Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 September 12

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 11 September	13 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:09, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Intellectual clubs[edit]

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

Too vague a grouping -- no sources that use this term. Everything from a Book discussion club to European Mathematical Society to Mensa International could vaguely fall in this grouping. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:04, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:04, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. Article is very new and has promise, although I agree it's not ready for mainspace at the moment. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:59, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The creator stated "I did not mean this article will be a 'complete' one. It is meant to be a stub that will be edited and 'perfected' by other Wikipedians." on the talk page when they disputed the speedy. I'm not against draftifying but it doesn't sound like they have a lot of interest in improving it. Paisarepa (talk) 00:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify as per User: AleatoryPonderings but with the caveat that the creator of the article (or others) be given a 60 day limit to improve the article. If it is not improved, delete it.Knox490 (talk) 01:47, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have the articles Learned society and List of learned societies. Is this intended to be a distinct topic from those? Phil Bridger (talk) 08:44, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's the thing - I have no idea what is meant by 'intellectual club.' Learned society has a set definition, while this appears to be one user's personal views. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 19:14, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draftify and move to 'List of intellectual clubs.' Needs a lot of work, primarily providing sources on what is considered an 'intellectual club.' Even with that, it is clear that this is meant to primarily serve as a list of clubs as opposed to an in-depth look at the nature of intellectual clubs as a group. I say 'delete' because right now it reads like the editor's personal views on intellectual clubs and there is no indication that there is an accepted definition. Anything starting with 'Throughout history, ' sounds like a personal essay. To have a list, we need unassociated sources that provide the defining characteristic of the list - we cannot use synthesis and original research to make a list of what we consider to be an 'intellectual club', such as we cannot make a list of 'Fashionable brands' or something of that sort. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 19:12, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 07:18, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020–21 Aberystwyth Town F.C. season[edit]

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

Club season article for a semi-professional league, so fails WP:NSEASONS. Number 5 7 22:25, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:14, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly fails NSEASONS; if something remarkable happens later in the season, then this could be recreated if it ever is able to meet WP:GNG. The best option now is to delete it, though. Spiderone 11:16, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG/NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 19:28, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:54, 17 September 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. All "keep" opinions are by accounts with less than 100 edits, suggesting shenanigans. Sandstein 10:15, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Appy Pie[edit]

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

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

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

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

Classic spam, fails WP:NCORP. There's a ton of references, but most of them look like routine coverage, press releases, etc that don't meet WP:SIRS. The editing history is largely a sequence of throw-away WP:UPE accounts. It's not quite bad enough for WP:G11. There's a bunch of copyvios as seen in the earwig report, but not quite bad enough for WP:G12. In theory, I could cut them out, but it would leave a jumbled mess, and I can't see investing the effort to re-write this. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:21, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:26, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:26, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom and noted in the previous AFD (which was closed to DEL, btw - so I'm not sure how the article has somehow resurfaced(?) or has been recreated by throw-away accounts (?), the subject appears to fail WP:NCORP as almost of the sources are generated from either press releases, contributors (with no editorial integrity), and some are just outright 404. --Infogapp1 (talk) 19:16, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Interesting software but Fail WP:GNG.Charmk (talk) 04:16, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge - I think this article is notable, though I recognize it could be seen as spam, in which case a merge would be appropriate with AppMakr. I've found these articles (1 2) and the page can be updated accordingly. Vivekpegasus (talk) 08:14, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep currently there are a lot of citations easily passing WP:GNG could be a case of objections per nom but as per sources it passes GNG "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."JK.Kite (talk) 07:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is still possible to improve the article in order to be more compliant to the editorial standards of Wikipedia if it is not, or at least to the editorial preferences of Wikipedia editors. The subject is notable and directly contributes to its field of subject, so deletion must only proceed if it is definitely impossible to improve the existing article. MacPoli1 (talk) 17:27, 17 September 2020 (UTC+8)
Delete - fails WP:NCORP Dr. Vetter (talk) 01:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is still improving and surely they will rectify there mistake and follow the policies 49.206.34.144 (talk) 11:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC) (talk) 05:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Based on the edit history on the page, there are multiple socks trying to add content to the article. Fails notability for Corporations. Likely a scam. AngusMEOW (chatter • paw trail) 12:39, 18 September 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. The rest is silence. Sandstein 10:18, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hamlet, Missouri[edit]

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

State historical society suggests it was likely just a store, and refers to it as "a small trading point", whatever that means. Not on the relevant 1886 topo. Not seeing it on the 1939 topo either (it's gonna be embarassing if I'm just overlooking it). Also not on the 1954 large-scale topo. Not on the 2017 topo. Google maps brings up farmland. No evidence this was any more than a country store, and the fact that it isn't appearing on topos is telling. The GNIS entry is sourced to the state historical society papers, which the online version [1] doesn't explicitly state this was a town, referring only to a store at the site. Apparently was formerly known as Sexson, but it's not appearing on the topos under that name, either. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be per nom. The slings and arrows of outrageous Wikipedial demands for verifiability raineth down and find it wanting. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:07, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Out damned spot (I know, wrong play) "I can call unicorporated communities from the vasty deep of GNIS!" "Aye, you can and so can any WP editor, but will they be verified when you call them?" (still the wrong play) Mangoe (talk) 14:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It seems, sadly, that this article is merely words, words, words. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:41, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. Newly added citations establish notability (non-admin closure) Donaldd23 (talk) 13:31, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kal: Yesterday and Tomorrow[edit]

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

Non notable film with nothing to support it having its own article. Sourced only to non-WP:RS IMDb, a WP:BEFORE search turned up nothing better. Tagged for notability for 8 years. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. I think it was notable to begin with, but now with work done by PK743, definitely notable. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article has been hugely expanded by PK743 with reliable sources. Tolly 4 bolly 12:45, 14 September 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 21:22, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bunzili River[edit]

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

This was prodded, but I think more eyes on it would be beneficial. I can't find any evidence of even existence. The map pin points to the Kwilu river where it joins the Kwango at Bandundu, just as Bunzili is supposed to do. However, a few sources mention a place called Bunzili which is about 10 miles upriver according to gmaps. It is possible that Bunzili is a local name for Kwilu so a redirect might be in order, although I haven't been able to establish anything definite. SpinningSpark 21:04, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. SpinningSpark 21:04, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as completely unsourced, and I couldn't find anything definitive about it either. Happy to change my !vote if sources are found though. -Kj cheetham (talk) 22:10, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 22:11, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I had a look at the sources when it was prodded and could find nothing other than a Google Maps listing, which (as the nom notes) does not clearly indicate a river. Like Kj cheetham, happy to change my !vote if someone finds something better than I could; please ping if you do find something. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 22:21, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I also looked at this when it was prodded, and also came to the concusion that is was describing the Kwilu river but could find no evidence of it being an alternative name. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:47, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There does not appear to be a river that goes by this name. I would've even suggest a re-direct to the Kwilu river article.Oakshade (talk) 02:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:21, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kathir News[edit]

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

Couldn't find reliable sources, writing about this news website. Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:38, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:38, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment previous deletion discussion ended with the nominator withdrawing his nomination. However, no trusted sources were provided in the discussion to support website's notability. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 19:11, 19 September 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. The notability of this organization (per WP:GNG) was not adequately demonstrated. Consensus is to delete. ‑Scottywong | [yak] || 03:53, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Smile Foundation[edit]

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

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

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

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

Does not meet WP:ORG. The sources are all routine announcements, name drops, or comments from those associated with this organization. At least one of the sources doesn't even mention this organization at all("Cochlear implant surgery....") These things do not establish notability, and I could not find significant coverage. This article just tells about what the organization does and does not summarize any significant coverage as articles should. 331dot (talk) 09:15, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 09:18, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 09:18, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I don't find E-learning and Training of Underprivileged youth name-drops of the superficial kind. This venture is in 26 states helping children. Lot of community service happening here. Whiteguru (talk) 11:54, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whiteguru Wikipedia is not for telling the world about good works. 331dot (talk) 11:56, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- No, but the purpose of the Smile Foundation is substantiated in the references. --Whiteguru (talk) 12:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia articles must do more than state the existence of the subject and what it does. 331dot (talk) 12:40, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Smile Foundation is one of the most prominent non-profit organizations in Asia[2] as well as one of the biggest NGOs in India which reaches 15,00,000 children and families annually and runs 400 live welfare projects on education, healthcare, livelihood, and women empowerment, in over 2000 remote and rundown areas across 25 states of India. The foundation has thus far provided education to more than 2,00,000 children and has assisted hundreds of families affected by floods in different parts of the country. The purpose is not to show their good works but to show the significance of the subject. The foundation has been covered by various mainstream media nationally as well as internationally, including The Guardian, Businessworld, Mint (newspaper)[3][4][5][6] and there are more references available online.John shibo (talk) 13:27, 22 August 2020 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: John shibo (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]

The first(which you duplicated) and second sources you link here are brief mentions each with a with a quote from the founder of the organization; the last is based almost entirely on an interview with said founder. 331dot (talk) 13:37, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should tag it for better sourcing rather than deleting as there are more sources available online.John shibo (talk) 13:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If those sources are like the ones you have already provided, they won't help. You say that you work for this organization; have you been tasked with editing its article? 331dot (talk) 14:02, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you read it right but I have not edited this page and have put all the changes that were to be made to its talk page only as per the guidelines. As for its sourcing, I am not an expert in identifying which sources would work and which would not but a Google search of it shows it being discussed in various leading publications.John shibo (talk) 15:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The organization is definitely notable. I did a quick google news search, and it and its work has been repeatedly been covered by major Indian national and regional dailies and magazines including The Hindu, Indian Express which are even in WP considered good RS. The organization is repeatedly mentioned in top list of charities to donate for any relief program by major news org. One can always argue that could be due to persistent marketing efforts by the NGO, but it definitely seems to have worked and its meets all the criteria on WP:NGO to be kept here on WP. If the issue is with WP:NPOV tone, then the article needs to be re-written and edited and not deleted. - Roller26 (talk) 12:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Roller26 Could you offer some of these sources? The ones I could find and in the article currently are not appropriate for establishing notability. 331dot (talk) 14:42, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some links within a year's time [7] [8] [9]. List of org to donate to or org's doing notable work [10] [11]. The NGO's data and studies are often regularly quoted by all media houses with proper references in their articles. Also a number of top Indian corporate houses often tie up with Smile for some charity drive. (Various articles about those too). -- Roller26 (talk) 15:05, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was aware of those sources, they amount to little more than press releases with a quote from an organization representative. They do not represent significant coverage and only suggest that any article about this organization would only serve to tell the world about the good work that they do. 331dot (talk) 19:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

331dot, this research paper [12] studied organisational capacity component of the MFS II country evaluations with focus being Smile Foundation, India. This article [13] by a magazine published by Stanford University Center talks about NGO Leadership Development with giving significant coverage to Smile Foundation. Also the Foundation's own website [14] lists 890 print media coverage from 2003 to 15 April 2020. While I will agree most of them will not be significant, or published by reliable, secondary or independent sources, if in source assessment table all of them fail the notability test, I am all for deleting the article. -- Roller26 (talk) 15:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I

Agree with Roller26 and other contributors. I would suggest, the article may be rewritten rather than deleting it. If we were to delete, we might as well consider many more articles in WP which are similar for deletion. What I would suggest is a rewrite or reference it with better sources. SaiP (talk) 13:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SaiP See other stuff exists. That other problematic articles have not been addressed does not mean this one shouldn't be. This article has been tagged as needing sources since April and COI editors have been here to promote the charity. 331dot (talk) 14:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, current sources are all routine announcements, name drops, or comments from those associated with this organization and I'm not seeing anything that satisfy WP:ORGDEPTH. Also, WP:WWIN applies. GSS ^💬 20:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GSS, refer to the above sources that I linked, especially the research and the magazine article. -- Roller26 (talk) 23:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: References are general press releases. Thus, it does need better references, if not found I suggest to move this page to draft. It can be moved to main space after qualifying notability. I'll try to search for independent reliable sources and add them. -- Pratyush.shrivastava (talk) 14:28, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to develop a clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BD2412 T 02:51, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One person contacted me to put here a 'Keep' vote. Hence it is a clear indication of paid article and i added "Undisclosed paid" tag. Now come to the article, It is looking like an advertisement. Routine coverage. It is also a case of WP:CITEKILL and WP:BOMBARD.Priyanjali singh (talk) 06:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - zero evidence of any notability Spiderone 10:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spiderone, I am not sure what research you did before casting the !vote because certain editors arguments on the line of WP:ORGDEPTH are understandable, yours is not. In the above discussion itself, following references have been made 1. research paper 2. article by a magazine published by Stanford University Center 3. own website lists 890 print media coverage from 2003 to 15 April 2020. I hope you go through these and make a more reasoned !vote. Roller26 (talk) 14:41, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To any reviewer; please keep in mind that at least one member of the organization seem to be contributing to this discussion and another user has said they were asked to come here. 331dot (talk) 13:23, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion noted, additions to Talk:Smile_Foundation page noted. Blocked users and socks. My, my. Vote is not changed. --Whiteguru (talk) 08:02, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 17:10, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Al Noor Hospitals[edit]

