC (talk) 00:41, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Z1720 (talk) 01:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Z1720 (talk) 01:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Z1720 (talk) 01:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Z1720 (talk) 01:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:CREATIVE and WP:NMUSIC. Since he has a common name I tried Google searches with his name and the titles of his work. My searches did not produce any profiles or reviews, and the references in the article are not sufficient. I also searched "Thomas Proctor Phillips" (alternate name cited here: [51]) but did not find new sources. Z1720 (talk) 01:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I cannot see any possibility of passing WP:Prof. Maybe notability can be found in WP:Creative. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:47, 4 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR as his books did not cause sufficient impact; also fails WP:GNG as there is no coverage of him. Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 13:27, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's no evidence of anything that would demonstrate notability per WP:AUTHOR, WP:ACADEMIC, WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 13:45, 4 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. czar 17:21, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cross Road, Kentucky[edit]

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

Rennick calls it a Locale (geography), these generally fail WP:GEOLAND as locales are, by definition, not communities. Pre-1954 topos show nothing named Cross Road, 1954 and 1955 topos show a Cross Road Church. Next topo (1967) shows the Cross Road label, but no buildings there. No matter what search terms I use on newspapers.com and Google books, I can bring up nothing meaningful for this. As a locale, it fails WP:GEOLAND, and WP:GNG does not seem to be met. Hog Farm Bacon 00:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 00:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 00:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the nominator is correct. This does not pass Wikipedia notability guidelines for WP:GEOLAND Paul H. (talk) 21:17, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Checking the coordinates this place appears to be a cemetery, not a settlement, which matches up with the site previously housing a church. Churches and Cemeteries are not assumed notable in WP:GEOLAND and there is no evidence that this one passes WP:GNG 86.23.86.239 (talk) 00:36, 9 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2020_October_4&oldid=983186583"