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

I had added a PROD to the article on notability grounds that was removed by someone who thought the references were enough to make it notable. What it ultimately comes down to though is that all the references seem to be about an IPO, expansions, and the company merging with Mediclinic International. IPOs and mergers are extremely trivial topics though that could apply to any company and neither one passes the notability guidelines for companies, WP:NCORP, anyway. It's doubtful the sources even pass WP:GNG for that matter. Since most (or all) of them are either primary, trivial coverage, or dead links. I didn't find anything that was any better in a WP:BEFORE either. Therefore in my opinion this article should be deleted or as an alternative at least merged/redirected to Mediclinic International. Wikipedia isn't a news site or list of IPO evaluations. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:11, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added quite a bit of material to the article about this company which was the largest company in private healthcare in Abu Dhabi for over 20 years. I am sorry that Adamant1 does not feel my efforts were enough. This is the second article, that I wrote, in respect of a major company that Adamant1 has nominated for deletion. I am not sure what is going on here. Dormskirk (talk) 21:26, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What was the other article you created that I nominated? It seems that what's going on here is that your creating articles that don't meet the notability guidelines. You should probably yourself with WP:GNG and WP:NCORP so it doesn't unnecessarily happen again. Especially pay attention to WP:ORGDEPTH and what it considers trivial coverage when you do. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:45, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was AVI Global Trust, another major company with a long history. Al Noor Hospitals has had loads of coverage because of both because of its IPO and because of the hotly contested bidding battle. If this company is not notable, then I am not sure what company is. There is no point in writing articles on companies any longer - however much coverage they get they just get nominated for deletion! Dormskirk (talk) 00:13, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but IPO's and "hotly contested bidding battles" aren't notable on their own. No matter the coverage. You'd know that if you put your pretty obvious persecution complex in check, stopped writing useless messages, and read the notability guidelines. Which I didn't have anything to do with the creation of. If you put a tiny bit of effort into reading the guidelines you'd also know that plenty of companies are notable. Just not this one. It's not on me or anyone else that you rather waste everyone's time by whining about things instead. Like I said in my comment, if your that convicted that I'm targeting you with these AfDs and "attacking you" then feel free to report me. I could really care less, but I'm done dealing with you. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What an extraordinary and unnecessarily unpleasant message - just because I made the case that there are extremely good reasons why the article should not be deleted - whatever happened to no personal attacks? Dormskirk (talk) 08:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The part of the message about whining etc is mostly in response to the fact that your also going off on my talk page about this and accusing me of specifically targeting with the two AfDs just because you edited one of the articles a few times 8 years ago. Which is completely ridiculous. Your sitting here chiding me about no personal attacks while your the accusing me without evidence of intentional harassment. Not to mention in multiple venues. I'd fine with you making a guideline based argument about why both articles should be kept, but due to your unwillingness to do so and your continuing of a personal vendetta I stick by that it's whining and not productive to the AfD. More so because your still continuing it here it on my talk page after I told in both places that I was done with the discussion. You made your opinion clear in your first message, you were already WP:BLUDGEONing it a few messages back in both places, and I have every right to tell you so. I've been pretty reasonable about it. Especially on my talk page. So just drop it already. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:22, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This looks like a well-sourced article to me, with non-trivial coverage. I can't access the article text, but a Financial Times article called "Battle brews for UAE healthcare dominance and Al Noor control" indicates a feature article about the hospital's place in the UAE health care industry. The Oxford Business Group also seems to be reliable and in-depth. — Toughpigs (talk) 15:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I call bullshit on that. The Oxford Business Group article isn't even about the hospital, it's about the health insurance industry in Abu Dhabi, and the this company isn't even discussed in it. Except for two name drops when siting brief comments by it's CEO that aren't even about the company. There's nothing in-depth about it and it's just another attempt by you to pass off garbage sources as legitimate. The same probably goes for the article. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:HOSPITAL. However, language of the article is full of puffery (WP:PUFF) which need to be sorted as per Wikipedia guidelines. -Hatchens (talk) 17:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, it doesn't pass WP:HOSPITAL because it's a Wikiproject, not a guideline, and there's nothing to "pass" about it. I'm getting pretty sick of people using WP:HOSPITAL like it's authoritative on anything or a guideline. Hopefully your vote is ignored so as to not encourage the people doing it. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:33, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Hatchens meant WP:NHOSPITALS, which is a guideline. It's an easy mistake to make, and AGF applies. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Toughpigs, thanks for correcting me. - Hatchens (talk) 02:00, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adamant1, fair enough. Let the closing authority decide on that. A request, please be polite to everyone. We may have differences in our opinions but we have to show "compassion", "patience" and "good intent" to correct and share knowledge with others... exactly like Dormskirk and Toughpigs. - Hatchens (talk) 02:08, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hatchens, I agree about people being polite. That said, there's an ongoing debate in Wikipedia about the authority of Wikiprojects and their authority on things like this, or lack there of, and people routinely cite them in AfDs. So, it's not like it would have been unprecedented if that was what you were doing. Also, Toughpigs has spent the last month and a half attacking me repeatedly over way more mundane mistakes then yours and also just in general. So, he isn't someone that I care to listen to about assuming good faith, or about really anything. I don't think anyone else should listen to him about it either. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adamant1, calm down bro. If you have issues with anyone, then there are better ways to handle it. If that option fails, then please lodge a protest at WP:ANI. Bringing personal differences in an on-going AfD discussion actually disturbs the whole objective of having it in the first place. See, why I am telling you this because I myself have burnt my finger and learned by my own mistakes. And, one more thing, once you nominate an article, I would recommend not to indulge in further discussions as your reason for nominating should be more than enough to justify your stand. Let the discussion flow as per the Wikipedia guidelines and accept the outcome whatever it might be or else your approach can be easily qualified for WP:CANVAS. During my initial days, I myself got a warning for such approach at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dasman_Diabetes_Institute. Learn and evolve/And, don't get personal. (NOTE: I apologize to all for digressing from this AfD discussion, but I felt it's necessary to put my views across for everyone's benefit. Let peace and tranquility prevail). - Hatchens (talk) 03:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hatchens:, a few points WP:DISCUSSAFD says "AfDs are a place for rational discussion of whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia's article guidelines and policies." It also says "when an editor offers arguments or evidence that do not explain how the article meets/violates policy, they may only need a reminder to engage in constructive, on-topic discussion." It's ridiculous to say that the AfD nominators shouldn't involve themselves in that discussion or not give people reminders when their arguments aren't policy based. Ultimately, it has nothing to do with assuming good faith or not. Someone can cite a bad keep reason in good faith, and discussing things if they do has nothing to do with CANVASing or not accepting anything. It's just following the guidelines. Personally, I could really care less which way any AfD I'm involved in goes. As long the way it goes is based on the guidelines. That doesn't mean I'm not going to comment when someone railroads an AfD I opened though or votes keep based on bad reasoning. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adamant1, I'm glad you are following guidelines and asking others to do the same but at what cost? As per the guidelines, you are going totally opposite when its comes to being "constructive, on-topic discussion". You are bringing in the conflicts in this discussion from other AfDs. Bro, it's a free world. You can comment on whatever you feel deemed to be fit but at the same time, you need to maintain a decorum in the forum. Editors like Dormskirk and Toughpigs comes with an impeccable history of edits. If they can remain grounded, then, why not us? With an edit history like yours and mine, we are not at all authoritative when we compare ourselves with these two editors - out of which, one happens to be an admin. You should feel lucky, that the fellow has not reported you to WP:ANI yet. On the other hand, you have done more than a wonderful job when it comes to Wikipedia editing (as your edit history depicts). Don't let yourself get banned for behavioral reasons. We need editors like you who have a to nack to catch suspicious editing and paid pages. We need to stick together and act like a team. - Hatchens (talk) 03:09, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like there's zero cost to me. Anyway, ToughPig brought the conflict by citing WP:AGF to me when he knows he have a contentious history and could have just easily assumed good faith about my original comment. I'm not a fan of being the only one that should assume good faith, and he just as easily could shown me the same respect by not engaging me by siting the guideline when I wasn't doing anything. Also, who's right and wrong in AfD discussions isn't decided who has the "impeccable history of edits" or not or any other type of bona fides. It's 100% on the guideline based strength of the argument being made, and unfortunately ToughPigs just has an extremely midcore record when it comes to that. Which isn't on me. I'm not going to bend over backwards to be nice to someone who has attacked and railroaded me in AfDs repeatedly. I don't care how impeccable his edit is. You get what you give. Especially since when I reported a few other users to ANI for their verbal abuse I was told by multiple people, including him, that I was just being over sensitive and should just suck it up because getting attacked is just how things go in Wikipedia. I have zero respect for people that on the hand attack me, tell me I should deal with it I'm being verbally abused and stop being so sensitive about things, but then cite guidelines about assuming good faith when I take issue with something. That said, I acknowledge that me calling out ToughPigs probably isn't going to stop him from talking out of both sides of his neck. So, I'll give it a rest. Although, I'm just acting how everyone in ANI said people in Wikipedia act. So, a little consistency about things in general would be nice. Either personal attacks are par for the course or they aren't. I don't really care either way, but it's kind of mediocre that I'm getting called out for it when I was told to suck it up and deal with it when it was coming from other people. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I saw this listed at WP:MED/AA. It is not usual for an article about a hospital system serving about a million people to be nominated for deletion. While the article would benefit from a re-write, there is enough here to convince me that this healthcare system is notable. Notability is not temporary, so the fact that the company is now part of another company is irrelevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I never said the company wasn't notable just because it's part of another company. Good job miss quoting me and not actually addressing any of the points I made in the nomination though. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I can be detailed: You say that all coverage of IPOs are defined as trivial coveragage in NCORP, which does not mention IPOs at all; you say that all coverage of expansions and mergers are defined as trivial coverage in NCORP, which actually says to ignore "standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage" of expansions and mergers, not to discount all such sources entirely; you say that "most (or all) of them are either primary, trivial coverage, or dead links", but (a) Reuters published about 300 words on them in this article, which is WP:SIGCOV, secondary, and independent, (b) The Financial Times wrote 400 words on them in this article, which is also SIGCOV, secondary, and independent, and incidentally calls them "The largest private healthcare provider in Abu Dhabi", which is another indication that the subject is notable; (c) dead links don't mean that the subject isn't notable, since the rule is 'written about', not 'written about online and easy to find in the first page of Google Search results'. By the way, a search in ProQuest for "Al Noor Hospitals" (quoted phrase) found more than two thousand full-text sources (2,258, to be exact) that mention this hospital system. I imagine that with more than two thousand sources available, we can find enough reliable information to write an article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, NCORP says trivial coverage includes "of a capital transaction, such as raised capital" and last time I checked that's the whole point in doing an IPO. Obviously CORP doesn't have to include every way a company can raise capital in minuet detail for it to qualify as trivial coverage. Just like it doesn't have to be explicit about crowd funding campaigns or specifically call every crowd founding platform out by name for them to be trivial topics. Otherwise if every specific way someone can raise capital has to be mentioned by name there would be zero point in even having the guideline. One of the articles about the IPO is even titled "Al Noor Hospitals IPO raises $342m" You can't legitimately claim that an article about them raising $342m isn't about raised capital. Also no where did I say to ignore all sources about expansions. Context matters though and the point was that it's routine/WP:MILL for a hospital group to more build hospitals. That's literally what they do and I'm certain is what's behind the spirit of the part of NCORP about it. There's absolutely nothing notable about "company that builds hospitals builds a hospital." Which is likely the reason why of the main sources about it is "Construction Weekly." BTW, I'm pretty sure there's a cavit somewhere in the notability guidelines about being careful about trade (or niche) magazines and the like. This isn't something like Apple selling iPhones in China after a twenty year battle to though. Again, it's about a company that builds hospitals building hospitals.

Also, I wasn't aware that "The Financial Times" opinion on who the top companies in the world were guaranteed said company an article (or really meant anything about notability). I'll have to add that to my repertoire <--Sarcasm. Lastly, about the dead links all I will say is that you know full well "keep because sources exists" isn't a good argument. While at the end of the day I could really give a crap if they are "dead", I do care if they qualify as WP:SIGCOV or not. Which can't be determined if they are dead. Sorry, but I don't feel like giving the COI SPA who created the article (or whatever probably COI editor added them later) the benefit of the doubt. Maybe if it wasn't an article about a company, which has a higher bar then some other subjects, and didn't have COI edits to it. Even if that wasn't the case though, as I've said repeatedly and everyone with any kind of integrity agrees with, this isn't just about the existance "sources." Otherwise, all of us would just be citing Twitter or Facebook repeatedly. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:43, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:22, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory McKelvey[edit]

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

Was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gregory_McKelvey. Doesn't seem to be notable, and somewhat unsure why it still exists despite the last deletion. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:27, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would have G4'd, but the versions are different enough that it no longer applies. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:04, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:04, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best a failure of one event rules.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:08, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:22, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cerro, California[edit]

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

Durham identifies it as a locality along the Northwestern Pacific RR. Old topo maps show a railroad siding at the site and not much else. Only later is the area filled with suburbs, none of them are called Cerro. No indications that it was a community and nothing to indicate it was otherwise notable. Glendoremus (talk) 19:26, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Glendoremus (talk) 19:28, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Glendoremus (talk) 19:28, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete Aerials show there may have been a station here for a while in the 1950s, but not before and certainly not after. And there's no sign of a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 17:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:23, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interlanguage fossilization[edit]

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

Every version since the start [15] of this article has been taken nearly verbatim from a PhD thesis (pp. 3–6). This is attributed at the bottom, and the copying is said to be with permission. The evidence for this permission is discussed on the talk page, and consists of a comment on the article creator's talk page [16] that the inclusion of the material has [the PhD author's] approval.

Per WP:COPYOTHERS, this is insufficient, as, even assuming good faith on the part of the article creator that they asked the PhD author, there is no evidence that the material has been licensed under a compatible licence (and not just, say that the author gave permission for just Wikipedia to use the material, which, as WP:DCM notes, would be insufficient). The creator hasn't edited since 2011, so can probably be assumed to be long gone from the project and unable to clarify, though I have notified them of this discussion.

In terms of WP:ATD, because every version of this article has the copyright problem, merging isn't an option, and I can't see an obvious redirect target (if redirected, I'd argue that the page history would need to be WP:REVDELled anyway, making this functionally equivalent). YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 19:13, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 19:13, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the basis of copyright violation since there is no evidence of a licence for public use.Polyamorph (talk) 13:14, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't have any idea about the subjects notability, but due to copyright issues it needs to have most of its history deleted. Maybe if the subject is notable we can just recreate a stub for other people to work on afterwards?★Trekker (talk) 21:10, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suna Pila Tike Screw Dhila[edit]

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

Couldn't find any reliable sources/reviews. TamilMirchi (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 17:23, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 23:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 18:16, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Caterpillar Wish[edit]

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

Non notable film, won an award which another editor claims isn't significant enough to remove the notability tag. I couldn't find much else in a search to help remove the tag...so let's let AfD do its job. If it passes, the tag goes. If it fails, the article goes. Thanks Donaldd23 (talk) 18:04, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 18:04, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 18:04, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of coverage in RS: [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]. Presumably the award referred to in the nom is Australian Film Institute's award for best supporting actress. Seems like that would confer notability too, but it's largely a moot point because there's plenty of other coverage besides. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:54, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep Finding non-trivial coverage for this film Passes WP:NFSOURCES Wm335td (talk) 19:08, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies WP:NF with significant coverage in multiple reviews. Thank you AleatoryPonderings for locating additional sources. I wouldn't have mentioned 2, 3, 5 and 6 because they either have very brief coverage of this film or are not independent . I do understand that some editors feel a large number of sources satisfies notability. I located two reviews that seem helpful if the sources are reliable: [24], [25] and this murdoch.edu web page has a great deal of useful information & a review but I doubt it would be considered a reliable source. Gab4gab (talk) 20:26, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there has been enough additional reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion to enable a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is no longer necessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:02, 15 September 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. Discussion of various unsourced stubs related to the company can continue elsewhere. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ESP Guitars[edit]

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

Promotional article with few sources, all primary, and suspected to fail WP:GNG. According to Ficadimerda (talk · contribs), the entire Category:ESP electric guitars is a massive walled garden and they have prodded many, if not all, pages in that category. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 17:49, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:20, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:20, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Notable and well known national guitar brand played by musicians like James Hetfield, there is a multitude of sources available in industry publications. Many books where we can glean facts. WP:NEXIST, the AfD is not for nominating notable subjects which are poorly written. Wm335td (talk) 19:16, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:06, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:06, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a well known 45 year old guitar manufacturer/brand. I find the nomination vexatious. The walled garden that the nominator mentions, are industry publications like Guitar World, MusicRadar, Premier Guitar, etc. Lightburst (talk) 18:11, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cite to the publications and not sales pages please. The article as is needs to go. An article about this company is ok but we do not need new Wiki page for every guitar they ever make. Wikipedia is not the sales catalogue.Ficadimerda (talk) 03:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC) Also I did not propose deletion of this page, just all extra ESP guitar promo articles.Ficadimerda (talk) 03:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We do not delete articles based on what is not in the article per WP:NEXIST. We determine notability. You said, "...we do not need new Wiki page for every guitar they ever make". Tell that to the Fender Musical Instruments Corporation. - Fender Telecaster Fender Stratocaster, Fender Jazzmaster, Fender Jaguar, Fender Jazz Bass, Fender Bass VI and this only a few. Type Fender in your search bar and go through the alphabet Fender A... Fender B....Fender C... etc you will find hundreds. I know that is not a great argument per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but it is information. So I would be careful about prodding every product of the ESP Guitar Company. Lightburst (talk) 14:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fender article is well sourced and has more information than just product catalogue. Again I never asked to have ESP Guitars main article deleted. If individual products have own pages they should have third party reliable sourcing and that goes for Fender and any company too. Just because the company is notable does not mean every thing it ever made is worthy of new articles. Ficadimerda (talk) 15:35, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ficadimerda I hope you do WP:BEFORE for each product prior to AfDing all of them. What did you discover that made you prod every single ESP product? Surely some products are notable. Lightburst (talk) 15:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes probably some products are notable but from Wikipedia category it is impossible to know which is. If notability of every product in the category cannot be demonstrated surely it is best to have redirect to main ESP Guitars page until it can. Ficadimerda (talk) 16:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and WP:SNOW. Echo the other comments that the nomination is frivolous. The argument "suspected to fail WP:GNG" isn't credible, even the most basic web search shows significant coverage in reliable sources, such as this one: [26]. The nominator has been around long enough to know that they shouldn't propose deletion without even looking for sources showing notability, see WP:BEFORE. Regarding promotional or unsourced content, see WP:NOTCLEANUP and WP:FIXIT. There are dozens of musician and other general articles that link to it, so it's certainly not a walled garden. The existence of other stub articles about individual models is entirely irrelevant to the question of deleting the main article. --IamNotU (talk) 13:57, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I replied to the wrong person. I did not say anything about GNG and did not nominate this for deletion, only other pages in category. Ficadimerda (talk) 15:38, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said that you did. I was talking about the nominator, LaundryPizza03. --IamNotU (talk) 15:50, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNOW Keep for reason cited by User:Lightburst and User:IamNotU. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Someone has put a prod on almost every single product of the company as shown here. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did that. The pages do nothing to prove notability (maybe some not even real products). I never said anything about walled gardens and did not nominate this main article for deletion. Ficadimerda (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Discussion of the individual instrument articles or their proposed deletion is off-topic. If there are problems with them, use the talk pages. This is not the right place to address them. Please keep discussion related to the ESP Guitars article. Thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 16:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay sorry my vote is Keep and fix ESP Guitars. Ficadimerda (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with User:IamNotU. It is distinctly 'on topic'. You are engaging in a mass deletion, and notice to interested editors is not only appropriate, but called for. You are doing this without notifying the interested editors. The light of day should shine upon your effort and expose it for all to see. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I looked a little but no editing in years of tags asking for source. Most articles in category have not even text, just product name. No third party sourcing at all. My only effort is to clean up. If products can be proven notable I don't mind articles. Ficadimerda (talk) 16:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously! The prods were mentioned in the nomination. Please take this to Talk:ESP Guitars#Guitar page deletion redux, this is not the correct venue for ongoing discussion about it. --IamNotU (talk) 16:39, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:23, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

National Positions[edit]

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

Non notable SEO company. Fails WP:NCORP. Unreliable, WP:REFBOMBed sources. Some are deceptive too, such the first citation which looks like a HuffPost article but it's actually a HuffPost Contributers site, basically a blog (see listing below WP:HUFFPOST. Other citations are listings of hundreds of companies, etc. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 07:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:27, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:27, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom, lots of references in the article but none are of the quality required. I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:56, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 18:16, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carolyn Seaman[edit]

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

New page review: short BLP article sourced partly to the website of the organisation the subject founded. She has won an award and been listed as one of the 100 most inspiring women in Nigeria but for the moment I don't believe notability is established. Mccapra (talk) 10:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 10:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 10:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 10:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 10:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sourcing is inadequate to demonstrate notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — next to no coverage in any reliable source. Celestina007 (talk) 05:48, 18 September 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. Sandstein 17:11, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gayathri (Malayalam actress)[edit]

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

Fails GNG and fails NACTOR. All roles are supporting, no lead role. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 19:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 19:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 19:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 19:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Her Notability is justified in various films. passes WP:NACTOR. Priyanjali singh (talk) 16:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While she seems notable due to many credits, there is an unacceptable source (IMDB) and only one other source. Per Wiki policy you need significant news coverage. Expertwikiguy (talk) 18:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:28, 12 September 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. ‑Scottywong | [verbalize] || 03:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hal Ritson[edit]

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

A producer who appears to fail "WP:SINGER". There are hits in RS (e.g., [27]), but all I can find are either passing mentions or interviews. I'm sure some of his—apparently very many—productions have charted, but I'm skeptical that a producer without substantial independent coverage passes criteria 2–3 of WP:SINGER. Many people are involved in creating pop hits, so singling out a producer for an article when there's little coverage of him in particular seems unreasonable IMO. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:58, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He did the vocals on Tell Me Why (Supermode song) which was a big hit internationally, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:49, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being the singer on one hit doesn't rise to the level of notability, and none of the sources in the article are usable to that end either. BD2412 T 00:56, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tell Me Why (Supermode song), given that's where he derives a claim to notability from. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:53, 24 September 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 Extraction (2020 film). Tone 17:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rudhraksh Jaiswal[edit]

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

Only one significant role, meets neither WP:NACTOR nor WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Comment~~ Appears to be a notable actor who was in a major production. Wm335td (talk) 19:19, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Extraction (2020 film). TamilMirchi (talk) 19:24, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not sure how this works, but my my opinion is that this actor deserves his own page on Wikipedia. The actor is one of the most promising young actors in India, according to several media. He has starred in a number of big local movies and series in Bollywood. He became known worldwide with the Netflix blockbuster Extraction in 2020, he was well rated for his performance in this movie. Because he has more films and series to his name (see IMDB), this actor deserves his own page. Wikifilmedits (talk 22:49, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep He is notable as a young actor in my country and may meets WP:BASIC and WP:GNG according to the source presented. VocalIndia (talk) 06:57, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I think it with the coverage it probably a keep, although it seems to be same report. It probably satisfies WP:THREE and more. scope_creep^Talk 17:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Extraction (2020 film) for the time being.-Hatchens (talk) 17:54, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Extraction (2020 film): Nearly all of the sources refer to this film and would be part of the usual film publicity push. Beyond that, not so much. WP:TOOSOON, with any luck they'll have a major role in a film next year and should easily meet WP:NACTOR at that point. Ravensfire (talk) 22:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to his most notable acting credit (WP:TOOSOON). Sunshine1191 (talk) 10:13, 17 September 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 Mill Creek (conservation area). czar 21:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mill Creek Falls, Narrows Virginia[edit]

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

This waterfall does not appear to be notable enough for inclusion. It is a small waterfall in Virginia with no sources covering it. --IWI (talk) 16:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. --IWI (talk) 16:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:59, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly merge to Mill Creek (conservation area) in which it lies. It's a bit confusing be cause there appear to be three separate features described in the article, and it's not clear how close they are to each other. Mangoe (talk) 01:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A map was provided that shows the exact location of the three waterfalls, relative to one another. Shannon Bowling Shannonbowling (talk) 17:40, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that this Waterfall is not notable, this is the exact reason that I created the page. As stated in the document, the dam was built in the 1780's and the creek served as a valuable resource for almost 200 years to a community. The creek and the waterfall have been featured in national commercials and is listed on many sites for hiking. After searching I have found many other waterfalls on Wikipedia that aren't any more "notable". Something doesn't have to be globally notable to be notable. It is notable to residents of the region and those visiting the region, especially those hiking the Appalachian Trail. Shannon Bowling Shannonbowling (talk) 15:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mill Creek (conservation area). Not enough coverage to merit a stand-alone article, but useful information and photographs. Voceditenore (talk) 15:34, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a good idea to Merge to Mill Creek (conservation area) Shannon Bowling Shannonbowling (talk) 23:20, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify. czar 21:25, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thattassery Koottam[edit]

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

Unreleased film, which is no exception to the guidelines on unreleased films that they are seldom notable. Google search shows that the film exists in an unreleased form, and that it advertises and has had considerable advance publicity. We knew that it exists. Publishing a Wikipedia article at this time would simply facilitate the advance publicity effort, but Wikipedia is not for promotion.

The article does not have a description of the production or a plot summary. These would not make the article notable anyway, but the present article isn't encyclopedic (and won't be until the film is released).

Page has been created in both draft space and article space, so that the article cannot be moved to draft space. Recommend that the article be deleted and the draft left in draft space until the film is released. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:12, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:22, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

“Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. “ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graand_Production As per the rules, the Production is well famous and it has a Wikipedia Page of its own and if you could read this article, it clearly States Graand Production is Producing the film, Hence I request you to not to request the Article for deletion. I have already requested the deletion of the Draft, But I would like the article to be kept and in no means I was trying to promote this Page or article https://m.cinemaexpress.com/stories/news/2020/jan/07/directorial-debut-of-dileeps-brother-titled-thattassery-koottam-16413.amp Kjsarat (talk) 16:27, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In that case I would also like to know in what grounds was the below mentioned Wikipedia page for “ Nancy Rani” the upcoming unreleased film made? Because as you’ld said, the the film was not released nor is the production has a Notable wikipedia page https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Rani Kjsarat (talk) 16:32, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other pages do not matter in this discussion, especially since anyone can create a page! We are only talking about this article here. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:28, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

“Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. “ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graand_Production As per the rules, the Production is well famous and it has a Wikipedia Page of its own and if you could read this article, it clearly States Graand Production is Producing the film, Hence I request you to not to request the Article for deletion. I have already requested the deletion of the Draft, But I would like the article to be kept and in no means I was trying to promote this Page or article https://m.cinemaexpress.com/stories/news/2020/jan/07/directorial-debut-of-dileeps-brother-titled-thattassery-koottam-16413.amp
Comment - Note that the following discussion on my TP may be of interest. Giraffer (munch) 19:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kjsarat (talk) 18:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article does not establish its subject's notability – which is unsurprising, as the film hasn't been released yet. Once it's been released, reviews may establish notability. Maproom (talk) 19:48, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As the nominator, I would concur with a close of Draftify, leaving the page in draft space until the film is released. At the time that I nominated it for deletion, the film was in both article space and draft space, but belonged in draft space. It was then deleted from draft space, probably because the originator mistakenly requested its deletion. The other mistake by the originator was in copying it into article space in the first place. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:17, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - User:ThatMontrealIP - You have made a comment above, but you haven't !voted. Did you forget to say to Delete, or were you just commenting? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:17, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would be OK with delete or draftify, since at the moment it does not seem to have the SIGCOV required for notability. Also, who knows what might happen between now and its release!ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:12, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - I think draftifying is the best option. Work on it until it gets released, and then possibly move to mainspace. Giraffer (munch) 08:59, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify due to not being released with no obvious GNG pass yet Spiderone 19:18, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lamont Reese[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, and WP:CRIME. Inexpiable (talk) 15:57, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Inexpiable (talk) 15:57, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Inexpiable (talk) 15:57, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Inexpiable (talk) 15:57, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just a bunch of primary sources, if there's anything worth saving here it could be merged with an article on executions in Texas. -Indy beetle (talk) 16:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no justification for Wikipedia creating articles on every person executed in the United States since 1971 or so. This is one of the insane POV-pushing projects we have allowed to fester in Wikipedia for no justifiable reason at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:44, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Birdsong, Missouri[edit]

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

Another GNIS error. GNIS states that it is census coded as U6, but when you look up the census codes, U6 is equivalent to a "locality point", which also includes airports, post offices, and health care facilities, none of which would get the WP:GEOLAND free pass. State Historic Society calls it a post office next to someone's farm. Not on the 1886 topo. 1939 topo shows two buildings at a crossroads. By 1991, there's only one building here. Best Gbooks mention I can find is a namedrop. Fairly clear this was a minor fourth-class post office, and while the name stuck around locally, this was never the sort of legally recognized community that would pass WP:GEOLAND, and it fails WP:GNG as well. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:49, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:49, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:49, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete I couldn't find anything that said there was anything here beyond the post office. Mangoe (talk) 21:31, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify. There is a general sense that the topic may be notable but should be rewritten/salvaged/or split before being mainspaced. Opinions differ on whether TNT and the like appliy here, but most people agree that it should not be in the mainspace as is. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Berber separatism in North Africa[edit]

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

The article is complete nonsense masquerading as a real article while having both WP:SYNTH and WP:OR problems. Characterising normal anti-colonial wars/battles, normal political struggles and normal political protests as seperatism is pushing a far-fetched POV. I can't find in any of these sources a clear mention of "Berber separtist/separtism" or "It started to make an ethnonationalist Berber country", etc. Nothing just tribes fighting colonial forces or cultural activists protesting against their countries (for linguistic and cultural rights). The only separtist movement in this article is the National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad who founded a short-lived state from 2012 to 2013. TheseusHeLl (talk) 05:05, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. TheseusHeLl (talk) 05:05, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. TheseusHeLl (talk) 05:05, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Quite a few of the issues appear to be dealt with in Berberism. —Brigade Piron (talk) 12:36, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 14:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 14:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Libya-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 14:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a massive content fork presenting 100 years of sporadic Berber rebellions against large numbers of different governments as some sort of grand struggle for Berber independence, clearly original research and synthesis. Zoozaz1 (talk) 01:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or alternative possibility Split into three articles (while keeping Berber separatism in North Africa as short overview/disambiguation page or merging into Berberism) - though i'm also the author of this page, let's use logic to decide whether this is a "nonsense" or an actual topic, which is differing enough from Berberism to have its own page.

First of all, Berberism page is about ethnic/sectarian nationalism, this being parallel to Kurdish nationalism, Assyrian nationalism, Sahrawi nationalism. Those three other examples also have related, often prolonged violent conflicts, associated with nationalism. In Kurdish case, there are three notable conflicts - Kurdish separatism in Iran, Kurdish rebellions in Turkey and Iraqi–Kurdish conflict; In Assyrian case, we have Assyrian genocide and Simele massacre; In Sahrawi case, we have a single prolonged conflict - Western Sahara conflict. Using those examples we can see three main arenas for prolonged Berber/Amazign separatist struggles:

- Rif Conflict in French and modern Morocco By Riffian people (from 1920 Rif War up to modern to Hirak Rif Movement);

- Geographically sporadic Tuareg rebellions by nomad/semi-settled Tuareg people communities across most North-Western Africa from 1916;

- Kabylie Conflict in Kabylie, Algeria, initiated in 1963 by Kabyle-dominated Socialist Forces Front and restarted from 1980s by Movement for the Autonomy of Kabylie (the Berber Spring, the Black Spring (Algeria) and minor more recent events);

Secondly, is there an reliable source for grouping those three military/political struggles into a single topic and is this notable per WP guidelines? The answer here is purely technical: the Economist claims so and we have research on this topic in the academic (see Contested identities: Berbers, ‘Berberism’ and the state in North Africa,North Africa’s ‘Berber question’) and general literature (see The Berber Cultural Movement in the Maghreb: Contemporary Issues in Transnationalism);
Thirdly, is there a violent and notable Berber separatism movement to execute Berber nationalism? The answer is clearly yes - there are three such nationalist, and often clearly separatist, movements;

Given above explanations, I would suggest creating two new articles Rif Conflict and Kabylie Conflict about specific Berber conflicts (in addition to Tuareg rebellions page, which is to be expanded into full article) in any case, whatever the community consensus on the discussed article in this thread.GreyShark (dibra) 08:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greyshark09, I'm not opposed to splitting the material, as I think that could solve the issue of presenting it as one long struggle, but a problem is that much (not all) of the material is a content fork from articles that already exist. Zoozaz1 (talk) 13:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Again, you're pushing a "separtist" view of cultural/ethnic nationalism and anti-colonial struggles.

1."First of all, Berberism page is about ethnic/sectarian nationalism, this being parallel to Kurdish nationalism, Assyrian nationalism, Sahrawi nationalism." Well that's your POV. We should never never equate nationalist movements with each other. It's wp:or and nonsense. Berberism =/= Arab nationalism, Assyrian nationalism =/= Slavic nationalism, Kurdish nationalism =/= Assyrian nationalism =/= Sahrawi nationalism =/= Berberism =/= Arab nationalism..... We're not here to make new concepts and synthesize different ideologies in a single one.

"Using those examples we can see three main arenas for prolonged Berber/Amazign separatist struggles:" That's the problem you're using hints of nationalism and some separtist movements as a basis for a wide multi-faceted permanent separtist struggle that started from the times of "Tuareg guerrillas". Any reliable sources where an author is clearly connecting these wide ranged topics as a single struggle?

"Rif Conflict in French and modern Morocco By Riffian people (from 1920 Rif War up to modern to Hirak Rif Movement)" Any sources that connect these different struggles/anti-colonial war in a single separtist movement?

"Geographically sporadic Tuareg rebellions by nomad/semi-settled Tuareg people communities across most North-Western Africa from 1916;" Any sources that connect these different struggles/anti-colonial war in a single separtiist movement? (why not create an article about Tuareg nationalism?)

"Kabylie Conflict in Kabylie, Algeria, initiated in 1963 by Kabyle-dominated Socialist Forces Front and restarted from 1980s by Movement for the Autonomy of Kabylie (the Berber Spring, the Black Spring (Algeria) and minor more recent events);" Any sources that connect these different struggles/anti-colonial war in a single separtist movement? (you can develop the already existing article Kabylism)

2."Secondly, is there an reliable source for grouping those three military/political struggles into a single topic and is this notable per WP guidelines? The answer here is purely technical" It shouldn't be "purely technical". Do you really have a source that connects all of these movements/guerrilas/anti-colonial groups and says that they're all a single "Berber separtist" movement?

see Contested identities: Berbers, ‘Berberism’ and the state in North Africa,North Africa’s ‘Berber question’) Where is "Separtist" or "Separtism" in the work? I can't find a single word about Separtism in the work.

"see The Berber Cultural Movement in the Maghreb: Contemporary Issues in Transnationalism);" Can you point where "Separtism" is mentioned in the chapter?

3."Thirdly, is there a violent and notable Berber separatism movement to execute Berber nationalism? The answer is clearly yes - there are three such nationalist, and often clearly separatist, movements;" That's true but why creating a WP:OR non-WP:STICKTOSOURCE article with copied material instead of expanding the already existing articles (Berberism, Kabylism) -TheseusHeLl (talk) 17:42, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confused. I know that the question is not strictly relevant to whether this should be deleted, but I find it difficult to proceed with looking for sources if it isn't answered. Why "in North Africa"? Does Berber separatism (or indeed a significant population of Berbers) exist anywhere else? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:59, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually yes, there is a large Berber diaspora community in Europe and there is a mixed Berber-European ethnic heritage in the Canary Islands.GreyShark (dibra) 10:01, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is an argumentative essay with OR issues, and needs to be nuked from orbit. There may very well be a notable topic regarding Berber separatism, but in order for a good article on that to be written this needs to be removed. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:21, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:28, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft to facilitate breaking out sub-articles from salvageable materials in the article. BD2412 T 00:53, 21 September 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 Open Source Physics. Sandstein 10:24, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tracker (video analysis software)[edit]

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

Product page for software. Fails WP:NPRODUCT Graywalls (talk) 00:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 00:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 00:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 00:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's been referenced in a couple of papers. That tiny drop of notability makes me want to give it the benefit of the doubt. MarylandGeoffrey (talk) 02:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- comment in which papers did you see this product being discussed in great depth? Graywalls (talk) 03:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge verifiable content into Open_Source_Physics#Sub-projects, where it is mentioned. Tracker itself has coverage in several books and papers [28], [29], [30],[31]. There is probably enough depth for marginal notability, and keep is a reasonable outcome. But if the consensus is that it doesn't reach GNG, there is still plenty of verifiable material. Our policy WP:ATD states that if possible, verifiable material should be preserved, not deleted. In this case,Open Source Physics is a notable project, having won significant awards, and Tracker is one of its main subprojects, so a selective merge and redirect is a reasonable alternative. Outright deletion goes against policy and is the wrong outcome in this instance. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 03:50, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 10:21, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:28, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect into Open Source Physics - while the sources fall short of GNG, the content seems generally rescuable and, per Mark viking, seems a good fit for that target. — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:20, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny (The Room)[edit]

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

Not nearly enough in-depth coverage from reliable, independent sourcing to show real world notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:12, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:24, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unnecessary article split. There's not enough to establish independent notability, and everything about the character directly is tied to the film anyway. TTN (talk) 15:19, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This page does not really have any reliable or noteworthy sources. I also agree that it does not establish notability. Cardei012597 (talk) 06:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is a reception, but it seems to be based on very niche source that do not discuss this character in depth. I'd suggest merging the reception (minus the OR claim that all reviews were negative) to the article about the film then redirect or just delete this as an unlikely search term. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:44, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Piotrus. The current reception isn't really up to standards, as the sources aren't reliable, and the coverage isn't really WP:SIGCOV as described in our WP:GNG. A lot of this is already duplicated at the article about the film itself. There isn't anything to support a stand alone article. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:40, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:46, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Netsurf Network[edit]

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

Trivial coverage in investor news, all their so-called 'research' has been published in predatory journals. No notability, sources all or nearly all trace back to parroting company claims. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 10:19, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Most of the sources in the article are reliable. I also found a few more reliable sources which talk about the activities of the company: [32], [33], [34] and [35]. It only needs some expansion. Other than that, the article is good enough to pass WP:NCORP. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 13:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most such "reliable" sources are trivial (the company exists, it made money) the others simply parrot PR aimed for investors. There is no significant coverage. This is not a notable company. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:42, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, basing your !vote on "reliable sources" isn't a valid reason. Mostly, we assume the sources are reliable, as a given. We need to read the references to check that they have in-depth detail on the company as per WP:CORPDEPTH and the ask ourselves if the reference contains "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND. Had you done that, you would see that none of those references meet the criteria as they're rehashed company announcements and therefore clearly fail ORGIND.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:28, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a single reference (including the ones posted above) meets the criteria for establishing notability and I'm unable to locate and references that do. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion nor is it a Yellow Pages. Topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:54, 16 September 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 Corruption. There is a very strong consensus that this article is unsuitable in its current state, but several participants feel that some parts of it are sourced and potentially salvageable to incorporate into another article. I have redirected it, with history intact, to Corruption as suggested in the discussion - if anyone wishes to incorporate some of it into that or another article, they are free to do so. ~ mazca ^talk 12:15, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Corruption and state capture in the telecommunications sector in transition countries[edit]

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

The article seems to be an essay (on an oddly specific topic), and not something suitable for an encyclopedia. It is not well cited, and lacks sufficient context clarifying what its topic is. Noahfgodard (talk) 18:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I agree that the article lacks sufficient context clarifying what its topic is which makes it difficult to evaluate or improve. But I don't think this is not a valid reason for deletion. A case for deletion could be made under WP:GNG with sufficient analysis of the sources. Of the existing sources, it seems like the Wayne Law Review article is the only one that directly addresses the topic; the rest either address corruption generally or are news articles on specific events. I am not qualified to perform a search for more sources in this domain; the onus kinda falls on the nominator to carry out WP:BEFORE part D.
Alternatively, it could be argued this is a spin-out of the main Corruption article. In that case, the lack of context would probably suffice to merge.BenKuykendall (talk) 17:42, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would support a Merge to Corruption given the lack of context, if no consensus is reached to delete. Noahfgodard (talk) 17:54, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify my stance, my preference is Delete as nom. Noahfgodard (talk) 16:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:09, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a case of WP:TNT IMO (also per WP:NOTESSAY). A merge to corruption or a related article would require massive work akin to a total rewrite, even if there is some usable content hidden in there. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Corruption. Notable but unclear subject which will require some serious editing. Should merge for now. Lorstaking 13:14, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing of value worth keeping Spiderone 23:07, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge There's two items of use in here: the "case studies", regarding TeliaSonera (quite well sourced) and Magyar Telekom (less so - only one source). Both of these could profitably be used to expand the "Controversies" sections in the respective company articles. As for the rest, it's a superfluous and undersourced framework that doesn't add any real value. Salvage those bits then delete. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:51, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there anything worth merging? Consensus is divided, but there's little support for outright keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:27, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We are not a hosting service for argumentative essays. -Indy beetle (talk) 16:38, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what is worth merging, has sources or can be salvaged in some way, and dispose of the rest. Once the WP:OR and essay-like parts have been excised from the article, not much will be left in it in any case. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:34, 13 September 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. ‑Scottywong | [express] || 03:57, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wode Maya[edit]

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

Non notable youtuber that fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT. In addition, the only sources I could find were unreliable (blogs and YouTube). Eternal Shadow Talk 23:35, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Eternal Shadow Talk 23:35, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Eternal Shadow Talk 23:35, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

meets Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies, discussion

Hello @DESiegel: Thank you for giving this page a chance. I have now expanded it.

Mainstream secondary sources like the Guardian^[1], China Radio International^[2], Taiwan News^[3], France 24^[4] mention Wode Maya in a non trivial way. In summary he is so notable that there is media coverage of his vlogging from Africa, Asia and Europe from at least 6 different countries ^[4]^[3]^[2]^[1]^[5]^[6]. All these references and more are cited. Ear-phone (talk) 23:38, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am planning to remove the current tag on the article.

I would like to mention that @Yamla: involved in my block, which the Wikimedia Foundation found to have unusual circumstances, tagged this article for speedy deletion.

@I JethroBT (WMF): @5 albert square: @Foxnpichu: @Flixtey: @Evolution and evolvability: @Fsmatovu: @Sandra Aceng: @Joy Agyepong: @Bobbyshabangu: @Pgallert: @Islahaddow: @DNdubane (WMF): - your views are welcome.

References

^ ^a ^b Pai, Hsiao-Hung (2020-04-25). "The coronavirus crisis has exposed China's long history of racism | Hsiao-Hung Pai". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2020-08-18.
^ ^a ^b "Wode Maya". chinaplus.cri.cn. Retrieved 2020-08-18.
^ ^a ^b News, Taiwan. "African diplomats in China protest against racial discrimination". Taiwan News. Retrieved 2020-08-18. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)
^ ^a ^b "En Chine, le business de vidéos d'enfants africains prospère". Les Observateurs de France 24 (in French). Retrieved 2020-08-18.
^ "Video | Wode Maya Shows The Best of Joburg". EBNewsDaily. 2020-02-19. Retrieved 2020-08-18.
^ Crabbe, Nathaniel (2019-12-27). "Ghanaian vlogger Wode Maya buys new car for mum as Christmas gift in video". Yen.com.gh - Ghana news. Retrieved 2020-08-18.

I'm not hugely knowledgeable about these things, but I'd like to note more broadly that he's one of the most subscribed Ghanaian youtubers and that we currently do a relatively poor job of covering those who are famous outside of the USA (note on wikiproject youtube). T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 00:44, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I can't comment on these matters in my official capacity as a staff member-- please be sure to ping my volunteer account (I JethroBT (talk · contribs)) in the future regarding editorial questions. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 03:35, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now on my volunteer account. Here are a few remarks I'd like to make:

Coverage of vloggers is generally very limited in reliable sources, and as Evolution and evolvability notes, it is even harder to find coverage for vloggers outside the U.S. in reputable sources, so it is exceedingly difficult for them to meet the threshold for biographies.
The current set of sources focus more on Maya's video content and do not discuss a lot of biographical content about him, so it is challenging to write a lot that would be typical for other biographies. The China PLUS. Les Observateurs and YEN articles are probably the best sources of biographical content here (such as about his hometown). Some of that can be used to fill out the article a bit more, and I think the notice can be removed. Overall, I think these articles provide just enough coverage to meet the general notability guideline.
It would be helpful to identify more sources that discuss his popularity in greater detail, especially ones that more definitively discuss his popularity as a YouTuber based in Ghana. I remmeber doing a search for these sometime ago, but wasn't able to find anything. Maybe that has changed if Maya has continued to produce videos?

I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 04:20, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @I JethroBT:. I have expanded the page with your suggestions i.e. including his home town & specific mention of popularity as per China PLUS & YEN. It seems as creator of the page I am not permitted to remove the tag? Please help @DESiegel:. Yes, he is still producing videos. Ear-phone (talk) 09:20, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ear-phone - Long time no see. Thanks for pinging me. Generally speaking, I'd say he doesn't seem too notable on common grounds, but he might be notable based on the fact that he ois one of the most popular internet personalities in a country where there are hardly any. That is just my view, however. Foxnpichu (talk) 10:55, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Foxnpichu - Long time indeed. Thank you for your comment. Ear-phone (talk) 13:51, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ear-phone It seems to me that the notability of Wode Maya, as demonstrated by the current state of the article, is at best marginal. That is, of course, not considering any sources which may exist but have not yet been cited here. I tend to agree with Foxnpichu and JethroBT above. Of the current sources:
- The Guardian piece mentions him only in passing and does not contribute to notability at all.
- The China Plus piece appears to be a site that is displaying at least one of his videos, and so does not seem to be independent. Notability must be based on independent sources as a rule. Even if this is considered independent, there are only a few lines about Wode Maya and it might not amount to significant coverage.
- The Taiwan News. piece does not so much as mention his name. No value for notability.
- The piece from Les Observateurs de France 24 is interesting. But it is primarily about the racist video which Wode Maya was criticizing and who might have made it. There is little about Maya's own video, and less about Maya himself. Still this is of some value. (Note, my French is quite rusty, and I used Google Translate on this piece, with all the limitations of machine translation.)
- The EB News Daily. piece is hardly more than a passing mention, surely not significant coverage.
- The Ghana news piece seems to me to be trivial coverage. Yes it is of significant length, and is all about Maya, but it really says only that he bought his mother a car out of his earnings, and publicized the event in video. I am not sure that this counts as significant coverage. Even if it does I am not seeing the multiple independent sources, each with significant coverage, that the WP:GNG requires.

Thus I don't think notability is clearly established here. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:25, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @DESiegel:. I am writing a response detailing reasons as I do not agree with you. 17:28, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning with the Ghana News^[1] article you write, "seems to me to be trivial coverage". Wode Maya is so popular that 'trivial' things he does like purchasing a car for his Mum makes mainstream news. The article is titled - "Popular Ghanaian vlogger Wode Maya buys....". This establishes his popularity in Ghana and as you write, the article "...is of significant length, and is all about Maya,...".

The China Plus^[2] article which is part of China Radio International, writes "Ghanaian Vlogger Wode Maya has had his videos about life in China go viral, receiving millions of hits from fans around the world." Once again the popularity aspect is noted, "...his immensely popular Youtube channel..." The principle modality for radio is audio and yes, there are relatively few written lines, but 25 minutes of audio. Mass media is not restricted to written words. Now, there is independent mainstream news of his popularity from two different countries on two different continents.^[1]^[2]

Yes, Taiwan News^[3] does not mention Maya's name in writing, however his YouTube video is the centre piece audiovisual for that article. There was no need to mention his name, in writing because it is presented via audio and as often happens with notable/popular people, they do not need to be mentioned by name in writing, their identity being revealed by other means.

For the France 24^[4] article, you write "Note, my French is quite rusty, and I used Google Translate on this piece, with all the limitations of machine translation". Therefore, you may not be able to adequately assess this source. Nonetheless, if a notable/popular personality criticises something, it is not unusual for their criticism to reach mainstream news like it has for Maya.

You write that The Guardian^[5] and EB News Daily^[6] are passing mention pieces. Both these mainstream news sources, not originating from Maya's home country find it necessary to include Maya's perspective, precisely because he is notable.

Finally there is skewed geographic coverage of YouTubers - List of YouTubers. The Wikimedia Foundation in its statement on 3 June 2020 states, "Building power, relationships, and resources to advance epistemic justice and redress the exclusion and omission of Black, indigenous, and communities of color within knowledge systems in general and the Wikimedia projects specifically."

I therefore do not agree that Wode Maya is not notable for English Wikipedia. Ear-phone (talk) 22:44, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ ^a ^b Crabbe, Nathaniel (2019-12-27). "Ghanaian vlogger Wode Maya buys new car for mum as Christmas gift in video". Yen.com.gh - Ghana news. Retrieved 2020-08-19.
^ ^a ^b "Wode Maya". chinaplus.cri.cn. Retrieved 2020-08-19.
^ News, Taiwan. "African diplomats in China protest against racial discrimination". Taiwan News. Retrieved 2020-08-19. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)
^ "En Chine, le business de vidéos d'enfants africains prospère". Les Observateurs de France 24 (in French). Retrieved 2020-08-19.
^ "The coronavirus crisis has exposed China's long history of racism | Hsiao-Hung Pai". the Guardian. 2020-04-25. Retrieved 2020-08-19.
^ "Video | Wode Maya Shows The Best of Joburg". EBNewsDaily. 2020-02-19. Retrieved 2020-08-19.

Just saying, that Ghana News appears to be what I like to call gossip sites, which always go on about trivial things random people do, similar to stuff like the Daily Mail. Foxnpichu (talk) 23:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Ghana’s authoritative news website, YEN.com.gh (Ghana News), has been adjudged the Best Online News Portal at the 2019 National Communications Awards held at the Export Trade House in Accra on Saturday, November 10, 2019. Read more: https://yen.com.gh/137415-yen-gh-named-news-website-ghana-national-communications-awards-2019.html"^[1]

"What great ones do the less will prattle of" from Twelfth Night by William Shakespeare. Ultimately Wode Maya is notable and popular as mentioned in global mainstream news - regardless of whether English Wikipedia chooses to recognise this or not. The real issue is Wikipedia:Systemic bias. Besides Wode Maya, there is currently not a single Black African YouTuber from sub-Saharan Africa here - List of YouTubers, which shows undue under representation. Ear-phone (talk) 09:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Aryee, Naa Ayeley (2019-11-14). "YEN.com.gh named best news website in Ghana at NCA awards 2019". Yen.com.gh - Ghana news. Retrieved 2020-08-22.

Hello @Eternal Shadow:

Wode Maya does not fail WP:GNG (see the above cited multiple reliable independent - not produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it - mainstream media mentions, etc). WP:GNG states, "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, ..."

WP:ENT states:

1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.

2. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.

3. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

For 1, YouTubers like Wode Maya, would fall under other productions and would not be required to be in films, television shows, etc. For 2, a large fan base is present. For 3, this is satisfied because Wode Maya has made unique, prolific contributions. YouTube is not only an entertainment site, it is possible to have education content and so on. So WP:ENT might not even be the appropriate criterion for YouTubers. However Wode Maya still meets it.

Ear-phone (talk) 01:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ear-phone, there have been YouTubers with 5x larger fanbases have their pages get deleted, so “large fan base” does not seem to be present. Eternal Shadow Talk 20:58, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eternal Shadow, to directly quote once again as above from a reliable secondary source (cited earlier):

The China Plus^[1] article which is part of China Radio International, writes "Ghanaian Vlogger Wode Maya has had his videos about life in China go viral, receiving millions of hits from fans around the world." The reliable secondary source proves definitively that Maya has a large global fan base. That is sufficient. However, following your contentious logic, there are YouTubers with a lower number of fans/subscribers and total views that are deemed notable by Wikipedia and have a page on this site. Ear-phone (talk) 22:38, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Wode Maya". chinaplus.cri.cn. Retrieved 2020-08-19.

Ear-phone, the problem here is less of the size of the fan base and more about the sources. The fact that there are sources from somewhat major reliable sources makes this borderline. Eternal Shadow Talk 16:33, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eternal Shadow - being repetitive, as above, it's reliable sources not major sources. Nonetheless, Maya's sources are major. There is clear cut notability. The above reliable sources speak for themselves. Ear-phone (talk) 21:43, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ear-phone, I recommend we both let other users render their judgements. Note that YouTube is not a reliable source. Eternal Shadow Talk 16:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eternal Shadow, I have not attempted or wish to prevent other users from commenting or rendering their judgement. I am fully aware that YouTube itself is not typically considered a reliable source. None of the above references cite YouTube. Ear-phone (talk) 16:56, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ear-phone, the 6th citation in the article is from YouTube. I am just trying to suggest ways to improve the article. Eternal Shadow Talk 16:59, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eternal Shadow. No, you are trying to get the article deleted. I am fully aware that the 6th citation in the article cites YouTube. Here is the context and exact sentence. "He joined YouTube on January 10, 2013.^[1]" The YouTuber Marques Brownlee has this sentence which cites YouTube, "Brownlee joined YouTube on March 21, 2008.^[2]" YouTube is a reliable source for when YouTubers joined YouTube. This use is completely appropriate. Ear-phone (talk) 17:22, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Wode Maya: About". YouTube.
^ "Marques Brownlee: About". YouTube.

Ear-phone If the community decides that this is notable, then I am fine with that. There are too many close calls under guidelines. Example: Overall, I think these articles provide just enough coverage to meet the general notability guideline. I recommend that more sources be added and the article is expanded, as that will indicate a full pass of notability guidelines. Eternal Shadow Talk 18:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eternal Shadow, the article already meets the notability guidelines fully as indicated and sourced above. Ear-phone (talk) 18:09, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would benefit from discussion of uninvolved users, particularly from some concise !votes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:25, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Would note the utility and usefulness of the article. As an uninvolved observer, and having been recommended and having enjoyed Wode's videos, I personally sought out further information about him and was pleased to see that an article existed. I'm convinced of notability and sufficiency of sources re: above. Rowd149 (talk) 00:27, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, as written. No objection to draftification if it is expected that the article can be expanded and improved in the future. BD2412 T 00:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Where reasonable counter-arguments to the nomination have been raised in the discussion, you may wish to explain how you justify your support in your own words and, where possible, marshalling your own evidence. Stating your true position in your own words will also assure others that you are not hiding a WP:IDONTLIKEIT or WP:ILIKEIT position." Ear-phone (talk) 22:43, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Having noted the truly massive WP:BLUDGEONing of this argument that verges on tendentious editing I'm going to request in advance that any response to this !vote does not repeat sources or arguments given above. I have read the arguments and the cited articles and find them almost wholly without merit. They betray a fundamental misunderstanding of the notability criteria or the reasons this community established them in the first place: popularity is not notability. At very best, the sources demonstrate that this is a YouTuber who has accumulated a (in the context of YouTube) rather modest profile. At worst, the arguments in favor are variations on WP:ILIKEIT camouflaged in distracting and irrelevant sources or language. There is nothing demonstrated in any of the sources that rises to the level of significant coverage that this project expects. Perhaps this would be better-placed on the Chinese or Ghanian Wikis. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 17:46, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Galen Fott[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to quite meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR, award nominations fall short of WP:ANYBIO. The one piece of significant coverage is this piece in a magazine of unclear reliability (they don't appear to publish any editorial information). Other than that, there's some brief mentions in local theater reviews [36], [37], but I think we're short of GNG. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I wrote the article on Galen Fott, whom I met at the Nashville Film Festival in 2018 where one of his films was screened. I thought he merited an article, and my research has borne this out.

You question the reliability of Nashville Arts Magazine. It ceased publication in 2018, but was a glossy monthly print magazine edited by Paul Polycarpou. I changed the reference in the article so that it links to the Issuu PDF version of the issue, which includes the magazine's masthead on page 6.

Weston Woods animated films are definitely notable (one was Oscar-nominated), and Fott is one of their leading director/animators. Weston Woods films merit a lengthy essay in Giannalberto Bendazzi's three-volume book Animation: A World History, in which Fott is mentioned. Fott's work is also discussed in John Cech's book on Weston Woods, which is already referenced in the article.

The San Francisco International Film Festival is unquestionably one of the most important in the US, and Fott has been nominated for their Golden Gate Award three times (other links now added to article). At WorldFest-Houston, Fott has been awarded nine Remi Awards over his career. (Their website is now under construction, but when I wrote the article the information was there in Excel spreadsheet format.)

As an actor, Fott was interviewed and quoted for over two paragraphs in the September 28, 2016 edition of the Robertson County Times (newspapers.com link added to the article). Many other theatre review mentions appear on newspapers.com . As my article already mentioned, in 1991 Fott originated the role of Gaston in the Beauty and the Beast show at Disney World, which has proven so popular it is still running (COVID-19 notwithstanding).

It seems to me Fott was already covered significantly in several independent, reliable sources, especially when considering that he doesn't need to be the main topic of the material, as the GNG makes clear. I have now added more independent, reliable sources to the article. I hope this helps bolster the case for the article's inclusion. KarlenP (talk) 03:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added another link to an article solely about Fott from the Nashville Scene, a weekly print publication. Editorial staff here. KarlenP (talk) 23:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:16, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think that the ArtsNash article, the Nashville Arts magazine and the Nashville Scene article are enough to demonstrate notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 17:14, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we have a notable person here who passes WP:GNG. The intro may need a rewrite to be more specific rather than the word "numerous" which sounds ambiguous and mildly promotional. Wm335td (talk) 19:30, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was ~~keep~~ no consensus. General consensus after two relists despite low participation. Post closure comment- IMO this shouldn't have been nominated if there was an active merge proposal on the article.(non-admin closure) Nightfury 20:53, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Qualified Mental Retardation Professional[edit]

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

WP:NOTEVERYTHING applies here. Does not meet WP:GNG. // Timothy :: talk 00:51, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 00:51, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:01, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep - seems to meet the notability guidelines. Trying to reconnect (talk) 21:00, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Talk:Qualified_Intellectual_Disability_Professional#Proposed_merge_of_Qualified_Mental_Retardation_Professional_into_Qualified_Intellectual_Disability_Professional -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:32, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Both articles have been nominated for deletion based on not meeting WP:GNG and WP:NOTEVERYTHING.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:11, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. What a barbaric, stupid proposal. No case is made for this term failing the GNG, and none can be made. This is a standard, well-documented term. Now while some editors may believe that an encyclopedia is not the place to provide accurate, useful information to parents and family members trying to deal with the many problems of intellectually disabled children and adults, as opposed to the core encyclopedic function of presenting semifictional promotional biographies of professional wrestlers, I do not. And I have no respect for the opinion of those who do. Merger appears appropriate, but should not be discussed in the deletion context. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 18:03, 16 September 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 02:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vollee[edit]

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

Not notable (contested speedy). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:03, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unless better coverage is found, fails WP:NCOMPANY = WP:CORPSPAM. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:17, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:03, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:48, 16 September 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. BD2412 T 00:44, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kiev Fashion Park[edit]

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

No claim to any notability. Fails WP:N. Deleted in Russian Wikipedia. Mitte27 (talk) 13:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 13:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:16, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:16, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see some sources in what is presumably Ukrainian, but cannot read them and do not know the quality of the publications. The current article is terrible. The image gallery consists of 3D renders. However, the organization's web site suggests they have installed a lot of public art around Kiev so it may be notable.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:21, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this isn't an actual park, which would be covered by WP:NGEO, but an organization, to which WP:NORG applies. Since we have no sources at all, it is not notable. Vexations (talk) 17:34, 15 September 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. General consensus. (non-admin closure) Nightfury 20:55, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely Memory[edit]

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

Non notable film, nothing found to support it's notability claim in a WP:BEFORE except film database sites. PROD removed because of "Notable actors, notable director, notable production company Suevia Films (etc.)", but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:29, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:29, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:29, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:29, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My search found no significant coverage, and there's no indication how this would meet WP:NFILM. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What about the sources in the article? czar 05:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would like further views on czar's question
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:42, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Of the sources in the article, two are on Google Books: [38] (passing-ish mention), [39] (same). The most in-depth sources I found were [40] and [41] (a very retrospective review in El País). There's also [42], which is decent but not fantastic. There are some passing mentions elsewhere too. There's not a huge quantity of in-depth coverage, but just enough for NFILM/GNG, it seems. If this is kept, I'd suggest moving to Bello recuerdo because I don't think it's really ever known by the English title. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, if the article is kept, it should stay under the English title per WP:NCFILM, which says if the film has an English title (which this does), it should "Use the title more commonly recognized by English readers" Donaldd23 (talk) 00:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is it relevant that the film was not released or distributed under the English title? I couldn't really find anything under "Lovely Memory", though maybe I missed something. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:32, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the multiple reliable sources coverage identified above that show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:44, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AleatoryPonderings' sources. — Toughpigs (talk) 04:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AleatoryPonderings' sources, I will also add this is a film by a notable director starring notable actors.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 09:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Line of succession to the former Mecklenburg thrones[edit]

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

Precedent is now in favour of deleting articles about lines of succession to thrones which no longer exist. PatGallacher (talk) 11:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the nominator alludes to, 39 lines of succession to defunct thrones have been deleted recently (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39). WP:CONSENSUS is clear that we don't want lines of succession that are a century out of date because the thrones are defunct (or even just over a decade out of date, as in the case of Nepal). This is not fixable by adding the "current line of succession"; if it were added, WP:DELREASON#6 would apply: Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes). It is impossible to attribute the current lines of succession to these thrones to WP:RELIABLE sources, because there are no current lines of succession, because the Grand Duchies themselves don't even exist anymore. See also WP:NOTGENEALOGY. TompaDompa (talk) 13:06, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a subpolity that was dissolved in 1918 alongside the abolition all official royal titles in Germany. The (poorly-sourced) fact that other rulers of defunct monarchies also recognized its post-1918 nobility at some point is irrelevant; it is no longer extant and therefore no longer has a verifiable line of succession. The succession in 1918 is covered in various Mecklenberg articles and so is an unnecessary fork. JoelleJay (talk) 15:59, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Wilhelm of Hesse-Philippsthal-Barchfeld[edit]

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

Obscure person, he was never head of this rather minor aristocratic house, nobility in Germany was abolished while he was still a child, his SS rank was equivalent to captain and therefore not inherently notable. PatGallacher (talk) 11:49, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:03, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:03, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A BEFORE only shows results in genealogical listings, no significant coverage; fails GNG. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:07, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete definitely does not meet WP:SOLDIER, not sure about on the basis of nobility, but does seem an obscure member of the line, and didn't become the Landgrave like his father and son. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:10, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I checked other language Wikipedia as well, however I found only this one. VocalIndia (talk) 13:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even more deposed monarchy cruft.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:48, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gbenga Sogbaike[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. Essentially all the same reference from the same announcement. CEO announcement is not-independent. scope_creep^Talk 11:47, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:03, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:03, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- merger of company and being named in a list of 100 people is not sufficient to establish notability. 1292simon (talk) 02:17, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Pretty much echoing both Scope_creep & 1292simon. I can’t see significant coverage anywhere. Celestina007 13:14, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "young x" lists, especially when they run to 100, are more indications the people so named might one day be notable not that they now are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:06, 18 September 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. Nomination withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GPD Win Max[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPRODUCT. No indication of notability. scope_creep^Talk 11:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:58, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:58, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:58, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Large Article Edit 2020/9/13

Removed all Youtube sources and corresponding sections
Removed portions of text that might be perceived as advertising
Replaced a primary source with a secondary source
Removed Specifications section and updated Infobox with any missing info

Roach360 (talk) 16:35, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 17:46, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think the updated sources are sufficient to demonstrate notability. original author --Roach360 (talk) 18:10, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep I doubt that the nominator performed WP:BEFORE at all, as it has numerous mentions in reliable sources. PC Gamer, VentureBeat and Rock Paper Shotgun are just the tip of the iceberg._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:02, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this is a marginal case, but I think that this is notable enough on its own to meet WP:NPRODUCT. There's no article on the manufacturer, so it's not suitable for merging, but there are sources that discuss this product specifically in depth. Particularly, both PC Gamer and VentureBeat are on WikiProject Video Games' reliable sources list, and the creator has given a solid rationale that this isn't a case where there's no hope of future expansion. Vahurzpu (talk) 19:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think we can close this for a keep, if nobody minds? scope_creep^Talk 06:53, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 17:48, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Karol Wolfram[edit]

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

Unreferenced article about Polish clergyman. Not obviously notable. Rathfelder (talk) 11:11, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 11:11, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 11:11, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:13, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until sources are found. Xxanthippe (talk) 12:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. I have cited some sources in the article, but have by no means exhausted what is available. I must add that the subject is certainly unusual (not that that necessarily equates to notability) in that he was a Protestant priest and academic in an overwhelmingly Catholic country that was under Communist rule for much of his career. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:41, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, being a minority somewhere is not that unusual. In fact, there were used to be sizable Protestant communities in heavily Germanized parts of Poland and Lithuania, dwindled during the post-WWII remapping of the Europe and population transfers. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:41, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Tentative delete~~ pending clarification whether the newly added sources do cover the subject in detail, not just refbombing with simple mentions (no disrespect to Phil, I often do the same as a quick defense at AfDs :-), but I usually try to expand quickly afterwards, or at leas promise to do this. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:41, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is significant coverage in the book by Krzysztof Jan Rej, with a biography of the subject on pages 187-188 (click "view all" here to see it). The coverage in the other sources is lesser. Phil Bridger (talk) 06:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
the book you found is a kinda who is who book of narrow interest and small publisher, of evangelist military priests (he was one for a short time), all of them of questionable notability, and I still still do not see him notable for wikipedia, being in not very high ranks. Staszek Lem (talk) 06:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-- there is also another book with his bio here: pl:Karol_Wolfram#Bibliografia. There would be more sources had not so many Polish protestants been relocated to Siberia, East Germany, or killed. Also see worldcat[43] for his works.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Source Phil found seems reliable ([44]) and in-depth, plus a bunch of mentions in passing, some possibly longer, but hard to verify due to Google Book snippets view. Not submitting to Polish Wikipedia AfD as being a professor gurantees notability on pl wiki (yes, our criteria are more strict). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:32, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is clear. I don't want to step too deeply into the notability divide, but participants voting to !keep appear to be finding sufficient strength of publication. BD2412 T 00:41, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Rice Camp[edit]

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

The subject is not eligible as notable per WP:NACADEMIC and WP:PROF. I could not find any significant publication, citation under his name as part of WP:BEFORE. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 11:07, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 11:07, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 11:07, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He does have some publications listed at Google Scholar, but do note there are multiple "PR Camp"s - the ones around 1960 about ice in particular are his though. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:46, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are some easy-to-find publications of his, all related to ice and ice growth, published when he was at his various institutions. See: https://www.nature.com/articles/200350a0, https://www.nature.com/articles/206495a0, https://erdc-library.erdc.dren.mil/jspui/handle/11681/5802, https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.1728003. -Raymond033 15:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Very~~ weak keep under #5 of WP:NACADEMIC, I'm not sure how notable chair (effectively head) of a Physics department is, but he did become "Distinguished Emeritus Professor". Number of citations appears to be fairly low though, unless I'm missing something. -Kj cheetham (talk) 22:20, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note...I would argue for Keep I have done work on the page to address concerns brought up. Camp is notable for his work in CRREL, and particularly so for his membership on the CCP and for his importance in establishing the PhD program and expanding physics education at the university. This is in addition to his ultimately being named a "Distinguished Emeritus Professor." Thanks Illyich40 (talk) 04:58, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- There is proof he worked at CRREL and served on CCP, but unless he was running them I don't see how that's sufficient to establish notability under WP:NACADEMIC. I can't see what his personal contributions were. Expanding the physics program at a single uni department isn't sufficient to establish notability either really. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:05, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reasons given above. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 06:48, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think "distinguished emeritus professor" is the kind of recognition for lifetime achievement that WP:PROF#C5 is asking for. As he retired in 1996, his work would largely fall in the pre-Internet era, and looking at citation numbers the way we do for currently-active researchers will probably not be very informative one way or the other. XOR'easter (talk) 18:14, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. His number of citations seems to be slightly below the bar, even considering his particular low-cited field. The title of "Distinguished Emeritus Professor" was not conferred by a particularly notable institution, and I did not find details on how the title was granted. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 19:53, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- complementing, I checked if he held any particularly notable position in any of the societies he had relations with (American Physical Society, American Association of Physics Teachers, and International Glaciological Society), but the answer is negative, so WP:NPROF#C3 does not apply. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 20:08, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:48, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fareed Khan (producer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:PRODUCER. References are passing mentions. scope_creep^Talk 11:04, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 11:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 11:38, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- as per nom. 1292simon (talk) 01:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 1292simon Don't you think the article is notable ?. I have cited and added the references as much as i can about him. The details i have added show the reliability and you will get the details of him when you google it! I have added a stub there because he is a notable producer but some little more informations are to be added. I think you will help to add more info to keep the article live. Thank You Ambili123 (talk) 16:38, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, personally I'm not seeing it. Which of the sources do you think shows that the notability requirement is met? 1292simon (talk) 21:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete the subject doesnt significant coverage in reliable sources, making him fail general notability criteria. The subject also fails WP:CREATIVE. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:22, 18 September 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) 13:10, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Grant (footballer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY, fails WP:GNG, a bit TOOSOON. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:49, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:49, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:49, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:49, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:33, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a non-notable footballer; fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY Spiderone 11:33, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete more of these NFOOTY-failing BLPs. Java Hurricane 11:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG AngusMEOW (chatter • paw trail) 15:25, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Creator of the page here. I believe this page should stay as it is maintained very regularly using trusted sources such as national Irish media RTE and regarded sporting outlets e.g. Extratime.ie. The page was made specifically for Daniel Grant as he is a rising star on the Republic of Ireland national under-21 football team and has also been recently named the League of Ireland Player of the Month. All of his stats are verified on sites such as soccerway and livescore and are used in conjunction with another project I've undertaken on Wikipedia for the past number of years, namely the current seasons of Bohemian Football Club. Thank you.

Fwaig (talk) 14:03, 12 September 2020 (UTC)Fwaig[reply]

A player being listed on Soccerway or their club website isn't generally considered to be evidence of notability. His Player of the Month award is the only thing that comes close to GNG being met but I don't think it's enough. There doesn't seem to be any significant coverage of him in mainstream media. As the nominator has pointed out, this is at best a case of WP:TOOSOON Spiderone 16:54, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:17, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:48, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The talking kitty cat series[edit]

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

Very very obviously not notable, fails WP:GNG by a long shot. All that I could find in my WP:BEFORE search was a single mention to this series in a report about the death of the series' creator. Java Hurricane 10:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 11:38, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 11:38, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It does have 10 million views on YouTube, indicating some notability, but it's not enough. Delete. Foxnpichu (talk) 16:08, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about the webseries aside from the death of the channel's owner, an indication of WP:BLP1E. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 06:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:49, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David John Henry Ingham Roper-Curzon[edit]

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

Somewhat over extensive genealogy, for an individual who had done nothing notable. This is not a proper use of WP. DGG ( talk ) 09:19, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED, references appear to be about people related to him, or are geneology listings. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why is it even here. Its like a note in the persons scrap book. scope_creep^Talk 00:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not supposed to be a genealogical site. No actual claim to notability for him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 17:49, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

History House Museum[edit]

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

References consist only of one paragraph in a local newspaper, plus 3 from its own web site or organization DGG ( talk ) 08:52, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:06, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:06, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moderate keep References consist of one paragraph in a local newspaper, one from its own web site, one from the district council, and one from the New Zealand museum network, as a quick check easily confirms. I've added one more. Grutness...wha? 05:11, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Poor form to nominate an article for deletion when it can be easily improved, especially if you have not taken any steps to improve it yourself as per WP:BEFORE. DrThneed (talk) 08:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that DrThneed (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]
Keep Local history and local sources can often be just local. Nonetheless, local museums are important. MargaretRDonald (talk) 22:40, 13 September 2020 (UTC)— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that MargaretRDonald (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]
Keep per WP:ITSAMUSEUM. We tend to keep articles on museums, because they're public attractions, and they tend to get coverage in newspapers and travel guides. I can't access the articles from the Greymouth Star that were added today; I assume the person who added them can. — Toughpigs (talk) 04:19, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 08:16, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Holmes (activist)[edit]

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

This article is about a member of the Workers World Party. Though he ran as the party's presidential nominee in U.S. presidential elections, there appears to be no significant coverage of him in independent reliable sources (the Workers World website is run by the WWP). A BEFORE search turned up nothing helpful. Happy to be proven wrong, but as far I can see the source material does not exist. Indy beetle (talk) 07:06, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:38, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People are not guaranteed Wikipedia articles just for being unsuccessful fringe party candidates for president — if the article could actually be reliably sourced over WP:GNG, then things might be different, but being a minor presidential candidate isn't "inherently" notable enough to justify leaning 100 per cent on his party's own self-published primary sourcing about itself. Bearcat (talk) 00:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being a high ranking member of a fringe party with no power and not even electoral impact in even a non-winning way is in no way a sign of notability at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:45, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 08:16, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Freeman[edit]

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

Vanity bio with no indication of notability per WP:BIO, WP:ACADEMIC, or WP:NSPORT for his work as a basketball chaplain. Sources are all primary or unreliable, apart from a NYT reference with a passing mention of his book, and I can see no significant coverage of him online in WP:RS. The notability of the award he's claimed unsourced to have won is unclear, and the only sources I can find for him winning it are his own website and other unreliable sources. Article creator blocked for undisclosed paid editing and probable sockpuppetry. Capewearer (talk) 06:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Capewearer (talk) 06:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:36, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:36, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, exists primarily for promotional purposes. Caro7200 (talk) 14:36, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable public speaker and "business coach".John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:22, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is clear, potential canvassing aside (given that canvassing can end up bringing delete voters to a discussion as readily as anyone else, and that no regular AfD participants saw fit to comment in favor of deletion). BD2412 T 00:37, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blackball Museum of Working Class History[edit]

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

The references consist only of two travel guides and two press releases. The coverage in each of the guides is only a single paragraph. It's already included in the article on the town. DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:36, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:36, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The exhibition is pretty clearly notable and has had extensive coverage in reliable sources in the ten years it's been up. None of the four West Coast newspapers are online, though, which makes it harder to immediately post references. I've been encouraging people to create stubs for West Coast institutions as part of the West Coast Wikipedian at Large project, and will be spending three days in Blackball in early October working with the creators of the museum and going through their file of media coverage. So if we can perhaps hold off until then it will save me having to create the article over again. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 08:58, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - We do not have a WP:CRYSTALBALL that will tell us that we will find sufficient media coverage of this museum in a file of print media. That said, the article, if found not to be notable here, it could be moved to draft space so that you could work on it and if its not notable then its much easier to delete from there. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:12, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ITSAMUSEUM. In addition to the travel guides, I added two references from the Christchurch Press about the funding and the museum's sponsorship of a memorial. ITSAMUSEUM says that in general, we keep articles on museums, because it's a public attraction and they tend to get coverage in travel books and newspapers. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Besides WP:ITSAMUSEUM, this is a locally significant place, as the place where a memorial to the miners lost in the Pike River Mine Disaster is sited. DrThneed (talk) 03:05, 13 September 2020 (UTC)— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that DrThneed (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]
- Comment If you look at the histories of the subject of this AfD, this page and DrThneed's talk page, you will find that DrThneed's edits took place on 13 Sep, while the alleged canvassing, actually a project update, was posted on 14 Sep. Oronsay (talk) 22:14, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I didn't have a strong opinion about this but now that the AfD for History House Museum has been closed as 'Keep', this article should be kept, as it is just as notable, if not more so, than History House Museum. That said, it's the content that is most important, whether it is in its own article or part of another. Nurg (talk) 22:49, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 08:16, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prime Suspects[edit]

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

Delete declined prod; completely unreferenced, and WP:BEFORE reveals no sources that rise to the level required by WP:NBAND. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:22, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:22, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:36, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Their album reached no. 36 on the Billboard 200 and 14 on the genre chart, which satisfies WP:NMUSIC, and sources for this are easy to find ([45], [46]). There are other sources which could be used in the article, e.g. [47], [48], and likely more in 1990s print sources. --Michig (talk) 09:45, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes criteria 2 of WP:NMUSIC with releases charting on a national chart as confirmed in reliable sources with other reliable sources coverage so deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:25, 13 September 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 Konstantin Kisin. Tone 08:17, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Triggernometry (podcast)[edit]

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

Triggernometry is a non-notable podcast. Three of the six sources are links to the podcast, the Telegraph article is not independent due to it being written by a guest of the podcast; the Express (article) is a non-reliable source; and the American Thinker appears unreliable. Further, none of these sources constitute significant coverage of the podcast itself, separate to the topic of the host, who may well merit his own article. Search for reliable and independent coverage has been fruitless, and there are clearly people invested in making this article worthy of remaining who have also failed to find significant sourcing.

As such, the article as it currently stands has been a mess of edit warring over opinions that can't be backed up by reliable sourcing, and only serves to advertise the podcast. If this podcast at some point in the future gains notability, it should certainly be restored, but very little information will be lost in its deletion now that could not be replaced at a future time. — Hazzzzzz12 (talk) 05:24, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The edit warring seems to have stopped. I think an understanding has been reached. — Jschanna7 (talk) 00:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Jschanna7: but I hope it’s clear that the issue with the page is less about warring and more that there is warring because sources are too scarce, and few statements (probably all true and good faith) can be backed up by editors. — Hazzzzzz12 (talk) 03:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Hazzzzzz12, hope you're well. It looks like Triggernometry has been reviewed in sources that Wikipedia regards as reliable, such as https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/revisionist-history-malcolm-gladwell-podcast-review-malcolm-gladwell-cvcbmmp3g. Does this now meet the criteria for Triggernometry to have its own wiki page? Jschanna7 (talk) 20:16, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources that are out there seem to focus more on the creator of the podcast or its guest stars, nothing is really about the work itself.★Trekker (talk) 13:47, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Konstantin Kisin: Barely found anything about the podcast. Sources in the article talk about the podcast's activities and not the podcast itself. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Konstantin Kisin. Podcasts can be difficult to write about because they don't get as much detailed attention in reliable sources as other forms of media such as film, television, or novels. That largely seems to be the issue here with passing mentions to the podcast in sources not doing enough to assert notability. Richard Nevell (talk) 17:13, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Barbera Hale Thornhill[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E currently applies. Suggest DRAFTIFY, in case she becomes ambassador soon and has notable events. 1292simon (talk) 02:06, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:11, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:11, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:19, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. She would pass WP:NPOL as an ambassador upon confirmation. As the nomination has been pending for almost a year, it seems unlikely that she'll be confirmed. Draftification seems like a reasonable solution, as we could pull it out of draft if confirmation ever happens. On the other hand, the article could (and likely would) just be recreated if she is confirmed, so deletion seems fine too. I'm pretty ambivalent. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:11, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per WP:OUTCOMES ‘Ambassadors are not considered inherently notable.’ Mccapra (talk) 04:16, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Bizarre! Granted, there's usually very little information about them, but still—you'd think that if we give state/provincial legislators a default pass, we should also give ambassadors one? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:19, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The main distinction is between elected office and appointment. Ambassadors can be notable, but just aren't inherently so. Mccapra (talk) 12:13, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many legislators aren't elected, either: British lords, Canadian senators, and Chinese politburo members, for example. Even though ambassadors act (theoretically) with the same power as the head of state, they usually attract much less attention from the media. pburka (talk) 12:25, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep There’s a whole lot of press release-ism going on here, but I do believe there is some potential. At best, draftify. Trillfendi (talk) 20:35, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ambassadors are not default notable, let alone people who were nominated for ambassadorships and never confirmed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 04:58, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify in case she becomes notable in the future (which is a possibility). Java Hurricane 10:58, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. I can see this being kept either if she is confirmed, or if she is rejected and it becomes newsworthy; or if some other indicia of notability can be found based on her other activities. BD2412 T 00:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 08:18, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Yang (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to be notable. Couldn't find significant coverage in reliable sources. Author likely had COI or was paid. --IWI (talk) 08:51, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. --IWI (talk) 08:51, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. --IWI (talk) 08:51, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another in a very long line of articles on non-notable businessmen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:15, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:MILL, WP:GNG, WP:NOTRESUME and WP:SIGCOV. Totally lacking in any sources to build a WP:BLP. We are not a resume service, and everybody in 2020 knows that. Bearian (talk) 17:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Yang is one of the most renowned Russian IT entrepreneurs. There's even a novel about him and a play at the documentary Theater.doc in Moscow / Saint Petersburg. Give me some time to fix the article. Timofei Vatolin (talk) 21:23, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 04:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is 13 years old so there was plenty of time to add adequate sources to the page. All current sources are merely inadequate routine coverage, therefore this subject is non-notable at this time. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 07:46, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, --SalmanZ (talk) 09:23, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:04, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Colette Otusheso[edit]

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

BLP of a marketing and communication consultant. She is the head of online television platform Accelerate TV and was named in the list of Top 50 leading ladies in corporate Nigeria by Leading Ladies Africa. Nothing to support notability beyond having a fairly successful media career. Mccapra (talk) 11:04, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:04, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:04, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:04, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:04, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:04, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In a country with a population of +150 mill. it seem reasonably notable to be listed in a top 50 listing of "leading ladies in Corporate Nigeria". Oleryhlolsson (talk) 06:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we almost never treat inclusion in "top x" lists as a sign of notability, I see no reason to do so in this case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:11, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 04:54, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, absent improvements generally supporting notability. As is, it just isn't there. BD2412 T 00:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Clearly an attempt at promotion, par for the course for a marketing professional, failing what Wikipedia is not. I was amused to see this reference, a book about the works of Colette, an author who died in 1954, used to support a statement in the article! I removed it. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:21, 23 September 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 Naoki Yamamoto (manga artist). Reasonable consensus to merge as WP:ATD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:05, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arigatō (manga)[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that it meets WP:NOTABILITY. Coverage is mainly in unreliable sources. I may be missing something due to language barrier. There is the possibility of a redirect to Naoki Yamamoto as an WP:ATD. Has been in CAT:NN for 11 years. Boleyn (talk) 15:06, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:15, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:15, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:16, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:16, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:NBOOK: I just added two sources, which don't quite rise to the level of sustained coverage. A merge to Naoki Yamamoto (manga artist) is also possible. Unfortunately, ja:ありがとう (漫画), while much longer, doesn't seem to help much with sourcing. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:02, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:04, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'd expect there should be reviews in Japanese. Generic name doesn't help but searching for name+author might. I know WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES is not a valid keep argument, so I am just leaving this comment. Please ping me if more sources are found, or if the search in Japanese is done and fails to turn up anything. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:27, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 04:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Naoki Yamamoto (manga artist). The two short subjects appear better supported when combined. BD2412 T 00:04, 21 September 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 anarchist bookfair. BD2412 T 00:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Salon du livre anarchiste[edit]

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

Fails WP:NEVENT and WP:NORG. No significant coverage other than announcements. Rogermx (talk) 20:22, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 20:22, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 20:22, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 20:22, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per [49] (Radio-Canada), [50] (Radio-Canada), [51] ("Les festivals ou semaines thématiques sont des espaces de regroupement périodique pour les différents acteurs de la communauté antiautoritaire. Parmi ceux-ci, le Festival de l’anarchie et le Salon du livre anarchiste de Montréal sont les plus grands rassemblements annuels de ce genre en Amérique du Nord"), and [52] (decent paragraph on page 3, beginning "Chaque année, j’essaie de passer faire un tour au Salon du livre anarchiste de Montréal …") AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 04:50, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AleatoryPonderings, I have some doubts about those sources. The first one only mentions the anarchist bookfair in passing and is otherwise the story of Expozine in relation to the second-largest francophone bookfair in the world[53], the "célèbre Salon du livre de Montréal" (Montreal Book Fair), not the anarchist bookfair. So I think the third source might be confusing the two when declaring the Montreal anarchist bookfair the largest of its kind in North America without any supporting evidence or citation. (Those ranking francophone bookfairs talk about audience counts at least.) The second source is a local event listing, so I wouldn't use it to confer notability. And that leaves the fourth source, which is more personal narrative than the basis for an encyclopedia article. Ultimately not seeing the coverage with which we'd write a dedicated article on this subject that does justice to the topic. czar 18:30, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, Czar. On a aussi [54], but I'm not sure how reliable that source is. I admit I'm inclined to cling to any hint of notability because WP:ITSINTERESTING, but I know I'm grasping at straws here. AleatoryPonderings (talk)

Redirect to anarchist bookfair, where I used AP's above sources to write about the general topic. If there is later coverage, it can always expand summary style. czar 21:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As nominator, I think a redirect to anarchist bookfair would be a good solution. Thanks, Czar. Rogermx (talk)

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

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

The result was no consensus. ‑Scottywong | [soliloquize] || 04:02, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Hansford[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:NPROF. Going through the references added: 1) Press release 2) bio page from university 3) dead link 4) Journal article 5) Dead link 6) Co-written article. This seems to have been created by an SPA and was rejected numerous times at AfC. As well, their Google Scholar profile shows citations of 15 HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 22:19, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Delete after examining evidence. No pass of any of the WP:Prof categories. Maybe notability can be found under WP:GNG for legal activism. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:09, 6 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]
~~Delete~~ Weak delete. Definitely does not pass WP:NACADEMIC; low number of citations, and the only apparently relevant work that mentions him is [55], which is written by someone associated with the same university as Hansford. Hansford is sometimes quoted by some magazines/news papers, but not enough to establish WP:GNG. It seems he is gaining momentum due to the current discussions over police relations with black people in the USA, but I'd say it is WP:TOOSOON. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 21:48, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - leads a think tank at Howard Law and is an activist, which might explain his low citation count. Bearian (talk) 21:36, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian, that's fair but I don't believe that still passes Wikipedia's notability criteria. I don't think being a leader of a think tank passes NPROF #5 if that's what you were implying. Could you clarify? HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 23:26, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, HickoryOughtShirt?4, he's an associate professor, and point 5 doesn't apply - "not for junior faculty members with endowed appointments." I think criteria 6 applies: "Lesser administrative posts (provost, dean, department chair, etc.) are generally not sufficient to qualify under Criterion 6 alone, although exceptions are possible on a case-by-case basis (e.g., being a Provost of a major university may sometimes qualify)." Bearian (talk) 16:30, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NPROF #7. Cited as an expert by Vox [56], The Intercept [57], WBUR [58], and The Guardian [59]. Also the head of a civil rights think tank at Howard Law [60] and profiled in Black Enterprise [61]. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 01:26, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All these news are from this year and related to the same topic, so I'm not sure... still feels like WP:BLP1E. I'm changing my vote to weak delete due to more uncertainty added. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 21:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 04:48, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some notes I have: I am unsure as to the bearing this may have, but his university bio page describes him as a full "Professor" and not just an "Associate Professor" (which is what the wiki page in question says). For me, at least, this indicates a greater degree of notability (at least within his institution) than could otherwise be inferred. However, as he has been cited in articles exclusively from this year, as Walwal20 points out, this indicates that he may not be notable enough *yet* to have a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymond033 (talk • contribs)
Leaning keep, based on the notable activities engaged in. Subject gets a few dozen hits on Newspapers.com, mostly being quoted for articles on other topics, but it is significant that his views are sought out. BD2412 T 01:19, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 08:18, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

.30 Walker[edit]

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

Looks like a non-notable cartridge. This is in no way a reliable source. This book is compiled from Wikipedia. This site just links you to Wikipedia for the full description. The mention here is in a list that may well be copied from Wikipedia. Another forum here. Literally everything I'm finding is either in forums or appears to be mirroring this article. It appears to actually exist, but I can't see any way this even gets close to notability. Hog Farm _Bacon 01:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 01:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 01:56, 4 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) 04:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, can find nothing attributable. Cavalryman (talk) 08:19, 13 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 08:18, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce[edit]

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

promotional article for promotional organization-- almost all sources are its own website DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not appear that there is significant coverage of this organization in reliable sources. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:34, 12 September 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 06:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Albion Bolton Community Centre[edit]

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

Insufficient secondary coverage. My PROD was declined and I'm not finding coverage at Google or Google News apart from passing mentions. --Another Believer _(Talk) 04:06, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. --Another Believer _(Talk) 04:06, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:33, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NBUILDING and WP:GNG. Although I found local news stories [62] [63] it does not to show notability. Although there is a scholarly article that mentions the community centre [64] the article seems to have copied from the Wikipedia page, as the information was on WP before this paper was published. Other sources found in Google were only passing mentions. Searches in JSTOR, ProQuest and Gale did not produce additional sources. Z1720 (talk) 16:15, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Municipal recreation facilities are not automatically notable just because they exist, but this cites no reliable sourcing to get it over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 01:22, 14 September 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 06:06, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lindale, Missouri[edit]

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

It's not an extinct town/populated place like GNIS claims, it was a building on the MKT railroad. See [65], which lists it under both Lindale and the former name of Marge. It was a telegraph office and terminal building on the railroad, both of which were apparently gone by the time of the oldest small-scale topo map I could find, which is 1961. Google maps suggests that currently, nothing is there. This book calls it a "point" on the railroad. Not mentioned in an old book about the naming of Missouri towns and counties. All indications are that this was a stop on the MKT, and not a populated place as suggested by GNIS. WP:GEOLAND does not give a free pass, as this was never a legally recognized place. We've got to go by WP:GNG, which this town never passed. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:27, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:27, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:27, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:27, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence this was ever a community and no evidence that it meets basic notability standards. Glendoremus (talk) 04:14, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete I managed to do better in the topo department, finding two showing Lindale as a small yard complex with a turning wye, traces of which you can still see. A 1950s aerial photo shows the same, with no buildings around to speak of and certainly no town. No idea why the Katy had an isolated yard like this, but there it is. Mangoe (talk) 05:56, 12 September 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. Oops, this was kept a month ago, withdrawing. (non-admin closure) Hog Farm _Bacon 03:12, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dan McGirt[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Has been in CAT:NN since 2009, so it's time to get a decision on this. Both references are published by the subject. My WP:BEFORE search is turning up more primary sources, a few blogs, and a couple user-generated databases. Not seeing a WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG pass here. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:11, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:11, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:11, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:11, 12 September 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 Dilday Mill. In general, if a title would make for a useful search phrase, try redirection before nominating an article for deletion. czar 06:04, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dilday Mill, Missouri[edit]

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

This needs to be redirected to Dilday Mill, as it's clearly the same place. I'm taking this here, as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zig, Missouri and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derby, Missouri so I guess contesting these stubs in controversial. Per the Missouri State Historical Society, this is clearly the same thing as Dilday Mill. Yet another reason not to trust GNIS. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect Obviously the same thing, does not appear on older topo, appears here but in small sans serif font as a landmark, not in the serif used for communities. Reywas92^Talk 04:55, 12 September 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 06:05, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zig, Missouri[edit]

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

GNIS calls it a "populated place", which doesn't necessarily mean a WP:GEOLAND pass anyway (only legally recognized populated places get a GEOLAND pass. After further research, it's pretty clear this was a short-lived fourth-class post office, not a community. The Missouri State Historical Society calls it a post office, as does a 1911 history of the county it was in [66]. The post office apparently closed in 1908, so the 1911 history would be a good indication if it was a town. Nothing on the 1963 small-scale topo. Google maps takes me to what appears to be a farm compound. It looks like this was nothing more than a post office ever, so it doesn't meet WP:GEOLAND. WP:GNG is also not met. GNIS is not a reliable source, folks. They just pulled a bunch of names off of topo maps, without checking to make sure they were actually towns. Hog Farm _Bacon 01:42, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 01:42, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 01:42, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is not a made up area. it was notable in 1908 so it is notable in 2020. Present day map shows and interest. Lightburst (talk) 01:52, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightburst: - Can you point me to what part of WP:GEOLAND this passes? It was never a legally recognized place that I can tell: it wasn't unusual in rural areas to have the post office out in the middle of nowhere. It falls under populated places without legal recognition, which requires a WP:GNG pass, which I'm not seeing. Just seeing namechecks and a few brief descriptions. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Please be aware that the present day Google maps just imports data from GNIS, it is not a separate or necessarily reliable source! It also still labels our favorite industrial rail spurs as communities! I fail to see how it was notable in 1908, just a place where people collected their mail, no results in newspapers.com. Reywas92^Talk 05:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete Actually it's worse: GMaps imposts data from the English WP. At any rate, I see exactly the same results: a rural area with no concentration of population, and a single farm picked out which presumably belonged to Mr. Ziegler a century ago. Mangoe (talk) 17:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 01:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rail Ka Dibba[edit]

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

I nominate this article because there are 2 reference and 2 cast and also having 1 category and this article reviewed too early. I thought it doesn't meet the criteria WP:Film Looplips (talk) 00:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Looplips (talk) 00:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:33, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While not a good stub, the film does pass WP:NFILM.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added some references to the article. It passes now WP:NFO, which says 'The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following: Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release.' --☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 03:58, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NFILM. Donaldd23 (talk) 04:23, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NFO. --Ab207 (talk) 11:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as with the added references to significant reliable sources coverage it now passes WP:GNG and WP:NFILM so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:25, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. passes WP:NFILM.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:56, 15 September 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 06:00, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of mathematical concepts named after places[edit]

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

First, this seems to fail WP:LISTN. I can't find any reliable sources discussing this as a topic. About the few hits I come up with are a couple discussion forums (which was apparently the inspiration for this list), but that's not really enough.

There's nothing cohesive about the entries in this list themselves (be they theorems, problems, objects, etc.), only about their names, and in many cases, it's unclear if they even belong (is the Mexican hat wavelet really named after Mexico or a kind of hat?). As such, it runs afoul of WP:NOTDIR #6 (non-encyclopedic cross categorizations). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does having invented one of these names give me too much of a COI to discuss it? I agree, this is indiscriminate, both in why things are listed (name puns, named after place of original usage, named after things named after places, named after type of businesses named after cuisine named after place of origin, named after national origin of discoverer, named after fictional invention story, etc) and in the likely unwieldy size of this list if expanded to all names that could qualify. It's not clear to me why all of these things are included but for instance Catalan numbers aren't. (They are named after a person whose surname might refer to a place, but how is that less direct than being named after a type business named after a cuisine named after a place?) Additionally there is a likely problem with original research having to do with the lack of sourcing for each individual name and the evaluation needed to determine whether it really is a place name. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Was going to fWas going to vote keep, but looked at the list. Many aren’t really named after places at all. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:13, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Most of them aren't named after places (unless Mexican hat is a place), plus problems, paradoxes (paradoxi?), etc. aren't concepts. The whole is less than the sum of the wildly disparate parts. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of any in-depth reliable sources covering this 'phenomenon' as a group Spiderone 11:39, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Although I have the same mild COI as David Eppstein having named a number of objects after the locations I was in (or near) when I discovered them (often with an intended pun), I have never published the origins of these names (although I may have mentioned them in research talks). So, I think that most of the items on the list would pose some difficulty for having reliable sources talk about the names.--Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 22:14, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : I don't see any purpose for having such a list. I agree with the nominator it clearly fails LISTN. AngusMEOW (chatter • paw trail) 12:48, 18 September 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.

[:0-1] Pai, Hsiao-Hung (2020-04-25). "The coronavirus crisis has exposed China's long history of racism | Hsiao-Hung Pai". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2020-08-18.

[:1-2] "Wode Maya". chinaplus.cri.cn. Retrieved 2020-08-18.

[:2-3] News, Taiwan. "African diplomats in China protest against racial discrimination". Taiwan News. Retrieved 2020-08-18. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)

[:3-4] "En Chine, le business de vidéos d'enfants africains prospère". Les Observateurs de France 24 (in French). Retrieved 2020-08-18.

[5] "Video | Wode Maya Shows The Best of Joburg". EBNewsDaily. 2020-02-19. Retrieved 2020-08-18.

[6] Crabbe, Nathaniel (2019-12-27). "Ghanaian vlogger Wode Maya buys new car for mum as Christmas gift in video". Yen.com.gh - Ghana news. Retrieved 2020-08-18.

[:0-7] Crabbe, Nathaniel (2019-12-27). "Ghanaian vlogger Wode Maya buys new car for mum as Christmas gift in video". Yen.com.gh - Ghana news. Retrieved 2020-08-19.

[:1-8] "Wode Maya". chinaplus.cri.cn. Retrieved 2020-08-19.

[9] News, Taiwan. "African diplomats in China protest against racial discrimination". Taiwan News. Retrieved 2020-08-19. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)

[10] "En Chine, le business de vidéos d'enfants africains prospère". Les Observateurs de France 24 (in French). Retrieved 2020-08-19.

[11] "The coronavirus crisis has exposed China's long history of racism | Hsiao-Hung Pai". the Guardian. 2020-04-25. Retrieved 2020-08-19.

[12] "Video | Wode Maya Shows The Best of Joburg". EBNewsDaily. 2020-02-19. Retrieved 2020-08-19.

[13] Aryee, Naa Ayeley (2019-11-14). "YEN.com.gh named best news website in Ghana at NCA awards 2019". Yen.com.gh - Ghana news. Retrieved 2020-08-22.

[:1-14] "Wode Maya". chinaplus.cri.cn. Retrieved 2020-08-19.

[about-15] "Wode Maya: About". YouTube.

[about2-16] "Marques Brownlee: About". YouTube.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[1]

[1]

[1]

[2]